The question, then, is whether Timley was subjected to interrogation or its functional equivalent. We conclude he was not. For example, statements made by a suspect to an undercover officer in a cellblock are not subject to the Miranda requirements, because the element of coercion is lacking. Additionally, Miranda is not violated when a suspect makes voluntary comments to a friend who later reports those conversations to the police. Officers do not interrogate a suspect simply by hoping that he will incriminate himself.
Confessions remain a proper element in law enforcement.
Any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is, of course, admissible in evidence. The fundamental import of the privilege while an individual is in custody is not whether he is allowed to talk to the police without the benefit of warnings and counsel, but whether he can be interrogated. . . . Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment and their admissibility is not affected by our holding today. Timley was seated in a police car with Bruce and was speaking voluntarily about his criminal conduct. If Bruce, or anyone else, had conveyed Timley's comments to the police, this appeal would be immediately disposed of by reference to Perkins and Hoffa .