Rob’s first statement
Miranda warnings are required before custodial interrogation. A temporary investigatory stop is not automatically custody, but the court examines whether a reasonable person would experience restraints comparable to formal arrest. Otto was uniformed and armed and ordered Rob to remain with his hands visible. Combined with a direct robbery accusation, those circumstances support custody, although the restaurant setting and short encounter support an argument for a limited investigative detention.
Asking whether Rob was the robber was express questioning likely to elicit an incriminating answer. It was not a narrowly directed public-safety question about the location of a weapon. If the encounter was custodial, “Yes, it was me” must be suppressed from the prosecution’s case in chief because no warnings preceded it. A voluntary statement may remain available for proper impeachment. Nothing stated independently establishes coercion sufficient to make the admission involuntary under due process.
The gun: Fourth Amendment
Otto had substantial grounds to investigate and likely probable cause to arrest before Rob admitted anything: the teller identified a known customer, the robbery was recent, and Rob was nearby with a matching distinctive briefcase. A valid arrest does not require delaying all action until a formal announcement.
A search incident to a lawful arrest can precede the formal arrest when probable cause already exists and the arrest follows promptly. The briefcase was at Rob’s feet, within his immediate reach when Otto opened it. Those facts support searching it for a weapon or destructible evidence. The armed-robbery circumstances also support a protective-weapons argument, although a Terry frisk must stay within its safety purpose and cannot become an unrestricted evidence search.
The later station inventory is an alternative only if the police prove lawful custody and a valid standardized inventory policy covering the container. Calling a search an inventory does not establish those requirements. If the initial search was unlawful, inevitable discovery through a lawful inventory requires a factual foundation rather than an assumption.
The gun: Fifth Amendment
A Miranda violation does not automatically require suppression of nontestimonial physical evidence derived from a voluntary statement. Under United States v. Patane, the gun is not excluded simply because Otto first obtained an unwarned admission. Actual coercion would raise a different question. The independent Fourth Amendment objections still must be resolved; Patane does not validate an unreasonable search.
The later statement and the money
Two hours later, Rob received proper warnings, affirmatively waived his rights, and identified the apartment. Under Oregon v. Elstad, a voluntary unwarned statement does not ordinarily disable a later knowing and voluntary waiver. The lapse of time and change to the station support an independent decision.
Missouri v. Seibert limits a deliberate question-first, warn-later strategy that makes the warnings ineffective. There is no stated plan to use such a technique here. If additional evidence established deliberate coordination and a substantially continuous interrogation, Rob could argue that ordinary warnings did not cure it. On the stated facts, Elstad is the stronger analogy.
The warrant rests on the later, validly obtained information and authorizes a search of Rob’s apartment for the stolen proceeds. If the affidavit establishes the stated nexus and probable cause, the money is admissible. Even a Miranda defect in the first admission does not create a blanket fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree bar to these physical proceeds. If the briefcase search separately violated the Fourth Amendment, the court must ask whether the later information was obtained by exploiting that illegality or through an independent lawful source. Because the teller’s identification and the later warned disclosure supply independent grounds, the better result is denial of the motions concerning the gun and money, while excluding the first statement if custody is found.