Document: 540 U.S. 519 FELLERSv.UNITED STATES No. 02-6320. Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 10, 2003. Decided January 26, 2004. Police officers went to petitioner's home and advised him that they had come discuss his involvement in drug distribution. They told a federal warrant for arrest grand jury indicted conspiracy distribute methamphetamine. During the course brief discussion, petitioner made several inculpatory statements. Once at county jail, was rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, Patterson Illinois, 487 285, signed waiver those rights, reiterated earlier Before trial, he moved suppress statements jail. A Magistrate Judge recommended be suppressed because not informed portions jailhouse as fruits prior failure provide warnings. The District unwarned but admitted pursuant Oregon Elstad, 470 298, concluding knowingly voluntarily waived before making Eighth Circuit affirmed conviction, holding were properly violated Sixth Amendment right counsel did interrogate home. Held: erred absence an "interrogation" foreclosed claim should have been taken from Pp. 523-525. (a) An accused is denied protections "when there [is] used against trial ... own incriminating words, which agents deliberately elicited after counsel." Massiah States, 377 201, 206. This has consistently applied deliberate-elicitation standard subsequent cases, see, e. g., States Henry, 447 264, expressly distinguished it Fifth custodial-interrogation standard, Michigan Jackson, 475 625. There no question here "deliberately elicited" information Because their discussion took place indicted, outside presence counsel, any officers' actions standards established Massiah, supra, its progeny. 523-524. (b) erroneous determination questioned violation standards, improperly conducted "fruits" analysis Amendment. In applying hold admissibility turned solely on whether knowing voluntary, court reach requires suppression ground previous questioning standard. As this occasion decide rationale Elstad applies when suspect makes voluntary notwithstanding police case remanded address issue first instance. 524-525. 285 F. 3d 721, reversed remanded. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED COURT OF APPEALS FOR EIGHTH CIRCUIT. Seth P. Waxman, by appointment Court, 538 997, argued cause petitioner. With briefs Paul R. Q. Wolfson. Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben Olson, Assistant Attorney Wray, John Elwood, Joel M. Gershowitz.* JUSTICE O'CONNOR 1 After J. Fellers, arrested arrest, He these admission therefore counsel. Petitioner contends rejecting argument, Appeals held "not applicable" "the [petitioner] home." 724 (2002). We granted petition writ certiorari, 905 (2003), now reverse. 2 * On February 24, 2000, methamphetamine, Lincoln Sergeant Michael Garnett Lancaster County Sheriff Jeff Bliemeister Lincoln, Nebraska, him. App. 111. knocked door and, answered, identified themselves asked if could in. Ibid. invited into living room. 3 methamphetamine Id., 112. indictment referred with certain individuals, four whom named. then knew people during association them. 4 spending about 15 minutes home, transported There, time 436 (1966), (1988). two form, earlier, having associated other individuals implicated charged conspiracy, 29-39, loaned money one them even though suspected she involved transactions, id., 34. 5 hearing rights. 110-111. found response "implici[t] questions," noting purpose visit use distribution 110. further statement 6 "unwarned" house 298 (1985), 112-115. 7 Following evidence, convicted conspiring possess intent appealed, arguing obtained affirmed. 721 (CA8 2002). respect argument administer warnings Patterson, stated: "Patterson applicable 3d, 724. also concluded jail rule supra. ("`Though must suppressed, turn circumstances made'" (quoting 309)). 8 Riley filed concurring opinion. conversation information" 726-727. That "post-indictment conduct counsel," reasoned, 727. nevertheless concurred judgment, admissible light II 9 triggered "at or judicial proceedings initiated... `whether way formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, arraignment.'" Brewer Williams, 430 387, 398 (1977) Kirby 406 682, 689 (1972)). basic protections" evidence 206 (1964); cf. supra (holding does bar postindictment defendant waives counsel). 10 see 270 (1980) ("The facts Government agent `deliberately elicited' within meaning Massiah"); Brewer, 399 (finding where detective designedly set out elicit [the suspect]"), we 625, 632, n. (1986) ("[T]he provides interrogation applicability"); Rhode Island Innis, 446 291, 300, definitions `interrogation' Amendments, indeed term apt context, are necessarily interchangeable"); Wade, 388 218 (1967) lineup implicated). 11 First, Indeed, officers, upon arriving house, coming co-conspirators. 723; ensuing violate 12 Second, Specifically, turns "`knowingly made.'" 309). standards. remand 13 Accordingly, judgment reversed, consistent 14 It so ordered. Notes: Kent Scheidegger Charles L. Hobson Criminal Justice Legal Foundation amicus curiae urging affirmance. Alfred Carlton Thomas C. Goldstein American Bar Association curiae.

Category: 0