Answer:
The correct answer is C. A judge could throw out the teen's confession unless the officer complies with the ruling in Miranda v. Arizona.
Explanation:
Miranda v. Arizona is a ruling of the United States Supreme Court from 1966. The case established the current practice whereby a suspect is required to read his or her rights (the so-called Miranda rights) without exception, which state the right to before a preliminary investigation of the suspect has begun.
That was the decision in Ernesto Miranda's trial. Miranda was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping and sexual assault of an 18-year-old girl on prima facie evidence. After two hours of questioning, Miranda signed the confession. However, he had never been informed of the possibility of meeting a legal adviser or of being silent, and that his confession could not be used against him. During the trial, Miranda's attorney, Alvin Moore, argued that confession would therefore not apply in court. Moore's objection was rejected and Miranda was sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence. The Arizona Supreme Court also upheld the ruling.
The United States Supreme Court, by a vote of 5 to 4, ruled that, due to the Fifth and Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, no confession would be valid unless the suspect was informed of his rights. The Fifth Amendment states that no one can be compelled to testify against himself and the Sixth Addendum secures access to a lawyer. Ernesto Miranda's judgment was overturned, but he was later sentenced to prison for the same case, based on other evidence.
It created more awareness of social injustice and abuse of power.
