In Florida v. Powell, U.S. 130 S. Ct. 1195, 1203, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1009 (2010), the suspect was advised that he had "the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any . . . questions" and that he could "use any of these rights at any time you want during the interview." U.S. at , 130 S. Ct. at 1200. On appeal, the Florida state courts held these warnings to be inadequate on the ground they did not inform the suspect of his right to the presence of an attorney throughout the interrogation. Id. at , 130 S. Ct. at 1200-01. The Supreme Court characterized the issue before it as "whether the warnings Powell received satisfied the requirement" that a suspect be informed of "'the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation.'" Id. at , 130 S. Ct. at 1203. In Florida v. Powell, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that Miranda created "'procedural safeguards that require police to advise criminal suspects of their rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments before commencing custodial interrogation.'" It is "'an absolute prerequisite to interrogation,'" the Court stated, "that an individual held for questioning . . . 'be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation.'" Powell, U.S. at , 130 S. Ct. at 1203. Answering this question in the affirmative, the Court held that "in combination, the two warnings reasonably conveyed Powell's right to have an attorney present, not only at the outset of interrogation, but at all times." Id. at , 130 S. Ct. at 1205. "We find the warning in this case adequate," Powell emphasized, "only because it communicated just what Miranda prescribed." Id. at n.5, 130 S. Ct. at 1205 n.5. Powell went on to describe the standard advisory used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as "exemplary" insofar as it conveys "the same essential message" of Miranda that suspects can "'talk to a lawyer . . . before . . . any questioning'" and "'have the right to have a lawyer with them during questioning.'" Id. at , 130 S. Ct. at 1206. The Supreme Court reasoned the two statements in combination reasonably conveyed the right to have an attorney present, not only at the outset of interrogation, but at all times. (Ibid.)