Missouri v. Seibert

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, Paragraphs 80–81

Source Status

✔ Original court opinion obtained and reviewed.

✔ Relevant passages highlighted.

✔ Publicly available source.

✔ Included within the Source Verification Archive.

Cited to Support

Paragraph 80:
Lyle C. 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. Missouri v. Seibert is cited in support of May's allegations that statements obtained through such a strategy may be constitutionally inadmissible unless sufficient curative measures are taken before subsequent questioning. May relies upon this authority to support his allegations that Asheville Police Department officers questioned him while in custody before administering Miranda warnings and that Detective Judy Romick later obtained additional statements without taking curative measures to ensure that the Miranda warnings were effective.

Paragraph 81:
Lyle C. 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 simply because warnings were administered between them. The decision recognizes that continuous or integrated questioning may constitute a single custodial interrogation for constitutional purposes. May relies upon this authority to support his allegations that Detective Judy Romick's post-warning interrogation was a continuation of the earlier questioning conducted by Officer Moore and other Asheville Police Department personnel, rather than a separate and constitutionally independent interview.

Supporting Documents

Original Court Opinion

Link to the original Supreme Court opinion.

View Opinion →

Highlighted Research Copy

Working research copy containing the highlighted passages cited in the Supplemental Motion.

View PDF →