<P> Every state constitution has articles and provision guaranteeing individual rights . In most cases the subject matter is similar to the federal bill of rights . Most state courts interpretation of their constitution is consistent with the interpretation federal court's of analogous provisions of the federal constitution . With regard to Miranda issues, state courts have exhibited significant resistance to incorporating into their state jurisprudence some of the limitations on the Miranda rule that have been created by the federal courts . As a consequence a defendant may be able to circumvent the federal limitation on the Miranda rule and successfully challenge the admissibility under state constitutional provisions . Practically every aspect of the Miranda rule has drawn state court criticism . However the primary point of contention involve the following limitations on the scope of the Miranda rule: (1) the Harris exception (2) the Burbine rule and (3) the Fare rule . </P> <P> In addition to constitutionally based challenge, states permit a defendant to challenge the admissibility of a confession on the grounds that the confession was obtained in violation of a defendant's statutory rights . For example, North Carolina Criminal Procedure Act permits a defendant to move to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a "substantial" violation of the provision of the North Carolina Rules of Criminal Procedure . </P> <P> Due to the prevalence of American television programs and motion pictures in which the police characters frequently read suspects their rights, it has become an expected element of arrest procedure--in the 2000 Dickerson decision, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that Miranda warnings had "become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture". </P> <P> While arrests and interrogations can legally occur without the Miranda warning being given, this procedure would generally make the arrestee's pre-Miranda statements inadmissible at trial . (However, pursuant to the plurality opinion in United States v. Patane, physical evidence obtained as a result of pre-Miranda statements may still be admitted . There was no majority opinion of the Court in that case .) </P>

Which of the following is part of the miranda rules