McCarthy v. Hernandez · ¶26

Seibert addressed the constitutionality of an interrogation tactic under which police question a suspect in custody without providing a Miranda warning and then, after eliciting a confession, provide a Miranda warning and ask the suspect to repeat the confession. The Court ruled that the use of this tactic in that case violated federal law. Writing for a four-Justice plurality, Justice Souter opined that the use of the tactic had undermined the protection that Miranda was designed to provide and that the confession given after the tardy Miranda warning was therefore inadmissible. Justice Kennedy concurred in the judgment, arguing that a post- warning confession obtained through a “deliberate” two-step strategy “predicated upon violating Miranda” is inadmissible unless law enforcement takes “specific, curative steps” to attenuate it from the pre-warning confession. 542 U. S., at 621.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.