In the case of California v. Prysock, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Miranda warnings, which law enforcement are required to give to suspects in custody before interrogation, do not need to follow a precise formulation as long as they fully convey the rights protected by the Fifth Amendment. The case arose when Richard Allen Prysock was arrested and read his rights but later claimed he had not been adequately informed about his right to have an attorney present during questioning. The California courts agreed with him and suppressed his confession on these grounds; however, upon reaching the Supreme Court in 1980, this decision was reversed. The court held that while it is necessary for police officers to inform suspects of their right against self-incrimination and their right to counsel under Miranda v Arizona (1966), there is no rigid wording or sequence required for delivering these warnings.

In the dissenting opinion for California v. Prysock, Justice Marshall argued that the majority's decision was a departure from precedent set in Miranda v. Arizona and its progeny which required specific warnings to be given to suspects before custodial interrogation could take place. He contended that these warnings were designed as prophylactic measures against police coercion and should not be diluted or altered at will by law enforcement agencies. In his view, any deviation from the prescribed Miranda warnings would undermine their purpose of safeguarding an individual’s Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination during police interrogations. The majority's ruling allowing flexibility in how these warnings are delivered, he feared, would lead to confusion among both law enforcement officers and suspects about what exactly is required under Miranda thereby weakening its protective effect.