In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona that A. suspects could not refuse to cooperate with police. B. local elections could be monitored by federal officials. C. states must permit interracial marriage. D. those in police custody had certain rights. E. school prayer was unconstitutional.

Question

Frida Riggs

Social Studies

6 October, 14:00

In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona that A. suspects could not refuse to cooperate with police. B. local elections could be monitored by federal officials. C. states must permit interracial marriage. D. those in police custody had certain rights. E. school prayer was unconstitutional.

+3

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Camryn Holland · Answer 1

The correct answer is D. Those in police custody had certain rights

Explanation:

In Miranda vs Arizona, the supreme court specifically stated that if a person in custody is interrogated by the police, and does not consult with his or her lawyer about what to say druing the interrogation, then, nothing of what he or she says can be used by the prosecutor during trial.

For example, if John Smith is taken into custody, and does not have the legal knowledge to ask for lawyer to provide him with legal advice before interrogation, nothing of what he says to the police can be used by prosecutor Robert Robertson in order to incriminate him during trial.