Facts of the Case
Michael James Elstad was suspected of committing a burglary and was picked up by police officers in his home. Before officers had given the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, Elstad made an incriminating statement. Once at the Sheriff's headquarters, Elstad was advised of his rights. Elstad then voluntarily executed a written confession.
Questions
Was Elstad's written confession made invalid by the failure of the officers to administer Miranda warnings at his home?
Conclusions
-
In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that while Miranda required that unwarned admissions must be suppressed, subsequent statements, if made knowingly and voluntarily, need not be. The Court held that ". . .the mere fact that a suspect has made an unwarned admission does not warrant a presumption of compulsion." The Court also noted that police officers were ill-equipped to determine when "custody" legally begins. Justice O'Connor, writing for the majority, argued that the holding "in no way retreat[ed] from the bright-line rule of Miranda."
Criminal Confessions and Police Tactics: TN Supreme Court Tosses Murder Conviction under Miranda
In a unanimous decision in January, the Tennessee Supreme Court suppressed two confessions made by...
Miranda Madness In The Sunshine State
Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 3, Issue 2, Summer 1999
Since January 1, 1998, the Florida Supreme Court has reversed death sentences in thirty-nine of...
The Great Debate: Attorney General Ed Meese III - July 9, 1985
Speech by Attorney General Edwin Meese III before the American Bar Association on July 9, 1985
? Attorney General Edwin Meese III Before the American Bar Association July 9, 1985, Washington,...