Wauneka nodded his head, and then said "yes." This Court granted certiorari to consider the question whether the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires the suppression of a confession, made after proper Miranda warnings and a valid waiver of rights, solely because the police had obtained an earlier voluntary but unwarned admission from the defendant. Toro Kuro, reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc. Defendant urges us to reject the federal interpretation and "retain the integrity of the Miranda decision as a matter of state law." 468 (1982); State v. Hibdon, 57 Ore.App. A witness to the burglary contacted the local sheriff's office and implicated an 18 year old neighbor, Michael Elstad. (footnotes omitted), cert. 617, 670 P.2d 1033 (1983): The case was argued as involving a violation of defendant's federal constitutional guaranties, and we agreed with him that the unconstitutionally obtained initial confession tainted the subsequent one and held that his motion to suppress should have been granted. In 1964, the Court held that the "Fourteenth Amendment secures against state invasion the same privilege that the Fifth Amendment guarantees against federal infringement—the right of a person to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will, and to suffer no penalty . Respondent, Michael James Elstad, was convicted of burglary by an Oregon trial court. About Research Solutions Privacy Security Contact Us, County of Oakland by Kuhn v. City of Detroit. at 401 U. S. 225, and n. 2. App. 301, 305, 710 P.2d 148 (1985), rev. Save the information you submit via the Contact Us form or email at info@simopouloslaw.com or as otherwise stated above, Simopoulos Law, PLLC does not collect, use, or share any other information about you, including computer or other technological data, when you visit our website. The Fifth Amendment, of course, is not concerned with nontestimonial evidence. This case is before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court. Oct 3, 1984. It has never been remotely suggested that any statement taken from Mr. Elstad without benefit of Miranda warnings would be admissible. Post at 470 U. S. 319. 83-773. While one officer went into the kitchen to explain what was happening to Elstad’s mother, the other officer remained in the living room with Elstad. A suspect's confession may be traced to factors as disparate as "a prearrest event such as a visit with a minister," Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. at 442 U. S. 220 (STEVENS, J., concurring), or an intervening event such as the exchange of words respondent had with his father.