Look further down in that article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning#The_warnings

> anything you say can and will be used against you

which is a version that is much more common in fiction, and also what vintermann referenced.

That was surprising to me so I dug into the citations [1][2] that correspond to that line in Wikipedia.

Citation [1] actually uses the "can and may" verbiage.

Citation [2] refers to the "will" verbiage as "now familiar verbiage" in a footnote, but it doesn't seem to be arguing that that verbiage is prescribed or accurate -- just that it's now familiar. It also incorrectly quotes that verbiage as coming from the original court ruling, so clearly they lost track of where they actually got it from (since it's not there).

I did find a quora answer [3] which gave an origin story for the "can and will" verbiage, but at this point I'm not ready to trust anything written on the topic that doesn't have solid references.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/miranda_warning [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20230513064943/https://scholarly... [3] look for Mark Tarte's answer to https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-Miranda-warning-say-can-a...

The gap between "can and may" and "will" might seem a bit nit-picky, but vintermann's interpretation depends very heavily on that "will."

There's also nothing special about being arrested that makes it so that anything you say could be used against you in court. It's really a just reminder that your right to remain silent may have value to you.