Are there any cases where the police did not advise appellant of his Miranda rights at the beginning of their interview?

The detectives were not required to advise appellant of his Miranda rights at the beginning of the interview because not all statements obtained by the police from a suspect who is confined are the product of interrogation. (People v. Ray (1996) 13 Cal.4th 313, 337.) "Any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is, of course, admissible in evidence." (Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. at p. 478.) "Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment." (Ibid.) Appellant's contention that his subsequent statements were tainted fails because of voluntariness.

In Oregon v. Elstad (1985) 470 U.S. 298 (Elstad), an officer arrested the defendant at his house for burglary. The officer did not advise the defendant of his Miranda rights and asked him if he knew why the officer was there, and if he knew certain burglary victims. The defendant gave an incriminating response. The defendant was later transported to the police station, advised of his Miranda rights, waived them, and gave a full statement. (Elstad, supra, at pp. 300-302.) The court held that the officer's initial failure to administer Miranda warnings did not taint the statements the defendant made after proper advisement and waiver of his Miranda rights. The court explained that a suspect who responds "to unwarned yet uncoercive questioning" may

Page 20