During the 2009 term the U.S. Supreme Court issued decisions in three cases that involved the interpretation and application of the Miranda warnings. In this article, the authors examine these decisions and argue that in these cases the Supreme Court erred in allowing the confession obtained by the police to be used as evidence. In a companion article written by our colleague, Professor Martin O'Connor, the opposite perspective is argued: the Supreme Court decision in both Shatzer and Powell is correct as both a matter of law and policy. These two articles are intended to be read together, to provide a 'point-counterpoint' discussion of these significant Supreme Court decisions. Abstract published by arrangement with Taylor and Francis.