In new york v. quarles (1983), the supreme court ruled that miranda rights do not have to be read if a suspect already has a criminal record. puts public safety at immediate risk. looks as if he or she has just committed a crime. is someone the arresting officer already knows.

In New York v. Quarles (1983), the Supreme Court ruled that Miranda rights do not have to be read if a suspect puts public safety at immediate risk, option B is correct

In the case New York v. Quarles (1983), Benjamin Quarles has been arrested on a complaint filed by a woman that she has been raped.

Miranda rights are given to the suspects those are arrested on the basis of suspicion by the cops. The officer will tell the suspect about the rights soon after arresting.

The rights given to the suspects in the Miranda rights are:

The right to remain silent

Right to appoint a attorney.

Right to attorney in case of not having affordability.

However there are certain exceptions to Miranda rights. One among these exception is "questioning because public safety is at risk". In this case Miranda rights will not be given to the suspect.

In New York v. Quarles (1983), the suspect put public safety at risk and thus he was not given his Miranda rights and was questioned. Later supreme court ruled that Miranda rights will not be given where public safety is at risk.

Therefore, in New York v. Quarles (1983), the Supreme Court ruled that Miranda rights do not have to be read if a suspect puts public safety at immediate risk, option B is correct.

Learn more about Miranda rights here:

link

The correct answer is B). Puts a public safety at immediate risk.

New York v. Quarles was a case held in January 1984.

This case refers to the arrest of Quarles by a police officer. Quarles was considered an alleged assailant. The police officer entered a supermarket, stopped him and the police proceeded to frisk the suspected man. Quarles was arrested and the pólice officer read him his Miranda rights.

Miranda rights are what a police custody must be told before being arrested. These are: “You have the right to remain silent”. “Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law”. “You have the right to an attorney”. And “If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you”.

the correct answer is the supreme court.this is because when a person was accused of a crime during rome they brought him to a place to decide his fate also known as a jury

so the story tells of someone named kaushik choudhuri, but he does not narrate the story, a girl named hema does. hema tells the story in a second person point of view because you (the reader) are supposed to be the boy named kaushik.

here's an excerpt i found: "i was ushered into the fitting room, your mother watching approvingly as i took off my coat and sweater and tried on the bra."

source: