IN THE MIRANDA DECISION, THE COURT ESTABLISHED PROCEDURAL STANDARDS GOVERNING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONS MADE BY DEFENDANTS WHILE IN POLICE CUSTODY. UNDER MIRANDA, NO SUCH CONFESSION MAY BE ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE UNLESS IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS INFORMED OF THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT, THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL, AND THE FACT THAT ANY INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS COULD BE USED IN COURT. THE PREVAILING THESIS IS THAT THE BURGER COURT HAS RESTRICTED AND NARROWED THE SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY OF THE WARREN COURT'S MIRANDA RULING. HOWEVER, AN ANALYSIS OF POST-MIRANDA DECISIONS, WHICH DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN CASES THAT BEAR SUBSTANTIVELY ON MIRANDA AND THOSE THAT, WHILE RELATED TO MIRANDA, WERE DECIDED ON OTHER PRECEDENTS OR OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS, SUGGESTS THAT, RATHER THAN NARROWING MIRANDA, THE BURGER COURT HAS REFUSED TO EXPAND THE SCOPE OF THE RULING BEYOND THE RELATIVELY NARROW PERIMETERS SET FORTH WITHIN THE MIRANDA DECISION ITSELF. THUS, ALTHOUGH THE CONSERVATIVE BURGER COURT HAS NOT INTERPRETED MIRANDA LIBERALLY, LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS STILL WORK WITH THE FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY STRICTLY WITH THE MIRANDA RULES DURING INCUSTODY INTERROGATIONS IS INVITING A JUDGE TO RENDER THEIR INVESTIGATIVE EFFORTS FRUITLESS. (LKM)