What is the current state of the law in relation to Miranda warnings?

On appeal, appellant does not contend, as he did below, that he was in custody at the time of his interview or that the interview amounted to an interrogation. He instead claims for the first time that Miranda warnings should have been given because the "taint" of his initial detention at his residence "was not sufficiently dissipated" by the circumstances that followed the detention and preceded the interview. This claim is forfeited. (People v. Combs (2004) 34 Cal.4th 821, 845.)

In any event, the claim lacks merit. Appellant relies on People v. Storm (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1007, and Missouri v. Seibert (2004) 542 U.S. 600. Those cases, however, address whether the "taint" of a statement obtained in violation of Miranda can be "dissipated" by a subsequent voluntary statement obtained without such a violation. (People v. Storm, at pp. 1029-1030; Missouri v. Seibert, supra, at pp. 604-605.)