If a suspect is taken before a magistrate for a probable cause hearing, cannot post bond, and is later re-interviewed with Mirandawarnings, is the confession admissible?

• A. Admissible.
• B. Inadmissible due to custody continuity.
• C. Admissible only if the suspect waived again.
• D. Only admissible for the original charge.

Answer: (A)

The key rule here is that Miranda warnings are required before custodial interrogation, but a later interrogation conducted after proper warnings can yield admissible results even if there was an earlier, unwarned custodial interrogation. In this scenario, the suspect is brought before a magistrate while still in custody and then later re-interviewed after being given Miranda warnings with a valid waiver. Because the second interview occurred with the required warnings and a knowing waiver, the statements obtained during that re-interview are admissible.

The earlier unwarned questioning cannot be used as evidence of guilt from the initial interrogation, and any non-warned statement could only be used for limited purposes (such as impeachment) if the suspect takes the stand. However, it does not taint the admissibility of the later, properly warned confession, provided there was no deliberate two-step scheme to defeat Miranda (as warned against by Seibert-like concerns). In this case, nothing indicates such a deliberate tactic, so the re-warned confession stands as admissible evidence.