Correct! U.S. ruled that officers purposely withheld a Miranda warning as part of a "two-step" interrogation technique designed to elicit an initial confession before reading the accused his/her rights (Missouri v. Seibert, U.S., 6/04).

Note: U.S. has previously ruled the a post-warning confession could be used as evidence, even though a suspect had made incriminating admissions prompted by questioning before a Miranda warning (Oregon v. Elstad, U.S., 1985; New York v. Harris, U.S., 1990).). This precedent was not overturned in Seibert. In the Elstad case, a residential burglary suspect, after being arrested at home, admitted to an officer after a brief questioning that he had been present at the crime scene. Two hours later at the police station, he was given a Miranda warning for the first time and repeated the same statement. U.S. ruled: "W/hen neither the initial or subsequent admission is coerced, little justification exists for permitting the highly probative evidence of a voluntary confession to be irretrievably lost to the fact-finder". U.S. distinguished Seibert wherein the "two-step" interrogation technique was used in a deliberate manner way to undermine the Miranda warning. In Elstad, there was a short conversation, at the suspect's home, and re-questioning didn't occur until several hours. A statement can still be attenuated if proper "curative measures" are taken. In particular, if there is substantial break in time and circumstances between the statements and the suspect is told that any prior statement cannot be used against him/her in court.