Imagine an officer approaches a group of students for being at a public park after curfew. the officer arrests one teen who was a suspect in a local theft. a judge could throw out the teen's confession unless the officer complies with the ruling in?

A judge could throw out the teen's confession unless the officer complies with the ruling in Miranda versus the State of Arizona.

Explanation:

The Miranda versus the State of Arizona ruling specifies that though it is necessary that the defendant should be given the idea of the rights that he/she has as a defendant before taking him/her into custody and before interrogating him/her, in some instances, the actions taken by the officers cannot be deemed as a violation of the rights that the defendant has. In the given case, it would seem that the rights of the defendant have been violated. But it has been already specified that the defendant was a suspect in a local theft.

Ifound the exercise on the internet. attached is the list mentioned above.in order for a compound to be considered optically active it can't have any axis or plan of symmetry. the molecule  shouldn't also  be superimposable on its mirror image.with such considerations, the compounds that are optically active are: -third compound on the first image is optically active; -second and third compound from the second image are optically actives.