{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f35\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604030504040204}Tahoma;}
{\f36\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f173\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f174\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}
{\f176\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f177\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f178\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f179\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}
{\f180\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f181\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}{\f523\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Tahoma CE;}{\f524\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Tahoma Cyr;}{\f526\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Tahoma Greek;}
{\f527\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Tahoma Tur;}{\f528\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Tahoma (Hebrew);}{\f529\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Tahoma (Arabic);}{\f530\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Tahoma Baltic;}{\f531\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Tahoma (Vietnamese);}
{\f532\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2 Tahoma (Thai);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;
\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{
\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*
\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tblind0\tblindtype3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}{
\s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid10561911 header;}{\s17\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 \styrsid10561911 footer;}{\*\cs18 \additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid3303759 page number;}{
\s19\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f35\fs16\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext19 \ssemihidden \styrsid9438619 Balloon Text;}{\*\cs20 \additive \ul\cf12 \sbasedon10 \styrsid8454157 
FollowedHyperlink;}}{\*\revtbl {Unknown;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid355659\rsid458928\rsid490918\rsid856394\rsid1192216\rsid1537634\rsid1715384\rsid1774093\rsid2032367\rsid2623492\rsid2909022\rsid2951783\rsid3289454\rsid3303759\rsid3419948\rsid3491300\rsid3680670\rsid4013736
\rsid4349948\rsid5200400\rsid5400643\rsid5638903\rsid5713475\rsid5841828\rsid6246190\rsid6251868\rsid6364882\rsid6633104\rsid6823951\rsid7164339\rsid7345618\rsid7477030\rsid7499709\rsid8021747\rsid8221647\rsid8454157\rsid8477237\rsid8477772\rsid8858769
\rsid9137703\rsid9438619\rsid9594614\rsid10293466\rsid10366546\rsid10560552\rsid10561911\rsid11218760\rsid12256685\rsid12393169\rsid12477727\rsid13517015\rsid13897650\rsid14554913\rsid14892552\rsid15027532\rsid15157051\rsid15293244\rsid15745482
\rsid16083784}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6818;}{\info{\title People of Guam v. Ryan Paul Angoco, CRA05-010}{\subject criminal law}{\author Supreme Court of GUam}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2007\mo4\dy2\hr7\min54}
{\revtim\yr2007\mo4\dy2\hr7\min54}{\printim\yr2007\mo3\dy26\hr15\min25}{\version2}{\edmins0}{\nofpages17}{\nofwords7007}{\nofchars39945}{\*\company Judiciary of Guam}{\nofcharsws46859}{\vern16393}{\*\password 00000000}}{\*\xmlnstbl 
{\xmlns1 urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags}}\paperw12240\paperh15840\margl1440\margr1440\margt1440\margb1008\gutter0 
\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\notabind\wraptrsp\transmf\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\truncatefontheight\subfontbysize\sprsbsp\wpjst\lytprtmet\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3
\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot5200400 \fet0{\*\wgrffmtfilter 013f}{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid3680670 
\chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid3680670 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid3680670 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid3680670 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \psz1\sbknone\linex0\headery1440\titlepg\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid10561911\sftnbj {\headerr \pard\plain \s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx9360\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8858769 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid1192216 People v. Angoco}{\fs20\insrsid1192216 , Opinion\tab \tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\cs18\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid8858769  PAGE }}{\fldrslt {
\cs18\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid3419948 17}}}\sectd \linex0\endnhere\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\cs18\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid8858769  of }{\field{\*\fldinst {\cs18\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid8858769  NUMPAGES }}{\fldrslt {
\cs18\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid7164339 27}}}\sectd \linex0\endnhere\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\cs18\insrsid1192216 
\par 
\par }\pard \s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\brdrt\brdrs\brdrw10\brsp20 \tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx9360\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\rtlgutter\itap0\pararsid8858769 {\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid8858769 
\par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8
\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15027532 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM
\par 
\par PEOPLE OF GUAM,
\par }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Plaintiff-Appellant,}{\b\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par vs.
\par 
\par RYAN PAUL ANGOCO,
\par }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Defendant-Appellee}{\b\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Supreme Court Case No.:}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 CRA05-010
\par Superior Court Case No.:}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 CF0337-05
\par }{\b\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
\par OPINION
\par }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
\par }{\b\insrsid458928\charrsid15027532 Filed:}{\b\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\b\insrsid458928\charrsid15027532 March 27, 2007}{\b\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
\par Cite as:}{\b\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\b\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 2007 Guam }{\b\insrsid458928\charrsid15027532 1}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
\par }{\b\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
\par }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
\par Argued and submitted on October 6, 2006
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trgaph120\trrh1819\trleft1260\trftsWidth3\trwWidth7985\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblind1380\tblindtype3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \clbrdrl
\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4590\clshdrawnil \cellx5850\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \clbrdrr
\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth3395\clshdrawnil \cellx9245\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid15027532 {\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
\par }{\ul\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 For Plaintiff-Appellant:}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
\par Marianne Woloschuk, }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Esq.}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
\par Assistant Attorney General
\par Office of the Attorney General
\par 287 West O}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Brien Drive
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910 \cell 
\par }{\ul\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 For Defendant-Appellee:}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
\par Michael F. Phillips, }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Esq.}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
\par Leslie A. Travis, }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Esq.}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
\par Phillips & Bordallo, P.C.
\par 410 West O}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Brien Drive
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow 
\ts11\trgaph120\trrh1819\trleft1260\trftsWidth3\trwWidth7985\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblind1380\tblindtype3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 
\clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4590\clshdrawnil \cellx5850\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth3395\clshdrawnil \cellx9245\row }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 
\par }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 BEFORE:}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice; ROBERT J. TORRES, JR., Associate Justice; 
\par and RICHARD H. BENSON, Justice }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Pro Tempore}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 .}{\insrsid6364882\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 CARBULLIDO, C.J.:}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
\par }{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par }{\b\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 [1]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
Defendant-Appellee Ryan Paul Angoco filed a motion to suppress certain statements he made to police, including a written statement he gave after he signed a waiver of his rights pursuant to }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda v. Arizona}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 384 U.S. 436 (1966).}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The Superior Court applied the analysis of the United States Supreme Court in }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
Missouri v. Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 542 U.S. 600 (2004), in determining the validity of the }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 waiver and suppressed the post-}{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  written statement.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The trial court also found that the police failed to comply with 19 GCA }{
\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 \'a7}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  5111 and held that violation of the statute provided partial justification for suppressing the post-}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
written statement.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Plaintiff-Appellant People of Guam appealed the trial court}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s suppression of the post-}{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  statement.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 We hold that the trial court erred in its application of }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  and therefore reverse the trial court}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s suppression of Angoco}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s post-}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  written statement.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 We also remand the case to the trial 
court to determine whether the interrogating officer deliberately used a }{\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 question-first}{\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 interrogation technique, according to the rules set forth in this opinion.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 We further hold that violation of 19 GCA }{\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 \'a7}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  5111 alone does not warrant suppression of the post-}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 written statement.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
\par }{\b\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\b\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 I.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\b\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par }{\b\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 [2]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 On September 30, 2005, at 12:40 a.m., Officer Allan Guzman met Defendant-Appellee Ryan Paul Angoco at the Tumon precinct.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Angoco was earlier handcuffed and brought to the precinct after he admitted that he was the driver of a truck allegedly involved in a fatal hit-and-run in Tumon.}{\cs15\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 \chftn {\footnote 
\pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid1192216  }{
\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 The People}{\b\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911  }{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 concede that Angoco was in custody when he was taken by police to the Tumon precinct. }}}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  
}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 [3]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Officer Guzman questioned Angoco without issuing }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 warnings.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
 }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 During questioning, Angoco stated that he was the driver of the truck and that he did not remember the accident because he blacked out. }{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 [4]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Angoco}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s parents were later contacted and arrived at the Tumon precinct at 2:20 a.m.}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Officer Guzman told the parents that he believed Angoco drove the truck that killed a Japanese tourist.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
Officer Guzman then questioned Angoco with the parents present, in the same room where Angoco was earlier questioned.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 O
fficer Guzman subsequently left Angoco and his parents alone in the room.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 [5]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 At 2:35 a.m., Officer Guzman returned to the room with a }{\insrsid14554913\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Custodial Interrogation}{
\insrsid14554913\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  form, which listed }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 rights and included a waiver of the rights.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Angoco a}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 nd his parents signed the form.
