Experimental. Doctrines is a new Annlex feature, starting with four areas: Self-incrimination, Brady, Terry and Miranda. Each page collects what courts have said about a leading case, quoted from the opinions that cite it. Annlex Chat uses these collections to help find relevant cases; what a case holds still comes from its opinion. We'd like to hear what's useful, missing or wrong: Send feedback
Question-First, Warn-Later Interrogation (Two-Step Interrogation)
Leading case
Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004)
How courts have described it
noting that Miranda sprouted from “our concern that the 'traditional totality-of-the-circumstances’ test posed an 'unacceptably great’ risk that involuntary custodial confessions would escape detection.”
United States v. Cardenas, 410 F.3d 287 (5th Cir. 2005)
holding that where police undertake strategy designed to undermine Miranda warnings by conducting a two-phase custodial interrogation, the first without warnings followed immediately by a second preceded by the required warnings, all statements inadmissible
United States v. Kitchenakow, 149 F. Supp. 3d 1062 (E.D. Wis. 2016)
providing that the government bears the burden of proving both a valid Miranda waiver and that a criminal defendant’s statements were voluntary
United States v. McVicker, 979 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (D. Or. 2013)
holding that police technique of eliciting an initial unwarned confession followed by a second warned statement violates Miranda
Hill v. United States, 858 A.2d 435 (D.C. 2004)
holding that, where a second interrogation post-Miranda attempted to recreate a first interrogation pre Miranda, statement from the latter was inadmissible
State v. Clodfelter, 691 S.E.2d 22 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010)
holding that the interrogation technique of question first, then give Miranda warnings, and then question again was a circumvention of Miranda and resulted in inadmissible statements
State v. Adame, 142 P.3d 26 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006)
holding that deliberate approach of questioning suspect first without warning, issuing warning and having suspect repeat incriminating statements violates Miranda
In re Yoh (Vt. Super. Ct. 2005)
Related doctrines
- Cessation of interrogation upon invocation of Miranda rights
- Constitutional basis of Miranda warnings (no legislative override)
- Physical fruits of voluntary unwarned statements not suppressible under Miranda
About this page
The quotations above are from court opinions that cite the leading case, in each court's own words. The heading is a short label Annlex generated from those quotations. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer and is not legal advice.