Embellishments of the Miranda warnings and the ritualization of the written waiver as used by some police departments undoubtedly have a tendency to dissuade many guilty suspects from submitting to police questioning. As a result, many cases are never brought to trial because of the lack of a confession which otherwise might have been obtained. Moreover, even when police have obtained a confession following an attempt to comply with the Miranda mandate, the confession is considered flawed because of some perceived error with respect to the warnings, the waiver procedure, or the interrogation efforts. There also is the erroneous expenditure of time spent on deciding issues related to the Miranda warnings that could better be spent on more important issues. The only aspect of Miranda that does not impede law enforcement occurs at trial when a confession is presented in evidence. Jurors, as well as some judges, are favorably impressed by the warnings and formal waiver of the right to counsel and to remain silent. At the earliest opportunity, the U.S. Supreme Court should overturn Miranda or else uphold the validity of the test of confession admissibility enacted by Congress shortly after Miranda. It provides that a confession shall be admissible if it meets the test of voluntariness. Arizona enacted an identical provision on admissibility and the determination of voluntariness in 1969. A test case should be brought. In the meanwhile, police and prosecutors should reconsider their Miranda practices and courts should moderate their apprehension over possible reversals because of shortcomings in Miranda formalities. A total of 35 footnotes are included.