In Illinois v. Perkins, a prison inmate told the police he had learned about a homicide from a fellow inmate. The police recognized the description of the homicide as possibly being one under investigation. Consequently, the police placed an undercover agent in the cellblock with the informant and the defendant. The defendant was being held at that time for another crime unrelated to the homicide. The undercover officer engaged the defendant in a conversation about the killing and asked the defendant if he had ever "done" anybody. The officer did not give the defendant Miranda warnings before the conversation. The Supreme Court of the United States held:
A. that the statements were inadmissible and did violate the requirements of Miranda.
B. that the statements were admissible and did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
C. that the statements were inadmissible and did violate the Fifth Amendment.
D. that the statements were admissible and did not violate the requirements of Miranda.
Answer: D
You might also like to view...
Because federal probation officers are not law enforcement officers, they have no authority to arrest
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Why must we be cautious when interpreting the relationship between poverty and violence? Explain the role that poverty cofactors play in this relationshi
What will be an ideal response?
Explain the ambiguity of ?a jury of one?s peers.?
What will be an ideal response?
On average, how many members typically serve on the parole board throughout the United States?
A. 15 B. 12 C. 7 D. 3