How did the ruling in the Miranda v. Arizona case change law enforcement procedures?(1 point) Responses Law enforcement may interrogate a suspect without the presence of an attorney. Law enforcement may interrogate a suspect without the presence of an attorney. Law enforcement must read a suspect their Miranda rights prior to being interrogated. Law enforcement must read a suspect their Miranda rights prior to being interrogated. Law enforcement may question a suspect before reading a suspect their rights. Law enforcement may question a suspect before reading a suspect their rights. Law enforcement may search a home without a warrant.
Law enforcement must read a suspect their Miranda rights prior to being interrogated.
The correct response is: Law enforcement must read a suspect their Miranda rights prior to being interrogated.
The correct answer is: Law enforcement must read a suspect their Miranda rights prior to being interrogated.
In the Miranda v. Arizona case, the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement must inform suspects of their rights before questioning them. This decision was based on the Fifth Amendment, which protects individuals from self-incrimination. This ruling is commonly known as the Miranda warning or the Miranda rights.
To determine this answer, it is helpful to have knowledge of the Miranda v. Arizona case. This landmark case was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1966. It involved a man named Ernesto Miranda who confessed to a crime during a police interrogation. Miranda's lawyer argued that his confession was not voluntary because he was not informed of his rights to remain silent and have an attorney present.
The Supreme Court ultimately agreed with Miranda's lawyer, determining that individuals must be informed of their rights before being questioned by law enforcement. These rights include the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the warning that anything said can be used against them in court.
As a result of this ruling, law enforcement officers must now provide suspects with their Miranda rights before conducting an interrogation. Failure to do so can lead to the suppression of any incriminating statements made by the suspect.
It is important to note that the ruling in the Miranda v. Arizona case does not prevent law enforcement from questioning a suspect before they are read their rights. However, any statements obtained during this pre-Miranda questioning may not be admissible as evidence in court.
Therefore, the correct answer is that the ruling in the Miranda v. Arizona case changed law enforcement procedures by requiring officers to read suspects their Miranda rights before interrogating them.