 Emily Berman , counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law commented that " [ Berghuis ] ' potential consequences are as predictable as night following day : Police will interrogate criminal suspects who do not explicitly invoke their rights — often , those will be suspects who are unsophisticated , poorly educated or mentally ill — for hours on end . This will lead , just as inevitably , to more coerced — and therefore unreliable — confessions ... the very phenomenon that Miranda aimed to eliminate . " She noted the attorney general 's comment that Miranda warnings had not deterred terrorism suspects such as Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and Faisal Shahzad from talking and providing " valuable intelligence " . The positive observation was a reflection upon attempts by Congress to amend Miranda legislatively , that the decision " sends a strong signal " that " the Supreme Court is not shy about curtailing Miranda protections , even without prodding from Congress " . She concluded that " [ w ] hile it might look with hostility on congressional attempts to rein in the scope of the Miranda rule , the Supreme Court itself is willing to interpret narrowly the protections that Miranda affords criminal defendants . And it is willing to reach relatively far to do so . " 
