With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to be read his Miranda rights before the school police questioned him and, given their failure to do so, we find that Appellant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination was violated. Accordingly, the Superior Court’s order is reversed and the matter is remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Jurisdiction relinquished. Former Chief Justice FLAHERTY did not participate in the decision of this case. CAPPY, Justice, files a dissenting opinion. CASTILLE, Justice, files a dissenting opinion. NEWMAN, Justice, files a concurring opinion. SAYLOR, Justice, files a concurring opinion. EAKIN, Justice, did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter. 1 . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) (<HOLDING>). 2 . Although Justice Castille's dissent goes

A: holding that a suspects invocation of the right to remain silent must be unequivocal to require that police questioning cease
B: holding that a defendant who is subject to custodial interrogation must be advised in clear and unequivocal language of his constitutional right to remain silent and his right to a lawyer
C: holding that during police interrogation right to remain silent must be invoked unambiguously
D: holding that constitutional precedent does not require that a convicted defendant be warned of his right to counsel and his right to remain silent prior to submitting to a routine authorized presentence interview
B.