Sherman Antitrust Act above statement when making an arrest. This is the result of - "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. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?" Miranda v.Arizona ) the 9th Amendment Civil Rights act of 1964 Police officers comm unicate the 3 points

## Step 1<br />The problem presents a scenario where a police officer is making an arrest and informing the suspect of their rights. The suspect is informed that they have the right to remain silent, anything they say can be used against them in court, they have the right to an attorney, and if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for them. The suspect is then asked if they understand these rights and if they wish to speak to the officer.<br /><br />## Step 2<br />The options provided are the Sherman Antitrust Act, the 9th Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Miranda v. Arizona. The scenario described is a direct reference to the Miranda v. Arizona case.<br /><br />## Step 3<br />The Miranda v. Arizona case is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court. The case established the principle that all criminal suspects must be advised of their rights before interrogation. This is to ensure that any statements made by the suspect are not coerced and are admissible in court.<br /><br />## Step 4<br />The rights mentioned in the scenario are the Miranda Rights, which are a direct result of the Miranda v. Arizona case. These rights are read to suspects before interrogation to ensure that their statements are not coerced and are admissible in court.