In Missouri v. Seibert (2004), the Court held that giving the Miranda warning only after the police obtain an unwarned confession violates the Miranda rule. As a result of this decision, statements made after the Miranda warning is given are not admissible even if these statements repeat those given before the Miranda warning was read to the suspect. In an earlier case, Oregon v. Elstad, the Court admitted a confession obtained after the police gave the Miranda warning—even though the suspect had previously made statements before the warning was given.Imagine you are a police officer investigating a domestic violence case. You received a call that a man hit his wife in the face with a closed fist, causing injury. You arrived at the scene and locate the suspect in question. You handcuff him and put him in the back of your patrol car. You ask him if he hit his wife in the face. He states to you that he just ‘lost control’ and did not mean to hurt her. He tells you that he is sorry for hitting her and will never do it again.Once at the police station, your sergeant tells you to make sure you get plenty of information in the confession statement from the suspect to put into the arrest report. You provide the suspect with his Miranda warning and ask him to go into detail about the incident and him losing control. He tells you the whole story from the beginning and again states that he had no intention of hurting his wife.InstructionsFor this discussion, locate a case on point with the Seibert or Elstad case.In your main post:Analyze admissibility of the suspect’s confessions in the scenario provided before and after Miranda warning was given to the suspect.Determine whether the ruling in the case you researched aligns or conflicts with Seibert or Elstad.Articulate whether you agree with the court’s rationale regarding the admissibility of statements made by a suspect in your selected case, and why.Explore how you feel the Miranda warning would impact your decision making if you were a police officer.