atements obtained from a defendant questioned, while in custody, or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. In each, the defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney. In neither of these cases was the defendant given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. In all the cases, the questioning elicited oral admissions, and signed statements as well, which were admitted at their trials. The nature and the setting of this in-custody interrogation is essential to the courts decisions today. The difficulty in depicting what transpires at such interrogations stems from the fact that, in this country, they have largely taken place incommunicado. (Miranda v. Arizona)
             After both of these cases, the Court established procedural safeguards to protect the privilege against self incrimination. Those safeguards are the Miranda warnings so familiar to the law enforcement personnel. Procedural safeguards must be employed to protect the privilege.
             ...