Question

Trina is accused of kidnapping a llama from a public zoo. An officer arrested her as she led the llama through the parking lot on a leash. After the officer read Trina her rights, she claimed the llama was hungry. She just wanted to get a snack for the llama, as the zoo staff weren’t nearby.

Which statement is true about Trina’s arrest?

The officer followed the ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright. Trina risked hurting her own case by hiring a lawyer on her own.
The officer followed the ruling in Miranda v. Arizona. Trina risked hurting her own case by explaining why she took the llama.
The officer violated the ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright. Trina should have been provided a lawyer at the moment of arrest.
The officer violated the ruling in Miranda v. Arizona. Trina should have not been allowed to speak during the arrest process.

Answer 1

Answer:

The officer followed the ruling in Miranda v. Arizona. Trina risked hurting her own case by explaining why she took the llama.

Explanation:

 In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Court ruled that any person who is arrested must be advised of his or her rights at the time of the arrest.

Answer 2

When the officer at the zoo read Trina her rights, the officer followed the ruling in Miranda v. Arizona. Trina risked hurting her own case by explaining why she took the llama. Hence, option B is correct.

What happened in Miranda v. Arizona?

The ruling of Miranda v. Arizona followed that an individual at arrest must be read with his or her rights at the time of the arrest, as they will better know why they are being arrested.

In the above case, a similar situation happened when the officer read Trina her rights. It also explained, further, how Trina risked her own case by making a statement why she took the llama out.

Hence, option B holds true regarding Miranda v. Arizona.

Learn more about Miranda v. Arizona here:

https://brainly.com/question/9952912

#SPJ2