In the case of Oregon v. Elstad, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a failure to administer Miranda warnings does not necessarily taint or render inadmissible any subsequent statements made after such warnings are given. The defendant, Michael James Elstad, had initially confessed without being read his rights during an arrest for burglary. After later being read his Miranda rights at the police station and waiving them, he signed a written confession which was used against him in court despite objections from his lawyer who argued it was tainted by the initial unwarned admission of guilt. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and held that while Mr.Elstad's first statement could not be used as evidence due to lack of proper procedure (Miranda warning), there was no reason why his second confession should also be excluded if it came voluntarily after receiving appropriate legal advisement.

In the dissenting opinion for Oregon v. Elstad, Justice Brennan argued that the majority's decision undermined Miranda rights and allowed law enforcement to use coercive tactics during interrogations. He contended that a confession obtained without proper Miranda warnings should not be admissible in court, even if subsequent statements were made after receiving these warnings. According to him, this ruling could potentially encourage police officers to deliberately avoid giving suspects their Miranda rights until they have already confessed once. This would essentially allow them to bypass constitutional protections against self-incrimination by using an initial unwarned confession as leverage for obtaining a second warned one. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view that only physical or psychological coercion can compromise voluntariness of confessions; he believed failure to provide Miranda warning itself is sufficient pressure on suspect’s free will.