Final answer:
The Supreme Court uses a two-part test to determine entrapment, involving government inducement and defendant's predisposition. The landmark case of Sorrells v. United States established the subjective test for entrapment. Miranda v. Arizona enforces constitutional rights during police interrogations.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question pertains to the legal principles surrounding the concept of entrapment as considered by the Supreme Court. The query specifically asks to identify the two-part test that the Court uses to determine if entrapment has occurred. According to a majority of the Supreme Court justices, in order to determine the existence of entrapment, the court must ask whether the government induced the crime, and whether the defendant possessed a "predisposition" to commit the crime. This is known as the subjective test of entrapment, which focuses on the defendant's readiness to commit the criminal act prior to government intervention. The key Supreme Court case laying out this doctrine is Sorrells v. United States, decided in 1932, which established the basis for modern entrapment law.
Furthermore, Supreme Court cases such as Miranda v. Arizona highlight the importance of protecting individual rights during police interrogations. The Miranda decision enforces the constitutional rights of suspects, requiring law enforcement officials to inform them of their right to silence and to an attorney during the custodial interrogation process. This helps prevent self-incrimination and ensures that confessions are given voluntarily, free of coercion.