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 [6]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Officer Guzman then instructed Angoco to make a written statement.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
Angoco started writing at 3:31 a.m. and completed his written statement at 4:20 a.m.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Angoco stated in writing that he and his friend inhaled an }{\insrsid14554913\charrsid15027532 \'93
}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 air duster}{\insrsid14554913\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 while driving the truck to Tumon, that Angoco lost consciousness, that Angoco awoke to his friend saying that Angoco hit a pedestrian with the truck, and that Angoco d}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 id not remember hitting anyone.
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 [7]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 On October 7, 2005, a grand jury returned an indict
ment charging Angoco with Manslaughter (As a 1st Degree Felony), Vehicular Homicide (As a 2nd Degree Felony), Negligent Homicide (As a 2nd Degree Felony), Leaving the Scene of an Accident (A Felony), Reckless Conduct (As a Misdemeanor), Reckless Driving w
ith Injuries (As a Misdemeanor), Leaving the Scene of an Accident (As a Petty Misdemeanor), and Reckless Dr}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 iving (As a Petty Misdemeanor).
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 [8]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 On November 3, 2005, Angoco filed a motion to suppress the statements he made to police, including the written statement he gave after he signed the form waiving his }{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 rights.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The Superior Court held hearings on the motion from November 15, 2005 to November 18, 2005.}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The trial court granted the motion on November 18, 2005.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Plaintiff-Appellant People of Guam app
ealed the decision on November 21, 2005.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The decision was entered on th}{\insrsid8477237\charrsid15027532 e docket on November 25, 2005. }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
The appeal was timely filed.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 8 GCA }{\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 \'a7}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  130.40 (2005).}{\cs15\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 \chftn {\footnote 
\pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid1192216  }{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 
The People appealed the suppression of statements made by Angoco after he signed a }{\fs20\insrsid1192216 \'93}{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 Custodial Interrogation}{\fs20\insrsid1192216 \'94}{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 
 form waiving his }{\i\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 Miranda}{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911  rights.  The trial court}{\fs20\insrsid1192216 \rquote }{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 s decision, however, only addressed the post-}{
\i\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 Miranda}{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911  written statement given by Angoco. 
\par Conflicting evidence exists with regard to other oral statements Angoco may have made after he waived his }{\i\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 Miranda}{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 
 rights.  Officer Allan Guzman reported that he interviewed Angoco at 2:40 a.m., five minutes after Angoco signed the }{\i\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 Miranda}{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911  waiver.  Appellee}{\fs20\insrsid1192216 
\rquote }{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 s Supplemental Excerpts of Record (}{\fs20\insrsid1192216 \'93}{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 SER}{\fs20\insrsid1192216 \'94}{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 
), tab 6R at 3 (Supp. Rep. prep. by Guzman).  Officer Guzman}{\fs20\insrsid1192216 \rquote }{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 s repo
rt stated that Angoco told the officer that Angoco was the driver of a truck allegedly involved in a fatal hit-and-run, that Angoco inhaled an }{\fs20\insrsid1192216 \'93}{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 Air Duster Spray}{\fs20\insrsid1192216 \'94}{
\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911  while driving in Tumon, and that Angoco passed out, among other things.  SER, tab 6R at 3 (Supp. Rep. prep. by Guzman).  On the record, however, Officer Guzman testified that Angoco}{\fs20\insrsid1192216 \rquote }{
\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 s parents told the officer }{\fs20\insrsid1192216 \'93}{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 as to what Ryan had consulted with them and how the story had occurred.}{\fs20\insrsid1192216 \'94}{
\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911   Transcripts (}{\fs20\insrsid1192216 \'93}{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 Tr.}{\fs20\insrsid1192216 \'94}{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 ), Vol. III at 24, 26 (Cont}{\fs20\insrsid1192216 \rquote }{
\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 d. Mot. to Supp., Nov. 16, 2005).  Officer Guzman also testified that he learned about Angoco}{\fs20\insrsid1192216 \rquote }{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 
s use of the air duster from the parents.  Tr., Vol. III at 53, 59, 72 (Cont}{\fs20\insrsid1192216 \rquote }{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 d. Mot. to
 Supp., Nov. 16, 2005).  More importantly, the trial court never addressed the existence or admissibility of post-}{\i\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 Miranda}{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 
 oral statements in its decision and order.  Appellant}{\fs20\insrsid1192216 \rquote }{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 s Excerpts of Record (}{\fs20\insrsid1192216 \'93}{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 ER}{\fs20\insrsid1192216 \'94}{
\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 ) at 8-14 (Dec. & Ord. re Mot. to Supp.).
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 In light of 
the reversal and remand ordered by this court, we therefore leave the task of resolving this factual discrepancy to the trial court, as part of its reconsideration of the present case in accordance with the rules set forth in this opinion.}}}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\b\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 II.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par }{\b\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 [9]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 This court has jurisdiction over an appeal from a Superior Court decision and order granting a motion to suppress evidence.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 7 GCA }{\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 \'a7}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  3107(b) (2005); 8 GCA }{\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 \'a7}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  130.20(a)(6) (2005).}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\b\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 III.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par }{\b\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 [10]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 A motion to suppress is reviewed de novo by this court.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 People v. Sangalang}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 2001 Guam 18 }{\insrsid6633104\charrsid15027532 \'b6}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  10 (citing }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 People v. Hualde}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 1999 Guam 3 }{
\insrsid6633104\charrsid15027532 \'b6}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  19).}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 We review de novo the voluntariness of a waiver of }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  rights, and review for clear error the knowing and intelligent nature of the waiver.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 [11]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The legal question of whether }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 warnings were adequate is subject to de novo review. }{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 United States v. Connell}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 869 F.2d 1349, 1351 (9th Cir. 1989); }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 see United States v. Hernandez}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
, 93 F.3d 1493, 1501 (10th Cir. 1996).}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Jurisdictions applying this standard have stated:}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 De novo review is appropriate because the adequacy of }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 warnings involves application of a legal standard to a set of facts, which require[s] the consideration of legal concepts and involves the exercise of judgment about the values underlying the legal principles.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 . . .}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 In contrast, the factual findings underlying the adequacy challenge, such as what a defendant was told, are subject to clearly erroneous review.}
{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 .}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 (}{\insrsid9594614\charrsid15027532 citations and quotation marks omitted}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
); }{\i\insrsid9594614\charrsid15027532 see}{\insrsid9594614\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 United States v. Caldwell}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 954 F.2d 496, 501 n.8 (8th Cir.1992).}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 

\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\b\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 IV.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par }{\b\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 [12]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The decision of the trial court was anchored by its analysis of }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Missouri v. Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
, 542 U.S. 600 (2004), decided by the United States Supreme Court.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Thus, the primary focus of the present case is the trial court}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s interpretation and application of }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 .}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par }{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par }{\b\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 [13]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The People argue that the trial court erred in applying }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 when it applied the multi-factor test laid out in the plurality opinion instead of the test articulated in Justice Kennedy}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s concurring opinion.}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The People thus assert that the trial court failed to make the requisite determination of whether the police deliberately used a }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 question-first}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  interrogation technique.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
Alternatively, the People maintain that even if the trial court found deliberate use of the question-first technique, the presence of Angoco}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s parents during the post-}{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  phase of questioning and the length of time between the pre-}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  and post-}{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  statements constituted sufficient curative measures that justified admission of the post-}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
statement.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The People further assert that Angoco}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s waiver of }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  rights and his statements thereafter were voluntary, knowing and intelligent.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 [14]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Angoco argues that the trial court properly employed }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  since the trial court}{
\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s review considered the factors discussed in both the plurality opinion and concurrence.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
Angoco asserts that the facts of the instant case are substantially similar to those the plurality noted in justifying suppression.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Angoco maintains that the trial cou
rt found that the question-first technique was}{\insrsid9137703\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 deliberately used and that the record was devoid of evidence indicating curative measures taken by police.}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 In addition, Angoco asserts that the trial court held that the waiver was neither knowing nor intelligent.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
Angoco further maintains that the failure to advise him of }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  rights was neither accidental nor inadvertent.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\b\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 A.\tab The }{\b\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert }{\b\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Plurality Opinion}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\b\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 [15]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The first issue this court must determine is whether the trial court properly applied the 
}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  analysis in suppressing Angoco}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s post-}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  statement. }{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 [16]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 In }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
, the defendant was arrested and transported to a police station, where she was questioned by an officer for 30 to 40 minutes without being advised of her }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 rights.}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 542 U.S. at 604-605.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The officer later testified that he made a }{
