Missouri v. Seibert

The purpose of the “question-first” tactic is to seek a particularly opportune moment to provide the warnings after the confession has already been secured. By withholding warnings until after a successful interrogation, they become ineffective in preparing the suspect for the follow up interrogation. The Court found that this “question-first” tactic is likely to lead to confusion on the part of the suspect because of the “perplexity about the reason for discussing the rights as that point, bewilderment being an unpromising frame of mind for knowledgeable discussion.”

This case is different from Oregon v. Elstad. In Elstad the Court held that an officer’s initial failure to warn was an “oversight” rather than a deliberate design. The connection between the first (pre-Miranda warnings) and second (post-Miranda warnings) interviews with the police was “speculative and attenuated.” In Elstad, the questioning at a station house was significantly different from the short conversation that occurred in the defendant’s house. In the case at hand, the pre-Miranda interrogation occurred at the station house and the question was methodical and extensive. At the conclusion of the interrogation, most of the incriminating statements had been divulged. The defendant was only allowed 15 to 20 minutes for a break and the post-Miranda interrogation transpired in the same location.