Repository Collection 03
Missouri v. Seibert
CASE ENTRY
Last Revised • July 9, 2026
This Source Verification Page documents the United States Supreme Court's decision in Missouri v. Seibert, cited in Claim I of the Supplemental Motion. The decision established the constitutional rule governing deliberate "question first, warn later" interrogation strategies and explains when post-Miranda statements must be excluded because earlier unwarned questioning rendered subsequent Miranda warnings ineffective.
Related SMAR Citation
“[Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, at 2605 (2006)]”
“[At 2611]”
Case Name
Missouri v. Seibert
Citation
542 U.S. 600 (2004)
Date
June 28, 2004
Verification Source
United States v. Mashburn, 406 F.3d 303 (4th Cir. 2005)
Source Location
Supreme Court of the United States
Highlighted Pages
2 - 3, 6 - 8
Referenced in the Supplemental Motion
Page 41 - 42, Paragraph: 80 - 81
✔ Original Court Order obtained and reviewed.
✔ Relevant passages highlighted.
✔ Publicly available source
✔ Included within the Source Verification Archive
Paragraph 80:
Paragraph 81:
Source Status
Cited to Support
May's reliance upon Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004), for the legal principle that Miranda warnings
administered after an initial unwarned custodial interrogation may be ineffective when law enforcement
deliberately employs a question-first, warn-later interrogation strategy. Seibert is cited to establish that postwarning statements obtained through such a strategy may be inadmissible unless sufficient curative measures
are taken before the subsequent questioning. May relies upon this authority to support his claim that APD
officers questioned him while in custody prior to administering Miranda warnings and that no curative measures
were taken before Detective Romick obtained his subsequent statements.
May's reliance upon Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004), for the principle that closely connected rounds of
questioning conducted before and after Miranda warnings should not automatically be treated as separate
interrogations merely because warnings were administered between them. The cited passage is relied upon to
establish the Supreme Court's recognition that integrated and continuous questioning may constitute a single
interrogation for constitutional purposes. May relies upon this authority to support his claim that Detective
Romick's post-warning interrogation was a continuation of the earlier questioning conducted by Officer Moore
and other law enforcement personnel rather than a separate and independent interview.
Supporting Documents
Original Article
Link to the original article.
Highlighted Research Copy
Working research copy containing the highlighted passages cited in the Supplemental Motion.
Continue Your Research
Return to Claim I
Continue browsing the sources cited throughout Claim I.
Return to Source Verification Archive
Return to the main Source Verification Archive and explore additional sections of the Supplemental Motion.