I am surprised no one has mentioned this yet. [That I've seen, anyway.]
There is a lot up with the Miranda rights/warnings that exist, on the end of human rights and on the end of justice. This is an area that is ripe with issues on both extreme ends of the spectrum.
For example: Cases can get totally tossed out, even on cases when we really do know we have the right person [and I don't want to hear any legal jargon from any of you - I mean when we KNOW, period
] because for various reasons a cop forgot to say "btw dawg you haz right to keep quiet". Any deaths of law enforcement made as a result of a violent arrest, crime committed which could have been stopped, etc are all back on the street again, not because it couldn't be proven, but because the criminal went for a weapon and by consequence the cop two feet away forgot to read the rights. [This is an example, but trust me, you can't find real equivalents.]
Alternatively, however, there is criticism of the system in the other half, because supposedly it is worded in such a way that people can't understand it when it's being read to them. I think that is retarded, but there is certainly support for it.
But REAL fun kicks in when if you look up the dissent from the case that established it - Miranda vs Arizona, there is a solid foundation to establish that the whole concept isn't constitutional in the first place.