Missouri v. Seibert
Citation
542 U.S. 600 (2004). Supreme Court of the United States.
Facts
Police in Missouri used a deliberate two-step interrogation technique: question a suspect without Miranda warnings until a confession is obtained, then administer Miranda warnings, and obtain a second confession — this time “on the record.” Patrice Seibert confessed twice using this procedure. She challenged the admissibility of the post-warning confession.
Issue
When police deliberately use a “question-first, warn later” strategy, is the post-warning confession admissible?
Holding
The Court held that the second (post-warning) confession was inadmissible because the Miranda warnings given in the middle of the interrogation were ineffective to cure the earlier unwarned interrogation when the technique was used deliberately.
Rule / Doctrine
The plurality (Souter) applied an objective multifactor test to determine whether midstream warnings effectively advise a suspect of rights: completeness of the pre-warning interrogation, overlap between the two statements, timing and setting, and continuity of police personnel. Justice Kennedy’s concurrence (the controlling opinion under Marks) focuses on whether the police deliberately used a two-step technique to undermine Miranda; if so, curative measures (a substantial break in time or circumstances, or an explicit advising that the prior statement may not be used) are required for the second statement to be admissible.
Significance
Seibert closes a significant loophole in Miranda by prohibiting deliberate circumvention via “beachhead confessions.” Kennedy’s intent-based standard, however, has been criticized as difficult to apply and as permitting the same technique when used inadvertently.