which basically was i disagreed with by all of the other justices so it is very unique it's also unique in that it doesn't overrule l l stead the supreme court's other decision which addresses the in this in this case we have agent rahman sure who who testifies that when they feel that it's time for ethan to confess they purposely confront him with the information that they gathered that the other officers in the house had gathered up it's up to that point they wrong and you're actually uses the words that he pushes ethan he purposely lays out all the evidence of the fact that the pressure cooker is missing the fact that the soldiery iron is missing they talk about the the black powder stains that are found on the table in the back porch also talk about the why a tape that was found lays all that out that that's exactly what happened that there is an opportunity for the agents since they they deliberately set out to to confront even with all this evidence that they deliberately pushed him for a confession there something like that and then next thing you know they have a convention i mean don't you think it would be reasonable to construe that you know what the officers were saying as knowing down the only amongst themselves not only agent rahman jared agent green who were doing the questioning and they were also able to confer with the officers from the bomb squad who were doing the search of the house they conferred about the evidence that was found they planned they planned to confront ethan at that point so there's that the testimony supports that this was not a situation where a confession just sprung out however the district court found that the nd round was not continuous and that it focused on a different subject the details of how the device was built and the reasons why and then the district court also found that  the information that ethan provided after the miranda warnings but how the device was built was was different so instead of treating the continuous ness of the questioning and the overlap  different factors the court treated them as the same factor and in arriving at decision so in this case what's important also is that the agent's never advised even that should he choose to invoke his miranda rights the pre warrant confession will not be used against him and in sieber the court delves pretty deeply into this the court says that telling a suspect that anything you say can and will be used against you without expressively warning that suspect that that does not include the statement that they had just given could lead to an entirely reasonable inference that what was just said will in fact be used against us suspect and that's what happened in this case the agents in this case never even bother to tell even that if he decided to invoke those rights and the unborn confession that he had just made would not be used against without that information a reasonable person in the suspects shoes would not feel that he had a choice about whether or not to continue father's presence in the home you know that he should have known that he could have gone to his dad tried to get the cops out of there at basically any time so it even father and his brother were both president and in the house however the officers and kept them separate from ethan even was pretty much sequestered to the kitchen table he was left there immediately once the officers entered the home is there any evidence that prior to reading him his miranda rights that that the police officers told him he couldn't go visit with his dad that he couldn't go around the house i mean for all he know he would go to when he had  stop talking to them at any point the officers never conveyed that information to eat and and the father was president the father was never in the big kitchen with ethan available so speak with even the officers went right into giving the miranda warnings and then he asked one question afterwards he said do you understand this many picked right up where he left off with the questioning there was absolutely no break in other cases even person if under the circumstances that even found himself in would not have been able to appreciate any difference between the premier and questioning in the post miranda questioning i have a information they purposely pursued a confession they kept him there at the table with the same two officers for the entirety of the interrogation there is no break in between the pre and post miranda questioning the fact that the officers withheld giving that miranda advisement deliberately until after they've been listen to the confession from ethan shows that they were trying to circumvent miranda in this case it shows a deliberate mis in their actions because they conferred amongst themselves prior to trying to elicit the confession from ethan they executed that plan that they had made and there was the opportunity for them to to give the miranda warnings prior to confronting even with the evidence against him in order to elicit the confession but that did not happen that shows a deliberate is that the council will give you a little bit of  custody at the time that ethan made his initial confession he had been talking with officers for no more than fifty or sixty minutes he had been the officers had been invited into the home by ethan and his brother they were sitting at the kitchen table his father was in fact going in and out and moving around and if you look to video to around the twenty two minute mark his father's coming in and asking you talking with ethan asking him about the pressure cooker he was not isolated from his family tyler was in the back hallway speaking with agents although from the video you can see throughout various points on that the hallway actually opens into the common room in which ethan was sitting and at times you can even see the agents in the background so there was possibly within earshot within i may not have been able to hear everything that they were discussing but certainly was not isolated in the way that you would you would see in cases like revels where officers separate  individual they're speaking with take them to a back bedroom close the door it's not that type of conversation in addition ethan is not you know even as shocking as phone he's able to get a drink of water he's able to walk around in the time before the officers discuss the evidence that they found all three of the games are sitting in the living room and there's there's a break there's an opportunity if he wanted to but whether a reasonable person ethan shoes would feel that he was in the functional equivalent of a rest so at that point when the officers are just conferring ethan doesn't know what's been found on the search and doesn't have any of that information  and then they tell him so and then they tell him that we have you know we know that there's a missing pressure current soldering iron and we found this table with burned marks in the back but even for custody police can ask incriminating questions but f