6 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 198 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Oregon v. Elstad.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Oregon v. Elstad Anchor | green | “a suspect who has once responded to unwarned yet uncoercive questioning is not thereby disabled from waiving his rights and confessing after he has been given the requisite miranda warnings.” | 70 |
| 2 | Oregon v. Elstad | green | “a subsequent administration of miranda warnings to a suspect who has given a voluntary but unwarned statement ordinarily should suffice to remove the conditions that precluded admission of the earlier statement.” | 52 |
| 3 | Missouri v. Seibert | green | “the completeness and detail of the questions and answers in the first round of interrogation, the overlapping content of the two statements, the timing and setting of the first and the second, the continuity of police personnel, and the degree to which the interrogator's questio…” | 32 |
| 4 | Oregon v. Elstad | green | “though miranda requires that the unwarned admission must be suppressed, the admissibility of any subsequent statement should turn in these circumstances solely on whether it is knowingly and voluntarily made.” | 28 |
| 5 | Missouri v. Seibert | green | “systematic, exhaustive, and managed with psychological skill.” | 12 |
| 6 | United States v. Tashiri Wayne Williams | green | “objective evidence and any available subjective evidence, such as an officer's testimony, support an inference that the two-step interrogation procedure was used to undermine the miranda warning.” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.