In the 1985 case of Moran v. Burbine, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a suspect's ignorance of his right to counsel during police interrogation did not invalidate his waiver of Miranda rights and subsequent confession. The defendant, Brian Burbine, was arrested on suspicion of burglary but while in custody confessed to an unrelated murder after being questioned without his attorney present. His lawyer had called the station earlier but was falsely informed that no questioning would take place until the next day. Despite this deception by law enforcement officials and despite Burbine’s lack of knowledge about his attorney’s call or attempts to intervene, the court held in a 5-4 decision that these factors did not affect whether he voluntarily waived his Miranda rights before confessing to murder. The majority opinion argued that while such police conduct might be inappropriate it does not necessarily infringe upon a suspect's constitutional rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Moran v. Burbine, Justice Brennan argued that the majority's decision undermined the Miranda rights and failed to protect citizens from coercive police practices. He contended that a suspect’s ignorance of an attorney’s efforts to provide assistance should not be used as a factor in determining whether or not their waiver of Miranda rights was knowing and intelligent. Brennan believed this ruling allowed law enforcement officers to deliberately withhold crucial information about legal representation from suspects during interrogations, thereby manipulating them into waiving their constitutional protections unknowingly. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for ignoring empirical evidence demonstrating how such deceptive tactics can lead to false confessions and wrongful convictions. In his view, this case represented a significant departure from previous Supreme Court decisions which emphasized informed choice as central to valid waivers of constitutional rights.