As a result of television and movies, Miranda v. Arizona is probably the most famous U.S. Supreme Court case in history. The words “You have the right to remain silent” sum up what most Americans know about criminal justice and the legal system. Surprisingly, these words do not even appear in the landmark Miranda v. Arizona opinion, but rather have evolved over time and have been adopted in a similar form in all U.S. jurisdictions. But despite an awareness of their existence, most Americans, other than civil rights lawyers, have little understanding of the purpose of the warnings and when they apply. In the Tsarnev case, the FBI and law enforcement unconstitutionally withheld the Miranda warning from Dzohkhar Tsarnev at the time of his initial questioning. To understand how the government acted improperly, several questions must be evaluated : 1) What is the Miranda warning? 2) What is the public policy behind the Miranda warning?; 3) When are Miranda warnings required?; and 4) What are the exceptions to the Miranda warning requirements. Finally, it is also relevant to consider the consequences of failing to Mirandize a suspect. The Supreme Court held in Miranda v. Arizona that “statements made by a defendant while under custodial interrogation may not be used against him at trial” (Rodriguez 1097) except in some limited circumstances. A Miranda warning is a notification to a suspect of two main rights prior to a “custodial interrogation”, both the “right to remain silent” or the right against self-incrimination and the right to be appointed counsel in cases of indigence. (Schauer, 17). Note that the term “custodial interrogation” is used which means that a suspect not in custody is not entitled to the warnings. While there have been several analyses of what constitutes “custody” for purposes of Miranda, this is not applicable in the Tsarnev case as he was in traditional custody at the time of questioni