During an interrogation, a detective uses a two-step process where they intentionally avoid giving Miranda warnings and then starts an interrogation. Predictably, the suspect made a confession. The detective then gives a break, reads the suspect their Miranda rights, and asks them to confirm their confession. The suspect complies, believing their initial confession made any further silence meaningless. Once the suspect does get an attorney, they contest the admissibility of the "post-Miranda" confession. Using the Supreme Court's decision in Missouri v. Seibert, how should the court view the admissibility of the pre- and post-Miranda confessions? Group of answer choices In this instance the post-Miranda confession is unlawful, but since the suspect had not been advised of their rights, their pre-Miranda confession can be considered voluntary and spontaneous In this instance the pre-Miranda statement is unlawful because the suspect was in custody but not Mirandized at the time of their confession; the post-Miranda statement is however, admissable since the suspect made a knowing and voluntary waiver In this instance both the pre- and post-Miranda statemetns are admissable; by confirming what the supspect stated in their confession, the officers have a practicce of increasing the reliability of the confession