Jordan is arrested for theft. During the police interrogation, Jordan is not informed of the Miranda rights. Without any warnings, Jordan admits to the theft. At trial, the prosecution wants to use Jordan's admission as evidence.
Jordan's statements are admissible because Jordan voluntarily chose to speak.
Jordan's statements are admissible since theft is a non-violent offense.
Jordan's statements are admissible because the police had probable cause for the arrest.
Jordan's statements are inadmissible because Miranda warnings were not provided.
The correct answer is that the statements are inadmissible because Miranda warnings were not provided. According to the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, statements made during interrogation without proper Miranda warnings cannot be used as evidence. The other options incorrectly assume that the nature of the crime or the voluntariness of the statement automatically make the confession admissible without considering the Miranda requirement.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What are Miranda rights?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is the significance of voluntariness in confessions?