Question

A fire is set in a crowded theater. The police believe that the fire was purposefully set. They arrest a suspect and he confesses to the crime.
According to Miranda v. Arizona, what would cause the suspect's confession to not be allowed in a court of law?


If an attorney were not present while the suspect was questioned

If the suspect was not told that he had to right to remain silent about what happened

If the fire was put out quickly with no harm done to the theater or anyone in it

If the suspect did not commit the crime and they confessed to cover for the actual criminal

Answer 1

The Miranda case dealt with the admissibility of statements made during custodial interrogation under the Fifth Amendment's privilege against compelled self-incrimination.  Under Miranda, a person in custody must be told of the right to remain silent and warned that any statements can and will be used against the individual in court.  Recognizing that even this warning will not by itself fully protect the average citizen from the pressures of custodial interrogation, the Supreme Court also requires that persons in custody be given the right to consult with a lawyer before and during interrogation and that this right to counsel be included in the warnings given by the police.   Unless the person being interrogated receives the required warnings and waives their right to silence and counsel, no statements they make may be used in court.