Opinion ID: 1444405
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Taylor's post-arrest statements

Text: The state contends that Taylor's post-arrest statements are admissible because the officers Mirandized Taylor and Taylor waived his rights. We agree. This court examines the facts and circumstances of a case in order to determine whether a defendant has executed a valid waiver of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination after receiving Miranda warnings. Falcon v. State, 110 Nev. 530, 534, 874 P.2d 772, 775 (1994). We conclude that the facts and circumstances of the case at bar make evident that Taylor's post-arrest statements are admissible because Taylor executed an effective waiver of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and validly confessed to his ownership of the marijuana. An effective waiver of one's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination must be knowing and intelligent. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602; Tomarchio v. State, 99 Nev. 572, 576, 665 P.2d 804, 806-07 (1983). Further, a confession must be made freely and voluntarily, without compulsion or inducement. See Passama v. State, 103 Nev. 212, 213, 735 P.2d 321, 322 (1987). Here, nothing in the record indicates that Taylor's waiver of his right against self-incrimination was anything but knowing and intelligent or that his confession was compelled or induced. Therefore, Taylor's post-arrest statements are admissible. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the district court granting respondent's motion to suppress and remand this matter for trial. [3]