US Supreme Court Oregon v. Elstad 83-773

Decided March 4, 1985.

   Police obtained a warrant for Elstad's arrest after a witness reported seeing him burglarize someone's home (Elstad was 18).  The police went to his house, where his mother showed them to his room.  One officer then stayed with Elstad while another went with his mother to another room to inform her of the warrant for his arrest.  The officer who stayed with Elstad informed him that he believed he had been there for the burglary, and Elstad admitted that he had been.

   Elstad was arrested and taken to the station, where he waived his Miranda rights and confessed.  At trial, he sought to suppress his confession.  He argued that his confession was the fruit of the poisonous tree, being tainted by his earlier unwarned statement that he had been there.  The court had none of it, he was convicted, and he appealed.  The court of appeals took Elstad's side and reversed his conviction.  The prosecution appealed.

   The US Supreme Court ordered Elstad's conviction reinstated.  Here's why: Miranda warnings (like the exclusionary rule) are not actually required by the Constitution.  They are a judicially created measure designed to protect a constitutional right.  Where a Miranda violation has occurred, a suspect's statements will be presumed to be involuntary and suppressed, but if the statements were not actually made as the result of coercive police conduct the 5th Amendment isn't actually being violated so the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine doesn't apply.  In this case, the prosecution had already conceded that Elstad was in custody at the time of his first incriminating statement (I don't think they should've conceded that.  If they had argued the point, then I think they would have won this case on those grounds), so the Court accepted that conclusion.  But even without Miranda warnings, the Court held that the statement was obviously voluntary.  It was made in Elbert's home (hardly a police dominated atmosphere), there was no show of force or other coercive police conduct, it was made in response to an off-hand comment rather than after extensive interrogation.  Obviously voluntary.  Since the prosecution conceded the issue of custody, and since there was no Miranda warning given, the statement was inadmissible in court, but since the statement was not coerced there was no actual violation of Elstad's rights.

   If Elstad's rights had been violated, then the second confession could have been admissible anyway if there was a sufficient break in the causal chain between his earlier statement and his later one.  But since his rights weren't violated, no break in the causal chain was necessary.  All that was necessary was that his second statement also be voluntary (and, of course, made after a Miranda waiver).  Since that requirement was met, the statement should not have been suppressed.