A police officer arrests Alex for suspected burglary and reads him a Miranda warning that states, "You have the right to consult with a lawyer before answering any of our questions and you can secure a lawyer at any time during the interview process." Alex waives his rights and proceeds to confess. Later, Alex claims his confession should be invalidated because the warning didn't explicitly mention the right to have an attorney present during the questioning. Based on Florida v. Powell (2010), is Alex's confession likely to be upheld? Group of answer choices Yes, because the warning adequately conveyed the rights to consult with an attorney before and have one during the interrogation, even if not explicitly mentioned No, because the Miranda warning must explicitly state the right to have an attorney present during questioning Yes, but only if the confession was made in the presence of an attorney who arrived at some point during the interrogation No, because Alex did not explicitly waive his right in writing