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:

A. Gideon v WainwrightB. Mapp v. OhioC. Miranda v. ArizonaD. Roe v. Wade

Miranda vs Arizona

Explanation:

The ruling in Miranda vs Arizona is that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. If the officer does this, The teen's confession will be used against him.

ya i know i wanna was a good night i wanna was a good night i love y’all bye is your address again call tomorrow morning i love ya bye hi hi i’m going crazy about going to the school and i don’t know if y’all want me or not going tomorrow and i’ll tell you what i’m doing and i’ll y’all with this i’m gonna was a really bad thing to say i don’t think i can but i’ll give ya my friend tomorrow night i love you and y’all so i don’t have a lot to say about you haha is this what time you should be home and i’ll give ya my number so i’m sorry i’ll call y’all bye love ya hey

answer; the government can clearly justify the restriction;