– police were trained to question suspects outside of Miranda first, to get a confession, then Mirandize them, and then get the statement again.
– D made an incriminating statement in an interrogation outside of Miranda, and then the police Mirandized her and waited until they got a full confession that mirrored her prior statements
– Court determined that were there was a deliberate effort to evade Miranda as to statement and to employ this technique to get a second statement- Miranda warnings won’t necessarily break the taint.
o Reasoning for decision that Miranda doesn’t break the taint in this situation is that the function of the Miranda warnings can’t be carried out. The warning can’t be effective in this situation to make the 2nd statement voluntary within the meaning of Miranda. (the warnings could not be understood to dispel coercion).
o Seems like if you were advising a cop engaged in questioning outside Miranda and another cops wants to re-question- you’d need to advise them that taint needs to be dissipated and merely re-Mirandizing might not be enough. Cops need to change circumstances enough to make it look like a separate interrogation. (don’t use first statement to impeach 2nd statement, change time and place of interrogation, change officer interrogating, advise that first statement won’t be admissible in court)—all done to assure is not compelled and statement is given voluntarily.
o So now we have a majority of the ct. saying police officer’s intent matters – Plurality (4 votes): D’s Miranda warnings failed for statement 2. Basis is on the D’s subjective
intent that having made the prior statement will effect their second one, it is based on whether D
understood the Miranda warnings. – Kennedy (5th vote): wants to add a subjective intent of the police officer test when determining the
legality of the statements. Where there is a deliberate violation, Miranda warnings alone will not break the taint
o Kennedy’s Concurrence appears to be controlling (but majority doesn’t want officer’s intent to matter) – Must have bad faith (deliberately evasion of Miranda) on part of officers for it to not break taint
– Breyer: the court should apply a fruit of the poisonous tree approach to these issues but allow for a good faith exception (for situations like Elstadt)
– Dissent (O’Connor): this is the same inquiry as Elstadt, but the focus is on the be on D’s understanding of Miranda, and not on the police intent
o 7 votes say police intent is not relevant o 2 votes say police intent is relevant
We have located some similar legal questions and legal question categories. Check out these challenging questions that askquestions about Constitutional Law Cases and are similar to Missouri v. Seibert Summary. Also, we have included a list of some of our more popular legal question categories. These categories are based on what everyone is asking and answering.