Phipps

MEMORANDUM *

The district court suppressed Adam Phipps’s statements made before the Miranda warning but denied the motion to suppress the statements made after the Miranda warning. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). After careful consideration of Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985), Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 , 124 S.Ct. 2601 , 159 L.Ed.2d 643 (2004), and United States v. Williams, 435 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir.2006), the district court appropriately *39 determined that the case fit within Elstad . On the record that was before the district court, the court’s finding that there was no “two-step questioning technique based on a deliberate violation of Miranda ” was not clearly erroneous. Seibert, 542 U.S. at 620 , 124 S.Ct. 2601 (Kennedy, J., concurring). Because the district court made the finding by applying a preponderance of evidence standard and did not rely on an absence of evidence from a party bearing the burden of proof, we need not decide what party bears the burden of proof. Cf United States v. Ollie, 442 F.3d 1135, 1142-43 (8th Cir.2006).

The district court found that the detectives…