State v. Miller, 2012 Conn. App. LEXIS 383

Around 4 a.m. on April 26, 2008, a Fairfield University student was burglarized; a laptop and charger were stolen.
A second nearby Lantern Point resident reported an intruder matching a similar description, wearing a dark hooded jacket and light pants.
Officer Staffey observed the defendant driving near Lantern Point shortly afterward, noticed sweating, and stopped him on Fairfield Beach Road.
During the stop, the defendant consented to searches of the car’s passenger compartment and trunk, where a black jacket and a white laptop were found.
Students at the scene did not identify the defendant as the intruder, but confirmed clothing/physical build similarity; the laptop matched the first victim’s missing item.
The defendant gave inconsistent statements about the laptop’s origins, was arrested, advised of rights, and later gave a videotaped interview to Detective Dalling in which he confessed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of videotaped statement	Miller did not knowingly waive rights; tainted by prior Miranda violation.	Waiver was not knowing/voluntary; tainted by earlier Miranda violation.	Waiver valid; statement admissible; not tainted by Staffey violation.
Validity of Miranda waiver under totality of circumstances	Waiver was knowing and voluntary given multiple advisements and written waiver.	Questions about a lawyer indicated lack of understanding or coercion.	Waiver valid; defendant understood rights and voluntarily waived.
Motion to suppress physical evidence from car search	Stop tainted consent to search, tainting physical evidence.	Stop was unlawful and tainted consent.	Stop supported by reasonable suspicion; no taint to admissibility; physical evidence admitted.
Impact of Seibert/Elstad on the pre- and post-warning statements	Seibert exception should exclude post-unwarned admission.	Elstad does not cure taint; Seibert applies.	Elstad governs; no Seibert-style suppression; statements admissible.

Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (U.S. 2010) (unambiguous assertion of rights required after warnings)
Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1985) (midstream unwarned statement may be cured by later proper warnings)
Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (U.S. 2004) (question-first tactic distinguished from Elstad)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1994) (no duty to clarify ambiguous lawyer request after rights advised)
State v. Chung, 202 Conn. 39 (Conn. 1987) (express written/oral waiver strong proof of validity)
State v. Gonzalez, 302 Conn. 287 (Conn. 2011) (careful administration of warnings cures unwarned statements)
State v. Nowell, 262 Conn. 686 (Conn. 2003) (standards for reviewing suppression findings)
State v. Reynolds, 264 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2003) (deference to trial court on factual determinations)