When determining whether statements made after a midstream Miranda warning are admissible, do courts consider the warning's objective effectiveness or the officer's subjective intent in delaying it?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004), this Court issued a fractured decision regarding “midstream Miranda warnings’—warnings in which police question a suspect, elicit a confession, and then provide a Miranda warning and press the individual to repeat the confession. A plurality held that the admissibility of statements made after such warnings hinges on a five-factor test considering whether the warning remained objectively effective. Concurring, Justice Kennedy disagreed, opining that the admissibility of such statements hinges on the police’s subjective intent—i.e., whether officers deliberately delayed giving the warning to elicit admissible statements. In the two decades since Seibert, the courts of appeals have sharply diverged on whether the plurality’s or Justice Kennedy’s test controls. This Court should grant certiorari to resolve two important and frequently-arising questions: 1. When determining whether statements made after a midstream Miranda warning are admissible, do courts consider the warning’s objective effectiveness or the officer's subjective intent in delaying it? 2. If courts consider the officer’s subjective intent, which party bears the burden to show that the officer did or did not act deliberately? prefix PARTIES,