 Cornell Law School professor Sherry F. Colb 's discussion of the decision at Findlaw.com was one of the former . She called the decision " an alarming break with the philosophy of Miranda v. Arizona [ that ] leaves that decision to stand as an arbitrary disclosure requirement , rather than the protection against coercive interrogation that it was originally crafted to be " . The author noted the purpose of Miranda was to address psychologically pressured interviews and that it had noted that adequate protection was essential in order " to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings " . The Miranda decision was intended to prevent coercion not merely to require a " disclosure of legal facts " . The present decision " allow [ ed ] a waiver of the right to occur after interrogation had commenced , through a response to that interrogation " . As a result , two subtly different meanings of " right to remain silent " could be construed , and a suspect who was ( in the words of Miranda v. Arizona ) " vulnerable , unassertive , and in need of protection " — precisely the kind of suspect Miranda aimed at protecting — would be left unaware : 
