With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of criminal defendants ..[and] a constitutional violation occurs only at trial”) (citations omitted). In 1966, in the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona, the Court held that a police officer must inform a suspect in custody of his right to remain silent and his right to an attorney before interrogating him. 384 U.S. at 444-45, 86 S.Ct. 1602. The remedy for such a violation, however, was exclusion of the nn-Mirandized statement from trial, not an action for damages under § 1983. See Husband v. Turner, No. 07-CV-391-bbc, 2008 WL 2002737, at *4 (W.D.Wis. May 6, 2008) (collecting cases). Indeed, until recently, the Court has declined to acknowledge Miranda as establishing a constitutional right. See Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 440, 120 S.Ct. 2326, 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000) (<HOLDING>); Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 444, 94

A: holding that miranda was constitutionally based but declining to go further than miranda  to establish a constitutional right
B: holding miranda decision does not apply retroactively
C: holding miranda inapplicable because defendant not in custody
D: holding on collateral review that miranda rule did not apply to confession because petitioner was tried before miranda decision
A.