Miranda warning: in a pathmarking decision, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 471, this Court held that an individual must be “clearly informed,” prior to custodial questioning, that he has, among other rights, “the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation.” ; advice that a suspect has “the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of the law enforcement officers’ questions,” and that he can invoke this right “at any time . . . during the interview,” satisfies Miranda ; while the warnings prescribed by Miranda are invariable, this Court has not dictated the words in which the essential information must be conveyed. See, e.g., California v. Prysock, 453 U. S. 355, 359; the inquiry is simply whether the warnings reasonably ‘convey to a suspect his rights as required by Miranda.’ ” Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U. S. 195, 203 (U.S.S.Ct., 23.02.10, Florida v. Powell, J. Ginsburg).