How did the ruling in the Miranda v. Arizona case change law enforcement procedures?(1 point) Responses 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 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 search a home without a warrant. 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 to the question is: "Law enforcement must read a suspect their Miranda rights prior to being interrogated."
In the case of Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that law enforcement must inform individuals of their rights, specifically the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, before interrogating them. This ruling established what is now known as the Miranda warning or the Miranda rights. It changed law enforcement procedures by requiring officers to inform suspects of their rights prior to conducting any custodial interrogation.
To get the answer, one would need to be familiar with the Miranda v. Arizona case and the legal principles it established. The case can be researched in legal databases, law textbooks, or trusted online sources to understand the ruling and its impact on law enforcement procedures. Additionally, studying constitutional law and criminal procedure would provide the necessary knowledge to know the correct answer.