\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 conscious decision}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  to withhold }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 warnings and used the }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 question-first}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 interrogation technique he had been taught.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id.}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  at 605-606.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
An officer utilizing the question-first technique would }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 question first, then give the warnings, and then repeat the question }{\insrsid15157051\charrsid15027532 \lquote }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 until [the officer] get[s] the answer that [the suspect] already provided once.}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id.}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  at 606.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 During the interrogation, the officer squeezed the defendant}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 
\rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s arm and repeated statements suggesting the defendant}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s involvement in the crime.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 . at 604-605.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
After the defendant made incriminating statements, she was allowed to take a 20-minute break to smoke and drink coffee.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id.}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  at 605.}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The officer then issued }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
warnings to the defendant, obtained a signed waiver from her, and resumed questioning of the defendant, which he now recorded.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 .}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 During this warned second phase of questioning, the officer mentioned that they had been talking about the incident an
d then confronted the defendant with her previous unwarned statements.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 .}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
The officer }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 acknowledged that [the defendant}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s] ultimate statement was }{
\insrsid15157051\charrsid15027532 \lquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 largely a repeat of information . . . obtained}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  prior to the warning.}{
\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id. }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 at 606.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 [17]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The United States Supreme Court in a plurality opinion denounced the question-first technique used by the officer, stating that }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 [b]y any objective measure, applied to circumstances exemplified here, it is likely that if the interrogators employ the technique of withholding 
warnings until after [the] interrogation succeeds in eliciting a confession, the warnings will be ineffective in preparing the suspect for successive interrogation, close in time and similar in content.}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id.}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  at 613.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Thus, when }{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  warnings are inserted in the midst of coordinated and continuing interrogation, they are likely to mislead and }{\insrsid15157051\charrsid15027532 \lquote }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 depriv[e] a defendant of knowledge essential to his ability to understand the nature of his rights and the consequences of abandoning them.}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94
}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id.}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  at 613-614 (quoting }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Moran v. Burbine}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 475 U.S. 412, 424 (1986)).}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 [18]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The Court stated that }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
[t]he threshold issue when interrogators question first and warn later is thus whether it would be reasonable to find that in these circumstances the warnings could function }{\insrsid15157051\charrsid15027532 \lquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
effectively}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  as }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  requires.}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id.}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  at 611-612.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
The Court then considered five factors to be used in examining the effectiveness of }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 warnings administered when suspects are so questioned first.}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The Court specifically considered:}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
[1] the completeness and detail of the questions and answers in the first round of interrogation, [2] the overlapping content of the two statements, [3] the timing and setting of the first and the second [rounds of interrogation], [4] the continuity of po
lice personnel, and [5] the degree to which the interrogator}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s questions treated the second round as continuous with the first.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 . at 615.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Viewing the facts in light of these five factors, the Court noted that }{
\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 [t]he warned phase of questioning proceeded after a pause of only 15 to 20 minutes, in the same place as the unwarned segment}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  and }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 the police did not advise [the defendant] that her prior statement could not be used.}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 . at 616.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The Court found that }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 [w]hen the police were finished there was little, if anything, of incriminating potential left unsaid.}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 .}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The Court also found that }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 [t]he impression that the further }{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 questioning was a mere continuation of the earlier questions and responses was fostered by references back to the confession already given,}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 and concluded that }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
[i]t would have been reasonable to regard the two sessions as parts of a continuum, in which it would have been unnatural to refuse to repeat at the second stage what had been said before.}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id.}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  at 616-617.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The Court then held that the defendant}{
\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s post-warning statements were inadmissible after concluding that }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
[t]hese circumstances must be seen as challenging the comprehensibility and efficacy of the }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  warnings to the point that a reasonable person in the suspect}{
\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s shoes would not have understood them to convey a message that she retained a choice about continuing to talk.}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id.}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  at 617. }{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 [19]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The trial court in the present case stated:}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 When faced with a 
}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  challenge, the court is required to engage in a totality of the circumstances inquiry in order to determine if the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.}{
\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Appellant}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s Excerpts of Record (}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 
\'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 ER}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 ) at 9 (Dec. & Ord. re Mot. to Supp.) (citing }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Wyrick v. Fields}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
, 459 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1982)).}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 trial court then stated that the analysis in }{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  was applicable to a totality of the circumstances inquiry into the validity of a }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 waiver.}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The trial court did not find the }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 case to be independent grounds for suppression, separate from the }{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 inquiry.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The trial court also did not assess the validity of the }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  waiver according to the well-established principles previously recognized by this court.}{\insrsid8477237\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The trial court instead held that the }{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 analysis was controlling in determining the legitimacy of Angoco}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s waiver of }{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 rights.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 In doing so, the trial court found the }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  facts to be substantially similar to those in the present case.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
The trial court also listed the same five factors above and analyzed the facts of the present case in accordance with the factors, ultimately determining that Angoco}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s post-}{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 written statement was inadmissible and must be suppressed. }{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\b\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 B.\tab The }{\b\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert }{\b\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
Concurring Opinion by Justice Kennedy}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\b\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 [20]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Because }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
was decided by a plurality of the United States Supreme Court, the People argue that the trial court in the present case erred in applying the }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 holding enunciated by the four Justices to the present case. }{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 [21]\tab }{\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 When a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, }{
\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 \lquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 the holding of the Court may be viewed as the position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds. . . .}{\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 
\rquote \'94}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Marks v. United States}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977) (quoting }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Gregg v. Georgia}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 428 U.S. 153, 169 n.15 (1976)).}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Citing this decree from the Court, a majority of circuits have held that Justice Kennedy}{
\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s concurrence represents the }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  holding.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 United States v. Williams}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 435 F.3d 1148, 1157-1158 (9th Cir. 2006); }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 United States v. Ollie}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
, 442 F.3d 1135, 1142 (8th Cir. 2006); }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 United States v. Courtney}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 463 F.3d 333, 338 (5th Cir. 2006); }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 United States v. Mashburn}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 406 F.3d 303, 308-309 (4th Cir. 2005); }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 see}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 United States v. Stewart}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
, 388 F.3d 1079, 1086-1087, 1090 (7th Cir. 2004) and }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 United States v. Kiam}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 432 F.3d 524, 532 (3d Cir. 2006).}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
We agree with these circuits, and conclude that the trial court erred by analyzing the present case according to the holding of the }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 plurality.}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 We therefore hold that the concurrence of Justice Kennedy is the holding of }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
, and the rules therein should have been applied by the trial court in determining whether Angoco}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s post-}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  statement was admissible. }{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 [22]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Justice Kennedy}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s concurrence in }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  stated that the question-first technique was }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 designed to circumvent }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 ,}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  and }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 further[ed] no legitimate countervailing interest.}{
\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 542 U.S. at 618, 621.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
