Was the officer correct in telling Sam he had no right to remain silent?
A)The officer was correct that Sam had no right to remain silent,and there has never been a constitutional right entitling a defendant to remain silent.
B)The officer was partially correct because while Sam had a right to remain silent about other crimes,he did not have the right to remain silent about the drugs found in the initial search.
C)The officer was correct that Sam had no right to remain silent because while at one time there was a constitutional right entitling a defendant to remain silent,that right was repealed by constitutional amendment.
D)The officer was incorrect,and Sam had the right to remain silent based on his constitutional protection against self-incrimination.
E)The officer was correct,and Sam had no right to remain silent because the right against self-incrimination only protects against crimes involving physical harm to another.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

A)The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination,meaning that in a criminal case,the defendant does not have to testify in court as a witness against herself or himself.
B)The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination,meaning that in a criminal case,the defendant does not have to testify in court as a witness against herself or himself.
C)The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination,meaning that in a criminal case,the defendant does not have to testify in court as a witness against herself or himself.
D)The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination,meaning that in a criminal case,the defendant does not have to testify in court as a witness against herself or himself.
E)The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination,meaning that in a criminal case,the defendant does not have to testify in court as a witness against herself or himself.

Was the Officer Correct in Telling Sam He Had No