According to State v. Brown and State v. Magnuson, what can be used against clients in criminal investigations?

B is correct because, in many legal cases, such as State v. Brown and State v. Magnuson, the courts have established that direct observations made by the counselor can be admissible in criminal investigations. Counselors, when observing behavior during sessions, might witness actions or signs that could have legal implications.

The ruling underscores the distinction between what is disclosed during therapy — which is typically protected by confidentiality — and what can be observed by the counselor during the course of their professional duties. Observational data may not fall under the same confidentiality protections as client statements made during therapy sessions.

The other options each involve forms of information that are generally protected by confidentiality laws. Client's personal statements made during therapy are typically safeguarded and can only be used if there are exceptions to confidentiality, such as harm to self or others. Therapy session recordings often require explicit consent for their usage, particularly in legal contexts. Medical records usually have strong protections as well, not typically being accessible unless there are legal grounds or client permission to do so. Overall, understanding these nuances is crucial for counselors in navigating ethical and legal obligations when dealing with potential criminal matters.