menu
QAmmunity.org
Login
Register
My account
Edit my Profile
Private messages
My favorites
Register
Ask a Question
Questions
Unanswered
Tags
Categories
Ask a Question
In 1966, the supreme court ruled in miranda v. arizona that: question 2 options: suspects could not refuse to cooperate with police. local elections could be monitored by federal officials.
asked
Feb 21, 2018
122k
views
3
votes
In 1966, the supreme court ruled in miranda v. arizona that: question 2 options: suspects could not refuse to cooperate with police. local elections could be monitored by federal officials.
History
high-school
Cedmundo
asked
by
Cedmundo
6.7k
points
answer
comment
share this
share
0 Comments
Please
log in
or
register
to add a comment.
Please
log in
or
register
to answer this question.
1
Answer
2
votes
The supreme court ruled that the suspects can refuse to cooperate and the police has the duty of informing suspects what their rights are and how their rights are applied. Suspects can remain silent and not incriminate themselves which means not cooperating with the police.
Arielorvits
answered
Feb 25, 2018
by
Arielorvits
7.4k
points
ask related question
comment
share this
0 Comments
Please
log in
or
register
to add a comment.
Ask a Question
Welcome to QAmmunity.org, where you can ask questions and receive answers from other members of our community.
7.8m
questions
10.5m
answers
Other Questions
What goal of the constitution was also a goal of the Magna Carta?
is it true or false that after the american revolution conflicts in the northwest territory erupted between remaining british soldiers and native americans
Who made dutch claims in north america?
How did world war 1 affect the racial and ethnic makeup of american cities
What was an effect of nationalism in Europe in the early 1900s?
Twitter
WhatsApp
Facebook
Reddit
LinkedIn
Email
Link Copied!
Copy
Search QAmmunity.org