What is a potential consequence of not administering the Miranda Warning?

The correct choice highlights that if the Miranda Warning is not administered, any statements made by the suspect during interrogation may be deemed inadmissible in court. This principle is rooted in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects individuals from self-incrimination. The purpose of the Miranda Warning is to inform suspects of their rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. If law enforcement fails to provide this warning, any confession or statement obtained could be challenged and potentially excluded as evidence during a trial. This is crucial because it upholds the integrity of the legal system by preventing coerced or uninformed confessions from being used against defendants.

The other options refer to potential outcomes related to the lack of a Miranda Warning but do not directly address the primary legal consequence of inadmissibility of evidence. While a suspect might still be charged or interrogated without the warning, the statements made would be at risk of being excluded from the trial. Additionally, failing to administer the Miranda Warning does not automatically render an arrest unlawful, as an arrest can still be valid based on probable cause.