D is teen who orchestrates robbery of house next door; cops come to house, explain they think he’s involved, dad loses it and yells at kid; kid says “yeah I was there”; kid then taken to station and confesses after being Mirandized
-1st statement Miranda violation b/c custodial interrogation (can argue non-custodial b/c no coercive atmosphere but S.Ct. does not mess w/ lower court custodial finding); therefore, 1st statement suppressed as fruit of poisonous tree
-D argues 2nd confession inadmissible b/c “cat out of bag;” no psychological desire to deny involvement b/c cannot go back on previous statement (cops could have told D anything he said before Miranda warnings could not be used against him) -S.Ct. said subsequent Miranda warnings are sufficient to dissipate poison from initial Miranda violation; since D was Mirand-ized, the 2nd statement is admissible
-b/c Miranda protections broader than 5th amend, taint of initial Miranda violation can
be attenuated by Miranda warning