co9rresist6ilAnhQ
contestada

Imagine an officer approaches a group of students for being at a public park after curfew. The officer arrests one teen who was a suspect in a local theft. A judge could throw out the teen's confession unless the officer complies with the ruling in

Gideon v Wainwright

Mapp v. Ohio

Miranda v. Arizona

Roe v. Wade

Respuesta :

moamin8

Answer:

The correct answer is C) Miranda v. Arizona.

Explanation:

Because the police cannot arrest a suspect without a warrant.

thank you

Moamin

arshikhan8123

A judge could throw out the teen's confession unless the officer complies with the ruling in Mapp v. Ohio.

What is the importance of Mapp v Ohio?

On June 19, 1961, the preferred court docket issued a 6–three selection in favor of Mapp that overturned her conviction and held that the exclusionary rule applies to American states in addition to the federal authorities.

What happened in Mapp v Ohio case?

Ohio (1961) strengthened the Fourth modification protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, making it illegal for evidence obtained without a warrant for use in a crook trial in state court.

Learn more about the Mapp v Ohio case here https://brainly.com/question/13054438

#SPJ2

Otras preguntas