Supreme Court of the United States · 1985 · Criminal Procedure
Criminal ProcedureFifth AmendmentMirandamidstream warningcat out of the bagMirandasuccessive confessionsmidstream warnings
Facts
Police went to Elstad's home to arrest him for burglary. Before giving Miranda warnings, an officer spoke with Elstad in the house and obtained an incriminating admission. Later at the station house, after Elstad received and waived Miranda warnings, he gave a full written confession. The admissibility of that later warned confession was challenged because of the earlier unwarned statement.
Issue
When police first obtain an unwarned but voluntary admission during custodial questioning, does that initial Miranda violation require suppression of a later confession made after proper Miranda warnings and waiver? Put differently, does the first unwarned statement presumptively taint the second under a 'cat out of the bag' theory?
Rule
A suspect who has once responded to unwarned yet uncoercive questioning is not thereby disabled from later waiving Miranda rights and confessing after full warnings are administered. Absent actual coercion or improper tactics that undermine the suspect's ability to exercise free will, a subsequent statement made after proper Miranda warnings and a knowing, voluntary waiver is ordinarily admissible, even though an earlier unwarned statement must be excluded.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Police in Phoenix arrested Nolan Price at his apartment on suspicion of arson. Before giving any warnings, an officer casually asked, "You started the fire, didn't you?" and Nolan replied, "Yeah, I messed up." Forty-five minutes later at the station, a detective gave full Miranda warnings, Nolan signed a written waiver, and then gave a detailed confession.
In the prosecution's case in chief, which statement is most likely admissible?
Explanation. Under the majority rule, an initial unwarned statement obtained during custodial interrogation must be excluded from the prosecution's case in chief, but if that first statement was voluntary rather than coerced, it does not automatically taint a later confession. A later statement is ordinarily admissible when officers then administer proper Miranda warnings and the suspect knowingly and voluntarily waives those rights. The Court rejected an automatic "cat out of the bag" taint rule for this situation.