Final answer:
The correct answer is entrapment, a legal defense used when a peace officer induces someone to commit a crime they would not normally commit. Individuals must be informed of their rights to counsel and protection against self-incrimination, aligning with the Fifth Amendment and the Miranda v. Arizona decision. So, the correct answer is option b.
Step-by-step explanation:
If a peace officer in California uses inducements that would cause a normally-law-abiding person to commit a crime, the accused person will have a defense of entrapment. Entrapment is a legal defense wherein an individual argues that they were induced by law enforcement to commit a criminal act that they would have otherwise been unlikely to commit.
Police tactics of inducing individuals to commit crimes, such as approaching suspected individuals for illicit activities and then arresting them once they agree, can be considered entrapment. The question of whether notifying an individual of their right to counsel and protection against self-incrimination during interrogations is crucial to the Fifth Amendment protections.
The Miranda v. Arizona decision illustrated the importance of these procedural safeguards, ensuring that statements made during custodial interactions cannot be used against the defendants unless they have been informed of these rights. These rights are fundamental, and any deviation could end in the violation of an individual's Fifth Amendment rights.