Oregon v. Elstad

Facts

In December 1981, the Salem, Oregon, home of Mr. and Mrs. Gilbert Gross was burglarized. Art objects and furnishings valued at $150,000 were missing. A witness implicated Michael Elstad, an 18-year-old neighbor and friend of the Grosses' teenage son. Officers Burke and McAllister went to Elstad's home with a warrant for his arrest. His mother answered the door and led them to his room, where he was lying on his bed. The officers had him dress and come to the living room. McAllister took the mother into the kitchen to explain the warrant. Burke stayed with Elstad and, without giving Miranda warnings (the warnings about the right to silence and to a lawyer), asked if he knew why they were there and whether he knew the Grosses. Burke then said he felt Elstad was involved. Elstad answered that he was there. About an hour later, at the Sheriff's office, McAllister read Elstad his Miranda rights from a card. Elstad said he understood them and wanted to talk. He gave a full statement saying he had been paid to lead acquaintances to the Gross house and show them how to enter through a defective sliding glass door. The statement was typed, read back to him, and signed. Elstad conceded that the officers made no threats or promises.

Issues

1. Does an earlier failure to give Miranda warnings, when the unwarned statement was voluntary, taint a later confession made after full warnings and a valid waiver, so that the later confession must be suppressed?
2. Must the State show a sufficient break in time, place or events between an unwarned voluntary admission and a later warned confession before the later confession can be admitted?

Holding

A suspect who has once responded to unwarned yet uncoercive questioning is not thereby disabled from waiving his rights and confessing after he has been given the requisite Miranda warnings. Elstad's later written confession, given after a knowing and voluntary waiver, did not have to be suppressed as tainted by the earlier unwarned remark.