Reading inference — Miranda warnings and police interrogations A passage explains the 1966 Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona: before police can obtain statements in an interrogation, they must issue a Miranda warning telling the person they have the right to remain silent; statements obtained in violation are inadmissible. Which statement is best supported?

Introduction / Context:
This passage focuses on constitutional criminal procedure. The key point is that statements resulting from custodial interrogation are inadmissible unless preceded by a Miranda warning informing the person of the right to remain silent. Your job is to choose the statement that most directly reflects this rule.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Before obtaining statements during interrogation, police must give a Miranda warning.
• The warning includes the right to remain silent.
• If police violate this requirement, the statements are not admissible in court.

Concept / Approach:
Favor the option that paraphrases the procedural precondition: Miranda must precede interrogation if statements are to be used. Avoid options that introduce new legal conclusions (criminal liability for police, mandatory lawyer presence) not stated in the passage.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• A: The text does not say officers commit a crime if they fail to warn.
• C: A lawyer’s presence is not stated as mandatory; the focus is on warnings.
• D: No normative judgment about reversal appears.
• E: Strategic advice is beyond the passage’s scope.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing exclusionary rules (inadmissibility) with criminal penalties for police. Also, do not infer a right-to-counsel requirement where the passage only specifies warnings.

Final Answer:
a Miranda warning must be given before a police interrogation can begin.