Again, the question-first technique involves unwarned questioning, followed by the advisement of }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  rights after a confession has been made.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }
{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 . at 613.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Departing from the plurality, Justice Kennedy}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 concurrence held that the que}{\insrsid8454157\charrsid15027532 stion-first technique should be }{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\insrsid8454157\charrsid15027532 s}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 crutinized only when it has been deliberately used, stating that }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 a multifactor test that a
pplies to every two-stage interrogation may serve to undermine [}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s] clarity.}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 . at 622.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Under this narrower test, if the question-first technique was }{
\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 used in a calculated way to undermine the }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  warning,}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  then post-}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  statements }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
that are related to the substance of prewarning statements}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  must be suppressed, unless }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
specific, curative steps}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  were taken before the post-}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  statements were made.}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 . at 621-622.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
The concurrence stated that such curative steps included: a substantial break in time and circumstances between the unwarned statements and the }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 warning; or, an additional warning regarding the inadmissibility of unwarned statements.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 . at 622.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 These curative steps must }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 ensure that a reasonable person in the suspect}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s situation would understand the import and effect}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  of the warning and the waiver. }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 .}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 If the interrogator does not use }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
this deliberate, two-step strategy, predicated upon violating}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  during an extended interview,}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 the concurrence held that }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Oregon v. Elstad}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 470 U.S. 298 (1985), governed the admissibility of post-}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
statements.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 . at 621-622.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 [23]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Considering the }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  facts, the concurrence found that }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 [t]he police used a two-step questioning technique based on a deliberate violation of }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 .}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id.}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  at 620.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The concurrence stated:}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The officer confronted the defendant with her inadmissible prewarning statements and pushed her to acknowledge them. . . .}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Reference to the prewarning statement was an implicit suggestion that the mere repetition of the earlier statement was not independently incriminating.}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The implicit suggestion was false. }{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id.}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  at 621.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
The concurrence then held that the defendant}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s post-}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  statements were inadmissible because }{
\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 [n]o curative steps were taken.}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id.}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 at 622.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 1.\tab Deliberate Use of Question-First Technique}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 [24]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  concurrence}{\cs15\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid1192216  }{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 
All references to the }{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\i\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 Seibert}{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911  concurrence}{
\fs20\insrsid1192216 \'94}{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911  herein refer to the concurring opinion by Justice Kennedy.}}}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 did not establish a test for determining whether the question-first technique was deliberately used.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 542 U.S. at 618-622.}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 One circuit has offered guidance on the deliberateness inquiry.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Williams}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
, 435 F.3d at 1158; }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 compare Ollie}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 442 F.3d at 1141-1143; }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Stewart}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 388 F.3d at 1089-1090; }{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Kiam}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 432 F.3d at 532.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The Ninth Circuit, recognizing that such a test was lacking, held that }{
\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 in determining whether the interrogator deliberately withheld the }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 warning, courts should consider whether objective evidence and any available subjective evidence, such as an officer}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
s testimony, support an inference that the two-step interrogation procedure was used to undermine the }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  warning.}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Williams}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 435 F.3d at 1158.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The Ninth Circuit stated that }{
\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
[s]uch objective evidence would include the timing, setting and completeness of the prewarning interrogation, the continuity of police personnel and the overlapping content of the pre- and postwarning statements.}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 . at 1159.
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 [25]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The objective evidence listed by the Ninth Circuit is similar to four of the factors listed in the }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  plurality opinion:}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
the completeness and detail of the questions and answers in the first round of interrogation, the overlapping content of the two statements, the timing and setting of the first and the second, and the continuity of police personnel.}{
\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 542 U.S. at 615.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The }{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  plurality, however, used the factors to determine whether mid-interrogation }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 warnings were effective in informing the defendant of his rights and the consequences of waiving them.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 . at 614-617.}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The factors were not used to determine whether the question-first technique was deliberately used.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
Though the Ninth Circuit did not reconcile this difference in laying out its test, it stated that the objective inquiry into deliberateness }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
function[s] practically as an analysis of whether the facts of a particular case more closely resemble those in }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  or }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Elstad}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 .}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Williams}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 435 F.3d at 1162 n.16.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Again, the officer in }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  testified that he intentionally withheld warnings and used a technique he had been taught.}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 542 U.S. at 604-606.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 In }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Elstad}
{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , the United States Supreme Court characterized the officer}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s failure to warn as an }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 oversight.}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Elstad}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 470 U.S. at 315-316.}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 In short, under the Ninth Circuit test, the objective evidence is relevant to the extent it demonstrates the facts of a case to be comparable to those in either }{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 or }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Elstad}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 .}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 [26]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The Ninth Circuit also stated that in determining whether the question-first technique was deliberately used, a court should also consider }{
\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 available expressions of subjective intent suggesting that the officer acted deliberately to undermine and obscure the warning}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s meaning and effect.}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Williams}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 435 F.3d at 1160.}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The Ninth Circuit reasoned that:}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 By focusing on both }{\insrsid8021747\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
facts apart from intent that show the question-first tactic at work,}{\insrsid1537634\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 . . . and any available subjective evidence of deliberateness, courts will better ensure that law enforcement officers do not circumvent the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination through the use of }{\insrsid1537634\charrsid15027532 \'93}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 interrogation practices . . . likely}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 . . . to disable [an individual] from making a free and rational choice}{\insrsid8021747\charrsid15027532 \'94}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  about speaking.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id.}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  at 1159 (citations omitted).}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 [27]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Because the }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 concurrence is silent on a method for determining whether the question-first technique was deliberately used to undermine }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , we therefore adopt the Ninth Circuit test in }{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Williams }{\insrsid5638903\charrsid15027532 discussed above.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid4013736\charrsid15027532 In addition, }{\insrsid16083784\charrsid15027532 to provide clarity, }{
\insrsid4013736\charrsid15027532 we hold that a trial court must evaluate }{\insrsid16083784\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid4013736\charrsid15027532 the timing and setting of the first and the second }{\insrsid16083784\charrsid15027532 [}{
\insrsid4013736\charrsid15027532 rounds of interrogation}{\insrsid16083784\charrsid15027532 ]\'94}{\insrsid4013736\charrsid15027532  as part of the objectiv}{\insrsid16083784\charrsid15027532 e evidence considered under }{\insrsid5638903\charrsid15027532 
the }{\i\insrsid5638903\charrsid15027532 Williams}{\insrsid5638903\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid16083784\charrsid15027532 test}{\insrsid4013736\charrsid15027532 .}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5638903\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{
\insrsid5638903\charrsid15027532 , 542 U.S. at 615.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid16083784\charrsid15027532 Pursuant to the }{\i\insrsid16083784\charrsid15027532 Williams}{\insrsid16083784\charrsid15027532  test, t}{
\insrsid5638903\charrsid15027532 his additional objective evidence,}{\insrsid16083784\charrsid15027532  originally discussed in the }{\i\insrsid16083784\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid16083784\charrsid15027532 
 plurality opinion, is relevant to the extent it demonstrat}{\insrsid5638903\charrsid15027532 es the facts of a case to be comparable to those in either }{\i\insrsid5638903\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5638903\charrsid15027532  or }{
\i\insrsid5638903\charrsid15027532 Elstad}{\insrsid5638903\charrsid15027532 .}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5638903\charrsid15027532 Williams}{\insrsid5638903\charrsid15027532 , 435 F.3d at 1162 n.16.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  
}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Consequently, two things must be considered in determining such }{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 deliberateness:}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 objective evidence, including the timing, setting and completeness of the unwarned phase of questioning,}{
\insrsid5638903\charrsid15027532  the timing and setting of the first and the second}{\insrsid2909022\charrsid15027532  rounds of interrogation}{\insrsid5638903\charrsid15027532 ,}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  the continuity of police personnel}{
