Summary

Portrait of Sandra Day O'Connor Sandra Day O'Connor Missouri v. Seibert — Dissent

Freedom from compulsion lies at the heart of the Fifth Amendment, and requires us to assess whether a suspect's decision to speak truly was voluntary. Because voluntariness is a matter of the suspect's state of mind, we focus our analysis on the way in which suspects experience interrogation. See generally Miranda, 384 U.S., at 455 (summarizing psychological tactics used by police that "undermin [e] " the suspect's "will to resist," and noting that "the very fact of custodial interrogation . . . trades on the weakness of individuals")
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Sandra Day O'Connor Sandra Day O'Connor Missouri v. Seibert — Dissent

A suspect who experienced exactly the same interrogation as Seibert, save for a difference in the undivulged, subjective intent of the interrogating officer when he failed to give Miranda warnings, would not experience the interrogation any differently. " [W] hether intentional or inadvertent, the state of mind of the police is irrelevant to the question of the intelligence and voluntariness of respondent's election to abandon his rights.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Sandra Day O'Connor Sandra Day O'Connor Missouri v. Seibert — Dissent

Although highly inappropriate, even deliberate deception of an attorney could not possibly affect a suspect's decision to waive his Miranda rights unless he were at least aware of the incident." 475 U.S., at 423. Cf. Stansbury , 511 U.S. 318, 324–325 (1994) (per curiam) (police officer's subjective intent is irrelevant to whether suspect is in custody for Miranda purposes; "one cannot expect the person under interrogation to probe the officer's innermost thoughts") .
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature