Miranda warnings are known to have originated from US Supreme court ruling of Miranda vs. Arizona. Examples of the warnings which were set in connection of Miranda are; right to stay silent, anything said can be used against the Court of law, right to consult a lawyer representing the case and one can invoke the right to have the attorney present. Presence of the attorney stops the interrogation. Lastly, If one cannot afford to have a lawyer, the government will offer one for him in its i.e government expense. Most of the States have their own way of approaching the Miranda requirements. Most Americans are not aware of what Miranda warnings entail and where they can be applied. In 2010 the United State Supreme Court issued decisions that modified the rules which relate to Miranda warnings. The decision affected the circumstances where the Miranda warnings apply. Introduction of Miranda warnings has made the traditional warnings to stop the operation. Suspect in the police custody and suspect under the interrogation are the main prerequisites before police which must be accompanied by the Miranda warnings. The arrest takes place before the police and must be accompanied by the Miranda warnings. It is clear that if police fail to educate a suspect on the Miranda warnings, the response to the custodial interrogation cannot be used against the suspect. Information given voluntarily to the police which receives proper Miranda warnings is admissible in the court. In simpler terms, a person who is arrested and interrogated must have a good idea of Miranda warnings.