By: Seth Goldberg
Recently, in Missouri v. Seibert, the Supreme Court
analyzed the “question-first” interrogation technique used by
police to circumvent Miranda, and held that the
petitioner’s confession, obtained by the use of this strategy, was
inadmissible at trial. Using a multifactor test, the Court reached
this decision by examining the circumstances of Seibert’s
interrogation. It is submitted that although the ultimate
conclusion in Seibert is correct, the multifactor test that the
Court devised should be replaced with a “bright- line” warning
rule. Unlike the multifactor test, this bright-line warning rule
would adequately protect suspects because it promotes the clarity
that Miranda originally attempted to establish.
Part I of this Comment reviews the history of interrogation law
that led to Miranda and the post- Miranda cases.
Part II discusses current interrogation techniques used by police
to circumvent Miranda, and in particular, examines the
“question- first” interrogation technique. Part III rejects
Seibert’s multifactor test used to analyze question- first
interrogations. Part IV proposes that the multifactor test should
be replaced with a bright-line warning rule.