In Lee v. State, the court addressed the admissibility of a confession obtained after Detective Schrott assured the defendant by saying, "this is just between you and me, bud." This statement was made after the defendant had been read his Miranda rights, which include the warning that anything said can and will be used against him in court. The court had to decide if this assurance affected the voluntariness of the defendant's subsequent confession. Which of the following best represents the court's ruling on the confession? Group of answer choices The court ruled the confession inadmissible, as Detective Schrott's statement constituted a promise of confidentiality that undermined the Miranda warnings, making the confession obtained thereafter a violation of Miranda The court found the confession voluntary and admissible, determining that Detective Schrott's statement did not significantly influence the defendant's understanding of his rights The court held that the confession was voluntary under federal and state constitutional law and Maryland common law, despite acknowledging that the detective's statement contradicted the Miranda warnings The court declared the confession admissible, citing that the detective's promise of confidentiality did not directly impact the voluntariness of the defendant's statements under the legal definitions of coercion or inducement