First, the article addresses the degree to which a statement taken in violation of Miranda can be used for impeachment purposes and whether evidence derived from a Miranda violation is admissible. The article then looks at the extent to which Miranda applies to undercover police interrogation and considers whether Miranda warnings are required prior to routine booking questions. Next, the article comments on the development of the so-called "public safety" exception and on whether police officers may continue to interrogate a suspect after he or she makes an equivocal request for a lawyer. Finally, the article examines a statutory substitute for Miranda that has yet to receive constitutional review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The author concludes that custodial police interrogations are inherently coercive and have carved out many exceptions to the Miranda exclusionary rule, that a violation of Miranda does not necessarily mean the resulting statement is inadmissible, that Miranda warnings are not constitutionally required, and that voluntariness remains the constitutional standard to be met when obtaining a statement from a suspect. 44 endnotes and 1 figure