\insrsid5638903\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 and the overlapping content of the warned and unwarned statements; and, available subjective evidence, such as an officer}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s testimony. }{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 [28]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  concurrence also did not establish the burden of proof for establi
shing the deliberate use of the question-first technique, and thus which party bore such a burden.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 542 U.S. at 618-622; }{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Williams}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 435 F.3d at 1159 n.11; }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Ollie}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 442 F.3d at 1142.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Noticing this omission, the Eighth Circuit held that }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 when a defendan
t moves to suppress a post-warning statement that he contends was given as part of a question-first interrogation, the prosecution must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the officer}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s failure to provide warnings at the outset of questioning was not part of a deliberate attempt to circumvent }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 .}{
\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Ollie}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 442 F.3d at 1142-1143.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
The Eighth Circuit noted that its holding comported with Supreme Court precedent and other practical considerations.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id.}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  at 1143.}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 [29]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
We therefore hold that the prosecution bears the burden of proof for establishing deliberateness, and thus must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the failure to issue }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  warnings was not pursuant to the deliberate use of the question-first technique.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\b\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\b\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 2.\tab Curative Measures}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par }{\b\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 [30]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 If the objective evidence and available subjective evidence discussed above demonstrate that the question-first technique was deliberately used to undermine }{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , then the }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  concurrence requires suppression of post-}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  statements related in substance to unwarned statements, unless curative measures were taken prior to procurement of the warned statements.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 542 U.S. at 621-622.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Again, the curative measures discussed in the }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
concurrence }{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 were: a substantial break in time and circumstances between the unwarned statements and the }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
warning; or, an additional warning regarding the inadmissibility of the unwarned statements.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 . at 622.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 [31]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Other circuits that have analyzed the }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 concurrence agree that the presence of curative measures must be considered upon establishing that the question-first technique had been deliberately used.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Williams}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 435 F.3d at 1160-1161; }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Ollie}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 442 F.3d at 1142; }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Stewart}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
, 388 F.3d at 1089-1090;}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  Courtney}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 463 F.3d at 338; }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Mashburn}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 406 F.3d at 309;}{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  Kiam}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 432 F.3d at 532.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
The Ninth Circuit, however, stated that where deliberateness has been shown, the five factors discussed by the }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 plurality must also be applied in determining the effectiveness of the later }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  warnings. }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Williams}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
, 435 F.3d at 1160-1161.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 This test for the effectiveness of the warning departs from other circuits}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 interpretation of the concurrence.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Ollie}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 442 F.3d at 1142; }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Stewart}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
, 388 F.3d at 1089-1090;}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  Courtney}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 463 F.3d at 338; }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Mashburn}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 406 F.3d at 309;}{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  Kiam}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 432 F.3d at 532. Though the }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
concurrence was silent on the method for determining deliberate use of the question-first technique, it explicitly discussed certain curative measures to be considered.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 542 U.S. at 621-622.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 We decline to adopt the Ninth Circuit}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
s test for the effectiveness of mid-interrogation }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 warnings, and conclude that upon a finding of deliberateness, only curative measures need be considered in determining whether post-}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  statements should be suppressed.}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\b\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 3.\tab Non-Deliberate Use of Question-First Technique (}{\b\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Elstad}{
\b\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  Test)}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par }{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 [32]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 If consideration of objective evidence and available subjective evidence pursuant to the}{\insrsid2909022\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid2951783\charrsid15027532 
test for deliberateness }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 indicates that the question-first technique was not deliberately used to undermine }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , the }{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  concurrence states that}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  Elstad}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  governs the admissibility of post-}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
Miranda }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 statements.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 . at 622. }{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 [33]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 In }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Elstad}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , police arrived at the defendant}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s home with a warrant for his arrest in connection with a criminal investigation.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Elstad}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 470 U.S. at 300-301.}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 An officer questioned the defendant without issuing }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
warnings in the living room, where the defendant confessed to being present at the crime scene.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 . at 301.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{
\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The arresting officers}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 testimony indicate[d] that the brief stop in the living room before proceeding to the station house was not to interrogate the suspect but to notify his mother of the reason for his arrest.}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 . at 315.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The defendant was then transported to a sheriff}{
\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s headquarters about an hour later, where he was advised of and subsequently waived his }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  rights.}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 . at 301.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
The defendant explained his involvement in the crime by giving a full statement, which he reviewed, and which was read back to him for correction.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 .}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The defendant and the two arresting officers signed the statement.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id.}{
\i\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 [34]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The United States Supreme Court stated that the failure to issue }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 warnings }{
\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 may have been the result of confusion as to whether the brief exchange qualified as }{\insrsid15157051\charrsid15027532 \lquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
custodial interrogation}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  or it may simply have reflected [the officer}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
s] reluctance to initiate an alarming police procedure}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  before speaking with the defendant}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s mother.}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id.}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  at 315-316.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The Court then characterized the failure to warn as an }{
\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 oversight,}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  and found that }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
the incident had none of the earmarks of coercion.}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id.}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  at 316.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 It held that }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
a suspect who has once responded to unwarned yet uncoercive questioning is not thereby disabled from waiving his rights and confessing after he has been given the requisite }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 warnings.}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 . at 318.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 [35]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  concurrence noted that the suspect in }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Elstad}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 had not received a }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
warning before making the statement, apparently because it was not clear whether the suspect was in custody at the time.}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 542 U.S. at 619.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The concurrence then distinguished }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Elstad}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , stating }{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 that in }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  the }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
warning was withheld to obscure both the practical and legal significance of the admonition when finally given.}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 . at 620.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 [36]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The United States Supreme Court in }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Elstad}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  recognized that a }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 simple failure to administer the warnings, unaccompanied by any actual coercion or other circumstances calculated to undermine the suspect}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
s ability to exercise his free will}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  did not alone render a later warned statement inadmissible.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Elstad}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 470 U.S. at 309.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 In such circumstances, the finder of fact may
 reasonably conclude that the suspect made a rational and intelligent choice whether to waive or invoke his rights.}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 . at 314.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The Court stated that }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 [t]hough }{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  requires that the unwarned admission must be suppressed, the admissibility of any subse
quent statement should turn in these circumstances solely on whether it is knowingly and voluntarily made.}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 . at 309.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
As in any such inquiry, the finder of fact must examine the surrounding circumstances and the entire course of police conduct with respect to the suspect in evaluating the voluntariness of his statements.}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 . at 318.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 [37]\tab }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The voluntariness of a statement is an issue of fact that must be proven by the Government by a preponderance of the evidence.}{
