For either Mapp v. Ohio or Miranda v. Arizona, describe the constitutional issue of the case, and explain how the court's ruling protect

those accused of a crime.

<< Read Less

The case Miranda v. Arizona (1966) was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court in which the court established that prosecutors cannot use a person's statements made in response to interrogation in police custody as evidence at their trial, unless the person was informed of what is known as "Miranda warning," but voluntarily waived these rights.

A "Miranda warning" is an explanation given to people arrested that informs them of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning. It also informs them of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning. The court's ruling protect those accused of a crime because it prevents them from incriminating themselves. It also reminds them of the importance of an attorney for achieving a successful trial.

i think the answer is b.