to be required we need both incriminating question and the custody so the question is whether or not that question is sufficient to put ethan on notice or put a reasonable person on notice that he would not be free to leave i would agree that  this is most similar to the right case but i think the timeline lined up a little differently than how the district court saw it so if you look at rice you have agents coming in and they take the ad defendant to the kitchen table they ask the brothers to stay in the living room they ask him an initial question where they say we know you have illegal guns in the house with your parents have given us permission to search where are the guns and this court found that at that point that is not in custody it's only after the officers go and find the gun under the mattress and bring the the sawed off shotgun back and confront rice with a sawed off shotgun the fattest the moment the custody begins in this case merely asking ethan that well merely confront ethan with the evidence that there's missing items that were used in the in the device and then also that there was a burned table out back isn't the same as confronting him with a sawed off shotgun here going to judge carson's con question earlier there's no evidence of bad faith you have the officers beforehand learning what evidence is found in the search and conferring and and having a thoughtful discussion about when as a moment of custody when do we need to provide him miranda warnings and that's the kind of conversation that we want to encourage law enforcement to have to have them to be thoughtful about when miranda comes into play but we know from the supreme court's case law from this court's case law that miranda is not required prior to custody and so the officer the last to try and figure out when that moment of custody occurs and here they have they have evidence that's pointing towards ethan but they don't have any incriminating statements by ethan they know i'm servicing and then they found this table in the back and they in being thoughtful determine that they don't believe miranda warnings will be required in the last depending on the his response to this question so once they get that response what is actually shown is good faith as soon as they  hit the point where they realize that yes ethan is no longer free to leave they immediately stop and provide the miranda warnings so under justice kennedy's concurrence there is no evidence of bad faith here and then the court would turn to  stats test or we would look at both whether or not the premier and and the post miranda statements were voluntarily given and here they were we have ethan who is eighteen years old he is  sophisticated asked and intelligent enough to develop this device he's sophisticated enough about his rights to ask about a warrant at the door with the officers the questioning is not aggressive or or hostile it's polite and respectful throughout the entire encounter you have the officers the links and the nature of that questioning that's pre warning is limited i mean i think you can what have you look at the entire question from the moment you walk in that door but miranda and justice kennedy's concurrence is only concerned with custodial interrogation and we know from the moment he walks in the door that he's certainly not in custody the officers don't think he's in custody and there's really no reason that he would think before you know any of this evidence has come to life that he's under the functional equivalent of arrest when he's invited the officers and  goodbye he says ok well it's also the officers being careful there they're going beyond what the required initially they're saying sure to allowing him to come in but before you know based on the conversation back and forth between ethan and tyler the officers are going above and beyond tyler and the brothers agree to invite them in so and i mean even understood initially said you have a line so he has some understanding of his rights he has some understanding of his ability to say no to the officers requests and all that factors into table but the kitchen is it's sort of one of these open floor plan situations so the kitchen table of the actual kitchen and the living area are all one space without any waltz and hallway opens directly on to that space  whole custody is the ultimate question of whether or not a reasonable person would feel free to leave as would be reviewed to have a by this court the factual findings underlying that would be  and detail of the st round of questioning here excepting the district court's finding that the moment of custody was when the officers asked whether or not he had anything to do with it and confronted him with the incriminating evidence  statements that he made it were simply just you know i did it essential there were no further details there was no further no further statements made and mediately the officers provided the miranda warnings and everything that followed was was different in nature from that it was the details of how he made the black powder and the napalm and how he planted the device none of that was covered in the initial statement and then also in terms of whether or not the questioning was continuous i mean that secret you have you have the officers engaging in this practice of getting you know all the details out in the st statement taking a break and coming back and effectively cross examining the defendant with the prior statements so referring back to the initial confessions and using th initial confessions to elicit information that's not what's happening here we have just the initial admission that i did it and then the officer stopped that they get in there and there are things you know he's provided you know asked if you understood it and then distinction here from cbre comes from the fact that the initial statement was so limited and then it wasn't utilized in the nd statement and it covered entirely new ground but here yes there may the same officers there's a constitute a of questioning beyond the miranda rights  and i think looking to the facts of siebert illustrate why this is so different so in secret you have you know extensive questioning where the officers are asking the defendant you  victim to die and squeezing her arm and this is happening at three in the morning in a police station after she's been awakened at a hospital and then they're delaying it and then getting the warnings giving the warnings and coming back and using those prior statements to get all that find that he was in custody not even even was eighteen years old just barely eighteen years old at the time of this incident he was taken to the kitchen table immediately by the officers he was sat there in question by t minutes before he passed right now but he was in the house with several agents there are other than the two agents who are questioning him there were at least six agents who entered the house initially by the time he confessed there were twelve agents