\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Borja v. People}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , Crim. No. 81-00049A, 1983 WL 29949 at *3 (D. Guam App. Div. May 26, 1983).}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
Whether a statement is voluntary or not depends on whether the [suspect] knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional rights pursuant to }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 . . . .}{
\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 .}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 This court ha
s stated that the voluntary, knowing and intelligent nature of a }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  waiver is to be gleaned from the totality of the circumstances, which includes }{
\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 the background, experience and conduct of the defendant.}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Sangalang}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 2001 Guam 18 }{\insrsid6633104\charrsid15027532 \'b6}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  13 (quoting }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 United States v. Garibay}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
, 143 F.3d 534, 536 (9th Cir. 1998)).}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Two distinct dimensions}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 must be considered in determining the validity of a waiver:}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 First, the relinquishment of the right must have been voluntary in the sense that it was the product of a free and
 deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
Second, the waiver must have been made with a full awareness both of the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Only if the }{
\insrsid15157051\charrsid15027532 \lquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 reveal both an uncoerced choice and the requisite level of comprehension may a court properly conclude that the }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  rights have been waived.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 

\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Hualde}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 1999 Guam 3 }{\insrsid6633104\charrsid15027532 \'b6}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  30 (quoting }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Moran v. Burbine}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 475 U.S. 412, 421). }{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 [38]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 In short, if deliberate use of the question-first technique is not found, then the admissibility of post-}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  statements hinges on: whether the warned statements were given knowingly and voluntarily; and, whether the warned statements were made subsequent to unwarned statements that were neither coerced nor the product of }{
\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 other circumstances calculated to undermine the suspect}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s ability to exercise his free will.}{
\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Elstad}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 470 U.S. at 309.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 [39]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Thus, pursuant to the }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  
concurrence, the first issue is whether the question-first technique was deliberately used to undermine }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 .}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 If it was so used, the next issue is whether certain curative measures were employed.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
If such deliberate use of the question-first technique is not found, then }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Elstad}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 governs, and the inquiry shifts to an examination of the knowing and voluntary nature of the warned and unwarned statements, based on the totality of the circumstances.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 [40]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 In the present case, the trial court essentially found that the question-first technique was utilized by Officer Guzman.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The trial court did not, however, make a specific factual finding as to whether the technique was deliberately used.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 [41]\tab }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 This court undertakes de novo review of the trial court}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
s legal conclusion[s] . . . . }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Guam Imaging Consultants, Inc. v. Guam Mem}{\i\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 l Hosp. Auth.}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 2004 Guam 15 }{\insrsid6633104\charrsid15027532 \'b6}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  15 (quoting }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 People v. Johnson}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 1997 Guam 9 }{\insrsid6633104\charrsid15027532 \'b6}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  3.)}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
We review a trial court}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s findings of fact for clear error.}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
Pac. Rock Corp. v. Dep}{\i\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 t of Educ.}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 2001 Guam 21 }{\insrsid6633104\charrsid15027532 \'b6}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  13.}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The facts are . . . construed in a light most favorable }{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 t}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
o the party prevailing at the trial level.}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 People v. Johnson}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 1997 Guam 9 }{
\insrsid6633104\charrsid15027532 \'b6}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  3.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 A finding is clearly erroneous when, even though some evi
dence supports it, the entire record produces the definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a mistake.}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Yang v. Hong}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 1998 Guam 9 }{\insrsid6633104\charrsid15027532 \'b6}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  7 (quoting }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 People v.}{\i\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
Chargualaf}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , Civ. No. 88-00068A, 1989 WL 265040 at *2 (D. Guam App. Div. Sept. 26, 1989)).}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 [42]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Again, the trial court failed to make a factual finding on deliberate use of the question-first technique.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Thus, this court cannot conduct a review for clear error since there is no factual finding by the trial court which can be subjected to such review. }{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 [43]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The record also contains testimony with regard to the use of the question-first technique that may or may not support a finding of deliberateness.}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Officer Guzman described the officers}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 questioning of Angoco, including the questions Officer Guzman asked before }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 warnings were issued, as an }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 interview.}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Transcripts (}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Tr.}{
\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 ), Vol. III at 81-82 (Cont}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 d. Mot. to Supp., Nov. 16, 2005).}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Officer Guzman stated that an unwarned interview was permissible as part of the }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 crash investigation process.}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 
\'94}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Tr., Vol. III at 129 (Cont}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 d. Mot. to Supp., Nov. 16, 2005).}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Officer Guzman said that unwarned interviews were }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 not a specific technique}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  he was taught, and that }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 [i]t}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s more or less common sense}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 too that you first have to ask what}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s going on before you get in detail as to the investigation itself.}{
\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Tr., Vol. III at 163 (Cont}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 d. Mot. to Supp., Nov. 16, 2005).}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Officer Guzman replied that an interview differed from an interrogation.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Tr., Vol. III at 169 (Cont}{
\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 d. Mot. to Supp., Nov. 16, 2005).}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
Officer Guzman responded that he believed the unwarned interviews complied with }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 .}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
Tr., Vol. III at 170 (Cont}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 d. Mot. to Supp., Nov. 16, 2005).}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
Officer Guzman also replied that the unwarned interviews were part of the training he received.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Tr., Vol. III at 171 (Cont}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 d. Mot. to Supp., Nov. 16, 2005).}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 [44]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Without a factual finding by the trial court of deliberate use, this court cannot determine the appropriate analysis pursuant to the }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
Seibert }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 concurrence.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 This is so because an inquiry into the use of curative measures or application of the }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
Elstad}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  test hinges on a finding of deliberateness.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Under these circumstances, we decli
ne to make a determination of whether the question-first technique was deliberately used.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 We therefore reverse the trial court}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s decision to suppress Angoco}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s post-}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
written statement and remand this case to determine whether Officer Guzman deliberately used the question-first technique to undermine }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 .}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  

\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 [45]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The trial court, pursuant to this remand, must weigh the objective evidence and available subjective evidence }{\insrsid2951783\charrsid15027532 previously }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 discussed to determine whether the question-first technique was deliberately used by Officer Guzman to undermine }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 .}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 If the trial court finds that Officer Guzman so deliberately used the technique, it must suppress Angoco}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
s post-}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  statement, unless the curative steps discussed in the }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  concurrence were employed.}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Otherwise, if such deliberate use is not found, the admissibility of the post-}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
statement hinges on whether the totality of the circumstances indicates the warned and unwarned statements were made knowingly and voluntarily. }{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\b\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 C.\tab Parental Notification Pursuant to 19 GCA }{\b\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 \'a7}{
\b\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  5111}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 [46]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The People argue that the trial court erred by suppressing Angoco}{
\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s statements based on 19 GCA }{\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 \'a7}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  5111 (2005).}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The People assert that the police did not know Angoco was a minor for some time and therefore the statute supplied no basis for suppression.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
The People maintain that the police complied with the statute}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s mandate to contact the parents as soon as possible.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Furthermore, the People assert that the statute did not mandate automatic suppression upon violation of the law. }{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 [47]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Angoco argues that section 5111 was a proper basis for suppression because the trial court found that Angoco was a minor and that the police did not contact 
the parents as soon as possible pursuant to the statute.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Angoco asserts that the violation of the statute was prejudicial to him and caused him to make his post-}{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  statements.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Angoco maintains that the behavior of the police undermined the purpose of the statute.}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 [48]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The notification provision of section 5111, described by the trial court as the }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
