Page:United States Reports, Volume 542.djvu/641

602

the two statements' overlapping content, the timing and setting of the ﬁrst and second rounds, the continuity of police personnel, and the degree to which the interrogator's questions treated the second round as continuous with the ﬁrst. In Elstad, the station house questioning could sensibly be seen as a distinct experience from a short conversation at home, and thus the Miranda warnings could have made sense as presenting a genuine choice whether to follow up on the earlier admission. Here, however, the unwarned interrogation was conducted in the station house, and the questioning was systematic, exhaustive, and managed with psychological skill. The warned phase proceeded after only a 15 to 20 minute pause, in the same place and with the same ofﬁcer, who did not advise Seibert that her prior statement could not be used against her. These circumstances challenge the comprehensibility and efficacy of the Miranda warnings to the point that a reasonable person in the suspect's shoes could not have understood them to convey a message that she retained a choice about continuing to talk. Pp. 614–617.

concluded that when a two step interrogation technique is used, postwarning statements related to prewarning state ments must be excluded unless curative measures are taken before the postwarning statement is made. Not every violation of Miranda v. Arizona,, requires suppression of the evidence obtained. Admission may be proper when it would further important objectives without compromising Miranda ' s central concerns. See, e. g., Harris v. New York,. Oregon v. Elstad,, reﬂects a balanced and pragmatic approach to enforcing the Miranda warning. An officer may not realize that a suspect is in custody and warnings are required, and may not plan to question the suspect or may be waiting for a more appropriate time. Suppressing postwarning statements under such circumstances would serve "neither the general goal of deterring improper police conduct nor the Fifth Amendment goal of assuring trustworthy evidence." Elstad, supra, at 308. In contrast, the technique used in this case distorts Miranda's meaning and furthers no legitimate countervailing interest. The warning was withheld to obscure both the practical and legal significance of the admonition when finally given. That the interrogating ofﬁcer relied on respondent's prewarning statement to obtain the postwarning one used at trial shows the temptations for abuse inherent in the two step technique. Reference to the prewarning statement was an implicit, and false, suggestion that the mere repetition of the earlier statement was not independently incriminating. The Miranda rule would be frustrated were the police permitted to undermine its meaning and effect. However, the plurality's test—that whenever a two stage interview occurs, the postwarning statement's admissibility depends on whether the midstream warnings