In Missouri v. Seibert (2004), the Court held that giving the Miranda warnings but only after the police obtain an unwarned confession violates the Miranda rule; therefore, statements made after the Miranda warnings are given are not admissible even if these statements repeat those given before the Miranda warnings were read to the suspect. In an earlier case, Oregon v. Elstad, the Court admitted a confession obtained after the police gave the Miranda warnings—even though the suspect had previously made statements before the warnings were given. Discuss the differences between the two cases. Discuss the Court’s rationale regarding the decisions. Do you agree with the rationale? Why/why not?