| Missouri v. Seibert | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued December 9, 2003 Decided June 28, 2004 | |
| Full case name | Missouri, Petitioner v. Patrice Seibert |
| Citations | 542 U.S. 600 (more) 124 S. Ct. 2601; 159 L. Ed. 2d 643; 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4578; 72 U.S.L.W. 4634; 2004 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 476 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Defendant convicted of second-degree murder, Circuit Court, Pulaski County; affirmed, State v. Seibert, 2002 WL 114804 (Mo. App. S.D.); reversed and remanded for a new trial, State v. Seibert, 93 S.W.3d 700 (Mo. 2002); cert. granted, Missouri v. Seibert, 538 U.S. 1031 (2004). |
| Holding | |
| Missouri's practice of interrogating suspects without reading them a Miranda warning, then reading them a Miranda warning and asking them to repeat their confession is unconstitutional. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Plurality | Souter, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Concurrence | Breyer |
| Concurrence | Kennedy (in judgment) |
| Dissent | O’Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV | |
Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that struck down the police practice of first obtaining an inadmissible confession without giving Miranda warnings, then issuing the warnings, and then obtaining a second confession. Justice David Souter announced the judgment of the Court and wrote for a plurality of four justices that the second confession was admissible only if the intermediate Miranda warnings were "effective enough to accomplish their object." Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in a concurring opinion that the second confession should be inadmissible only if "the two-step interrogation technique was used in a calculated way to undermine the Miranda warning."