Incriminating statements made before and after Miranda warning may avoid suppression if voluntary and not result of deliberate two-step interrogation

MIRANDA United States v. Carrizales-Toledo, No. 05-2308, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. Jul. 20, 2006)(New Mexico). Appeal of conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. HELD: District court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress incriminating statements made to border patrol agents before and after receiving Miranda warnings. Because all relevant factors set out in Supreme Court’s plurality opinion in Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004), as well as narrower test set out by Justice in concurring opinion, indicate that Miranda warnings given to defendant after he made unwarned incriminating statements were effective in preparing him for successive interrogation, and because those statements were not elicited through deliberate use of two-step interrogation technique, statements were not subject to suppression. Read the opinion here.