In duckworth v. eagan (1988), the supreme court held that the police had been too harshly burdened by the miranda decision and no longer had to follow it. could create their own miranda warning if it communicated the same message. did not need to read the miranda warning if they considered a suspect to be dangerous. could create any warning they chose so long as they got a conviction.

Could create their own Miranda warning if it communicated the same message

Explanation:

The conflict surged when the police read Gary Eagana (a suspect of stabbing a woman) his Miranda rights improperly before questioning him. This waiver form advised Eagana of his rights to remain silent and to consult with an attorney but stated that “[the department has] no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you…if and when you go to court.”, instead of using the specific language of the Miranda waiver which states "You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you". However, that day, Eagana did not confess his crime.

The following day, before being interrogated again, he was given a different Miranda waiver, the one with "the specific language". This time, Eagan did confess and was found guilty.

In the court, Eagan argued that the first waiver form he signed was defective and did not match with the second one (It did not clearly convey his right to consult with an attorney before the interrogation), therefore, the confession should not have been admitted. However, the Supreme Court held that the police did not have to use the specific language of the Miranda rights so long as they conveyed to suspects their constitutional rights, meaning that officers could create their own Miranda warning if it communicated the same message.

The answer is B