The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Unfortunately, you forgot to include the options for this question,
However, trying to help you, we can answer based on our knowledge of this topic.
The Supreme Court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona that people "that are under arrest must be read their rights by law enforcement."
We are talking about the Supreme Court case in which the Warren Court dealt with the rights of the accused: Miranda v. Arizona.
Miranda v. Arizona was a case decided by the Warren court on June 13, 1966. Ernesto Miranda had a written confession for kidnap and r*pe, but the issue was that police interrogated him without the presence of a lawyer, neither the police officers told him he had the right to call a lawyer.
The Court's decision favored Miranda, overturned his conviction and the case was sent to Arizona for retrial.
<span>In the winter of 1814-1815 New England Federalists gathered in Hartford, CT to hold the Hartford Convention. This was a meeting for those who opposed Madison's War, better known as the War of 1812, and wanted to enact change in Washington for the many wrongs and complaints they had. Most of these came out of fears of being overpowered by southern and western states. This was a prime example of growing sectionalism as the end of the Federalist Party neared.</span>
Knowing the terrain gave the Americans an advantage because they were familiar with it and knew their way around. Here are some links for additional information:
https://historyofmassachusetts.org/how-did-geography-influence-boston-battles/
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-us-history/period-3/apush-the-american-revolution/a/apush-the-american-revolution-lesson-overview
The effect of attacks on farms and trade routes were the disruption of supply lines.
Farms that were attacked are usually pillaged and unable to output anything as a result. Trade routes were affected by this similarly, as interruption at one point would disrupt flow of trade on the remainder of the route.
