In Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004), the Court issued a fractured decision regarding "midstream Miranda warnings," i.e., when police question a suspect, elicit a confession, and then provide a Miranda warning before extracting a second confession. A plurality held that such confessions' admissibility hinges on a five-factor test considering whether the warning remained objectively effective, a question of law. Concurring in the judgment, Justice Kennedy disagreed, opining that the admissibility of such statements hinges on the interrogator subjectively intended to delay a Miranda warning until after obtaining a confession

In the two decades since Seibert, state and federal appellate courts have diverged on whether the plurality's or Justice Kennedy's test controls. The question presented is, when determining whether a confession made following a midstream Miranda warning is admissible, do courts consider the warning's objective effectiveness—a question of law reviewed de novo—or the officer's subjective intent— a factual finding reviewed for clear error.

When determining whether a confession made following a midstream Miranda warning is admissible, do courts consider the warning's objective effectiveness—a question of law reviewed de novo—or the officer's subjective intent— a factual finding reviewed for clear error?