In determining the admissibility of post-warning confessions given during question-first interrogations, should courts apply the Seibert plurality's objective test focused on the effectiveness of the warnings provided to the suspect or Justice Kennedy's subjective test based on officer intent?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The courts of appeals and the state courts are deeply divided over how to determine the admissibility of confessions made during “question-first” interrogations, where officers question a suspect without giving Miranda warnings and elicit a confession, then provide the warnings and press the suspect to repeat the confession. In Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004), the four-justice plurality formulated a five-factor test focused on the impact of the question-first procedure on the defendant. Justice Kennedy, who concurred only in the judgment, propounded a test that turned on whether officers deliberately undermined Miranda’s purpose by delaying warnings until after a confession. The question presented is: In determining the admissibility of post-warning confessions given during question-first interrogations, should courts apply the Seibert plurality’s objective test focused on the effectiveness of the warnings provided to the suspect or Justice Kennedy’s subjective test based on officer intent? i