The courts have defined procedures needed to waive the fifth amendment's right to protection against self-incrimination. In such cases, the interrogators must inform the subjects that they are entitled to an attorney prior to questioning. Express statements by the subjects are not needed to validate waivers. Rather, if individuals are properly advised of their rights and imply by word or action that they wish to waive those rights, they may legally do so. While fifth amendment guarantees attach to all incidents of custodial interogation, sixth amendment guarantees (which include the right to counsel) attach only at critical stages of prosecution. These stages exist at arraignment, at a preliminary hearing, at postindictment identifications, and after indictment. When constitutional guarantees under the sixth amendment are involved, a strict standard for waiver is applied (i.e., the waiver has to be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily). To preserve conceptual consistency between the fifth and sixth amendments, the higher standard of waiver under the sixth amendment requires express statements of waiver for each specific element under the guarantee. However, while defendants may waive the guarantees of the fifth amendment in the absence of their attorneys, sixth amendment's procedure is muddled because the Federal and State courts have developed three alternative standards for waiver. Under the first standard, waiver is impermissible in the absence of, and without the advice or consent of, the attorney. This significantly restricts the prosecutor's ability to question the defendant. The other position is that waiver is permissible in the absence of counsel if appropriate procedural safeguards are taken to ensure a knowing and intelligent waiver. The third approach ensures that the safeguards exist because it requires that an impartial judicial officer administer warnings and advice to assure full comprehension of rights. The third approach should be universally adopted, since it ensures a proper balance between competing demands for effective law enforcement and the protection of fundamental constitutional rights. Specific court cases are presented, and footnotes are provided.