Which statement requires a Miranda warning before it is admissible in court?

The statement that requires a Miranda warning before it is admissible in court involves a scenario where police are attempting to extract information from a suspect using coercive means, such as a bomb threat. The Miranda warning is mandated under the Fifth Amendment, which protects individuals from self-incrimination during custodial interrogations. In this situation, if the police are making threats or using duress to elicit responses from the suspect, it becomes a matter of custodial interrogation where the suspect's freedom of choice is compromised, thus necessitating the Miranda warning to ensure that any statements made are voluntary and informed.

The other scenarios do not inherently require Miranda warnings. For example, questioning about whereabouts and conducting a traffic stop are not necessarily custodial interrogations. A search without consent often pertains to Fourth Amendment rights and does not directly relate to the need for Miranda warnings unless it leads to custodial interrogation.