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:

pls mark me as brainlist.

Answer 2

Answer:

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

Explanation:

mark the other perosn brainlist