Parental Notification Act,}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  states:}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 (a)}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 When any child violating any law or any rule or regulation with the force and effect of law}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , or whose surroundings are such as to endanger his welfare, }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
is taken into custody, such taking into custody shall not be termed an arrest}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 .}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
The jurisdiction of the court shall attach from the time of such taking into custody.}{\i\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
When a child is so taken into custody, such officer shall cause the parent, guardian or custodian of the child to be notified as soon as possible.}{\i\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
Whenever possible, unless otherwise ordered by the court, such child shall be released to the custody of his 
parent or other responsible adult upon the written promise, signed by such person, to bring the child to the court at a stated time or at such time as the court may direct.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
Such written promise, accompanied by a written report by the officer, shall be submitted to the court as soon as possible.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
If such person shall fail to produce the child as agreed or upon notice from the court, a summons or warrant may be issued for the apprehension of such person or of the child.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 19 GCA }{\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 \'a7}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  5111(a) (2005) (emphases added).}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 [49]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 This court conducts de novo review of statutory interpretation issues.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 People v. Flores}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 2004 Guam 18 }{\insrsid6633104\charrsid15027532 \'b6}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  8 (citations omitted).}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 [O]ur duty is to interpret statutes in light of their terms and legislative intent.}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 .}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The plain meaning of the statute }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 prevails,}{
\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  where there is no }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 clear legislative intent to the contrary.}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 .}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
[Q]uestions of statutory interpretation may be aided by reference to the prevailing interpretation of other statutes that share the same language and either have the same general purpose or deal with the same general subject as the statute under }{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 consideration.}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Aguon v. Gutierrez}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 2002 Guam 14 }{
\insrsid6633104\charrsid15027532 \'b6}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  11 (quoting }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Santos v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv.}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 525 F.Supp. 655, 666 (S.D.N.Y. 1981)).}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 [50]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The trial court stated that section 5111 required officers to contact Angoco}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
s parents as soon as possible after taking Angoco into custody since it was undisputed that Angoco was a minor.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The trial court also adopted the Guam Superior Court}{
\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s reasoning and holding in }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 People v.}{\i\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Mendiola}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , CF0118-01 (Super. Ct. Guam Aug. 17, 2001), }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 [t]o provide meaningful protection to the notification requirements}{
\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  in section 5111.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 ER at 12 (Dec. & Ord. re Mot. to Supp.).}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The trial court then found that the police failed to contact Angoco}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
s parents as soon as possible and allowed him to make incriminating statements in the absence of his parents.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The trial court held that }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 with respect to the written statement[,] . . . the Parental Notification Act and the dangers set out in }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 [,] comb
ined[,] provided a set of circumstances such that the minor, once the confessions or statements were made, even despite the presence of his parents[,] could not effectively avail himself of his rights to }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 .}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 ER at 11 (Dec. & Ord. re Mot. to Supp.). }{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 [51]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The next issue this court must decide is whether the trial court properly held that section 5111 provided a basis for suppressing Angoco}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 
\rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s post-}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 statements.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 We thus look to the statute}{
\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s legislative intent, plain language as well as relevant case law interpreting similar statutes to determine the propriety of the trial court}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 
\rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s holding.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 1.\tab Legislative Intent}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 [52]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Section 5111 was based on section 260 of the Guam Code of Civil Procedure, which was enacted in 1953 and supposedly adapted from the California code of the same name.}{
\cs15\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa200\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid14892552 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\cs15\super\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid1192216  }{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 The }{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 Foreword (1953)}{\fs20\insrsid1192216 \'94}{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911  of the Code of Civil Procedure of the {\*\xmlopen\xmlns1{\factoidname place}}{\*\xmlopen\xmlns1{\factoidname PlaceType}}Territory
{\*\xmlclose} of {\*\xmlopen\xmlns1{\factoidname PlaceName}}Guam}{\fs20\insrsid1192216 {\*\xmlclose}{\*\xmlclose} states:}{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\sa200\keepn\widctlpar\tx-720\wrapdefault\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid14892552 {\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 This book and its accompanying volume contain the revised and amended Civil, Civil Procedure, Penal and Probate Codes of Guam.  . . .  The original codes published under the Naval Government were adapted from the 
{\*\xmlopen\xmlns1{\factoidname State}}{\*\xmlopen\xmlns1{\factoidname place}}California{\*\xmlclose}{\*\xmlclose} codes of the same name.  Although subsequent changes in the {\*\xmlopen\xmlns1{\factoidname State}}{\*\xmlopen\xmlns1{\factoidname place}}
California{\*\xmlclose}{\*\xmlclose} statutes have resulted in many major differences between the two sets of codes today, they are still identical or comparable as to many of their sections.  Consequently, there is a large body of co
urt decisions and other legal }{\fs20\expnd2\expndtw10\insrsid1192216\charrsid8477237 literature available to aid in the interpretation of the various sections}{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 
. . . .  The result is that these present volumes constitute revised and amended editions of the previously printed codes rather than entirely new compilations[.]}{\fs20\insrsid1192216 \'94  }{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 Guam Code Civ. Proc. \'a7 260 (1970) (codified at 19 GCA \'a7 5111 (2005)) (}{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 Foreword (1953)}{\fs20\insrsid1192216 \'94}{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911  at iv-v).}}}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 19 GCA }{\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 \'a7}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  5111; Guam Code Civ. Proc. }{\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 \'a7}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  260 (1970) (codified at 19 GCA }{
\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 \'a7}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  5111 (2005)) (}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Foreword (1953)}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 at iv-v); }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 see also Torres v. Torres}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 2005 Guam 22 }{\insrsid6633104\charrsid15027532 \'b6}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  33, n.6.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Section 260 of the California Code of Civil Procedure was added by statute in 1951, but later repealed by statute in 1953.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code }{
\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 \'a7}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  260 (West, Westlaw through Ch. 1 of 2007 Reg. Sess. urgency legislation).}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
Section 260 of the California Civil Procedure code was }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 related to grades and compensation of court commissioners.}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code }{\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 \'a7}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  260 (West 1954).}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
It did not address parental notification.}{\cs15\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa160\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid14892552 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid1192216  }{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 Section 260 of the California Code of Civil Procedure stated:
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\sa160\keepn\widctlpar\tx-720\wrapdefault\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid14892552 {\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 
In any county or city and county where court commissioners may be appointed pursuant to Section 258, except where provision is made elsewhere in the law for their salaries, such commissioners when appointed shall receive a
 salary as provided in this section.  Such commissioners are of two grades, grade 1 and grade 2.  Commissioners, grade 1, shall receive an annual salary of six thousand dollars ($6,000) a year.  Commissioners, grade 2, shall receive an annual salary of fi
v
e thousand one hundred dollars ($5,100).  The superior court at the time of appointment shall designate the grade of the commissioner.  Commissioners, grade 1, are those commissioners who have performed the duties of a court commissioner or of a clerk of 
s
uperior court judges or have had equivalent experience for a period of at least five years, and who have been approved by the court for appointment to grade 1.  All other commissioners are grade 2.  The salary of a commissioner shall be paid in monthly in
s
tallments out of the salary fund of the county, or city and county, or if there is no salary fund, then out of such fund as other salary demands against the county or city and county are paid, and shall be allowed and audited in the same manner as other s
alary demands against the county or city and county are required by law to be allowed and audited.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303759 {\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 1951 {\*\xmlopen\xmlns1{\factoidname State}}{\*\xmlopen\xmlns1{\factoidname place}}Cal.{\*\xmlclose}{\*\xmlclose}
 Stat. 2862-2863. }}}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The Guam and California Civil Procedure codes thus offered no guidance on assessing whether section 5111 justified suppression of Angoco}{
\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s post-}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 statement, because the relevant sections were silent on the repercussions of a statutory violation. }{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\b\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 2.\tab Plain Language}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par }{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 [53]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The plain language of section 5111 does not specifically address the admissibility of a minor}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
s confession given when parents are not notified as soon as possible.}{\cs15\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303759 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid1192216  }{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 The remaining subsections of section 5111 state:
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\sa240\nowidctlpar\tx-720\wrapdefault\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3303759 {\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 (b) If the child is
 not released hereinabove provided, such child shall be taken without unnecessary delay to the court or to the place of detention designated by the court, and as soon as possible thereafter the fact of such detention shall be reported to the court, accomp
anied by a written report by the officer taking the child into custody stating:
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\sa240\nowidctlpar\tx-720\wrapdefault\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3303759 {\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 (1) The facts of the offense; and
\par (2) The reason why the child is not released to the parent.
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\sa240\nowidctlpar\tx-720\wrapdefault\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid3303759 {\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 Pending further disposition of the case, the court may release such child to the cu
stody of the parent or other person or may detain the child in such place as the court shall designate; subject to further order, but no child shall be held in a detention longer than two (2) days, excluding Sundays and holidays, unless an order for such 
detention is signed by the judge.
