State v. Cook, 2012 Ohio 111

Incident: June 19, 2010, a shooting in Dayton; Bolton shot; Cook identified as the shooter variant “Granny.”
Custody: Cook was handcuffed and placed in the back of a police cruiser before any Miranda warnings.
Investigations: At the scene, Officer Stack obtained Cook’s verbal consent to a search of her apartment; a formal consent form was later signed.
Interviews: Detective Smith questioned Cook without Miranda warnings for about five minutes at the scene; later, Cook was Mirandized prior to a second interview at the Safety Building.
Second interview: After Miranda warning, Cook was questioned for about thirty minutes with detailed admissions; a pre-interview rights form was signed.
Procedural posture: Cook was indicted; a suppression motion sought to exclude pre-Miranda and post-Miranda statements; the trial court suppressed the pre-Miranda statements but overruled suppression for post-Miranda statements; ultimately, the appellate court sustained the assignment of error and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether post-Miranda statements were admissible	State contends post-warning statements tainted	Cook argues post-warning statements are continuation of pre-warning	Suppression required; post-warning statements tainted

Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (U.S. 2004) (rule on question-first interrogations and admissibility of post-warning statements)
Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1985) (post-Miranda confession admissible if voluntary and separate from unwarned statement)
State v. Farris, 109 Ohio St.3d 519 (Ohio 2006) (Ohio S.Ct. analyzes Seibert/Elstad continuum; post-warning statements may be inadmissible when undermined by prior unwarned questioning)
State v. Tate, 2008-Ohio-3245 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008) (cites Seibert factors in evaluating mid-stream warnings)