\par (c) No child shall be transported in any police vehicle which also contains adults under arrest, unless the child is alleged to have been involved with the adult also being transported in the same illegal activity or course
 of conduct; provided, also, that a child may be transported in the same police vehicle if, under the circumstances, other transportation is not available.  No child shall at any time be detained in any police station, lockup, jail or prison; except, that
 
by order of the judge in which reason therefore shall be specified, a child sixteen (16) years of age, but under eighteen (18) years of age whose conduct or condition is such as to endanger his safety or welfare or that of others in the detention facility
 for children, may be placed in a jail or other place of detention for adults, but in a room or ward entirely separate from adults confined thereon; provided that this section shall not prohibit the interrogation of a child with respect t}{
\fs20\insrsid1192216 o any felonious activity.}{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 
\par (d) provisions regarding bail shall not be applicable to children detained in accordance with }{\fs20\insrsid1192216 the provisions of this Chapter.}{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303759 {\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 19 GCA \'a7 5111.  }}}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 19 GCA }{
\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 \'a7}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  5111.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Consequently, the statute}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
s plain language is also silent on the consequences of an officer}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s failure to cause parents to be so notified.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The statute}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s plain language thus does not support the trial court}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
s suppression of Angoco}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s post-}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 statement because the plain language does not explicitly require suppression of the warned statement based on a failure to contact Angoco}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s parents as mandated.}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\b\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 3.\tab Similar Statutes and Related Case Law}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par }{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 [54]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Section 211.131 of Title XII of the Missouri Statutes states:}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 1.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 When any child fou
nd violating any law or ordinance or whose behavior, environment or associations are injurious to his welfare or to the welfare of others or who is without proper care, custody or support is taken into custody, the taking into custody is not considered an
 arrest.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 2.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 When a child is taken into custody, the parent, legal custodian or guardian of the child shall be notified as soon as possible.}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 3.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The jurisdiction of the court attaches from the time the child is taken into custody.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Mo. Ann. Stat. }{\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 \'a7}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  211.131 
(West, Westlaw through 2006 2nd Reg. Sess. of 93rd Gen. Assembly). Section 211.131 thus contains language that is substantially similar to the notification provision of section 5111.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 [55]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The Eighth Circuit considered the effect of violating this Missouri statute on the validity of a juvenile}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 waiver.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Rone v. Wyrick}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
, 764 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1985).}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The Eighth Circuit held that violation of the notification provision of section 211.131 }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 alone does not render the confession involuntary . . . .}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 [and] also does not render [the defendant}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s] confession a product of ignorance.}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 .}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 at 535 (citation omitted).}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
The Eighth Circuit instead examined the totality of the circumstances and found that the minor}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s waiver of }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 rights was made knowingly and voluntarily.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Id}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 .}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid14554913\charrsid15027532 [56]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 We agree with the Eighth Circuit}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s assessment.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Section 5111 does not provide an independent basis for suppressing Angoco}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s post-}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  statement.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The validity of Angoco}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s }{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 

\par 
\par }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  waiver would still be subject to a totality of the circumstances inquiry into whether the waiver was made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.\tab }{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 [5}{\b\insrsid14554913\charrsid15027532 7}{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 ]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
The trial court did not hold the notification provision of section 5111 to be a sole basis for suppressing Angoco}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s warned statement.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Instead, the trial court held that the notification provision, together with the concerns expressed in }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
, deprived Angoco of the effective exercise of his }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  rights.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
We therefore hold that the trial court properly considered violation of section 5111 as part of the totality of circumstances in determining whether to suppress Angoco}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s post-}{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  statement.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The plain language of the statute}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s notification provision does not require suppression of a statement made after an officer fails to cause a minor}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
s parents to be contacted as soon as possible.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The Eighth Circuit}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
s interpretation of a substantially similar statute also does not support suppression of the post-}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  statement based solely on a violation of section 5111.}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Rone}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , 764 F.2d 532.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 We also n
ote that the Guam Superior Court case referenced by the trial court is irrelevant to the issue of the admissibility of the }{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'93}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 post}{\insrsid13517015\charrsid15027532 \'94}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 -}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 statement.}{\cs15\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3303759 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid2623492  }{
\i\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 People v. Mendiola}{\fs20\insrsid1192216\charrsid10561911 , CF0118-01 (Super. Ct. Guam Aug. 17, 2001).}}}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
We thus further hold that violation of section 5111 is only one circumstance among the totality of circumstances to be considered in assessing the admissibility of the warned statement.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 However, because the trial court}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s ruling with regard to section 5111 merely supplemented its application of }{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , which we have already held to be erroneous, we therefore reverse the trial court}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
s decision to suppress Angoco}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s post-}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 statement and remand}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 this case to the trial court to determine whether Officer Guzman deliberately used the question-first technique to undermine }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 .}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\b\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 V.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15027532 {\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par }{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 [5}{\b\insrsid14554913\charrsid15027532 8}{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 ]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 We hold that the trial court erroneously applied the }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  plurality opinion in determining the admissibility of Angoco}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s post-}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  statement.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 We further hold that the concurring opinion of Justice Kennedy is the holding of }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , and pursuant to the test therein, the trial court should have first determined whether Officer Guzman deliberately used a question-first interrogation technique in purposeful contravention of }{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 .}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 We also adopt the Ninth Circuit}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s test, as articulated in }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 United States v. Williams}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
, 435 F.3d 1148 (2006), for determining whether the question-first technique was so deliberately used, because the concurrence has no such test for deliberateness.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid2951783\charrsid15027532 
In addition, we adopt one of the }{\i\insrsid2951783\charrsid15027532 Seibert}{\insrsid2951783\charrsid15027532  plurality factors as additional objective evidence to be considered under the Ninth Circuit test.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 If the trial court finds that the question-first technique was so deliberately used based on the objective evidence and available subjective evidence, the concurrence dictates suppression of the post-}{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  statement, unless curative measures are found to be employed.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
If the trial court finds that the question-first technique was not deliberately used in violation of }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , then under the }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Elstad}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  test, the trial court must consider two issues in deciding whether to suppress the post-}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  statement:}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 whether the warned statement was given knowingly and voluntarily; and, whether the warned stat
ement was made subsequent to unwarned statements that were neither coerced nor the product of circumstances intended to undermine a suspect}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s free will.}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 [5}{\b\insrsid14554913\charrsid15027532 9}{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 ]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 We also hold that violating the notification provision of 19 GCA }{
\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 \'a7}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 5111, by failing to cause parents to be notified as soon as possible that their child has been taken into custody, does not alone warrant suppression of the statements made by the child subsequent to the failure to so notify.}{
\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 The plain language of the statute and the Eighth Circuit}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
s interpretation of a substantially similar statute do not support suppression based solely on a}{\b\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 violation of 19 GCA }{\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 \'a7}{
\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  5111.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532  }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 We further hold that violation of 19 GCA }{\insrsid10561911\charrsid15027532 \'a7}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 5111 is one circumstance among the totality of circumstances to be considered in assessing the admissibility of the post-}{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda }{\insrsid15027532 statement.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 [}{\b\insrsid14554913\charrsid15027532 60}{\b\insrsid2623492\charrsid15027532 ]\tab }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Accordingly, we }{\b\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 REVERSE }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
the trial court}{\insrsid7345618\charrsid15027532 \rquote }{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 s decision to suppress the written statement Angoco gave after }{\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 
 warnings were issued, and }{\b\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 REMAND}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532  this case to the trial court to determine whether the question-first technique was deliberately used to undermine }{
\i\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 Miranda}{\insrsid5200400\charrsid15027532 , consistent with the rules }{\insrsid15027532 set forth in this opinion.}{\insrsid15027532\charrsid15027532 
\par }}