What is the current state of the law on an intent-based test?

³ See Seibert , 542 U.S. at 616 n.6, 124 S.Ct. 2601 (plurality opinion) ([T]he focus is on facts apart from intent ....); id. at 623, 124 S.Ct. 2601 (O'Connor, J., dissenting) ([T]he plurality correctly declines to focus its analysis on the subjective intent of the interrogating officer.); id. at 624, 124 S.Ct. 2601 (The plurality's rejection of an intent-based test is also, in my view, correct.); id. at 62526, 124 S.Ct. 2601 ([R]ecognizing an exception to [Oregon v. Elstad , 470 U.S. 298, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985) ] for intentional violations would require focusing constitutional analysis on a police officer's subjective intent, an unattractive proposition that we all but uniformly avoid.); id. at 62627, 124 S.Ct. 2601 ([T]he approach espoused by Justice Kennedy is ill advised .... This approach untethers the analysis from facts knowable to, and therefore having any potential directly to affect, the suspect.).

³ See Seibert , 542 U.S. at 616 n.6, 124 S.Ct. 2601 (plurality opinion) ([T]he focus is on facts apart from intent ....); id. at 623, 124 S.Ct. 2601 (O'Connor, J., dissenting) ([T]he plurality correctly declines to focus its analysis on the subjective intent of the interrogating officer.); id. at 624, 124 S.Ct. 2601 (The plurality's rejection of an intent-based test is also, in my view, correct.); id. at 62526, 124 S.Ct. 2601 ([R]ecognizing an exception to [Oregon v. Elstad , 470 U.S. 298, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985) ] for intentional violations would require focusing constitutional analysis on a police officer's subjective intent, an unattractive proposition that we all but uniformly avoid.); id. at 62627, 124 S.Ct. 2601 ([T]he approach espoused by Justice Kennedy is ill advised .... This approach untethers the analysis from facts knowable to, and therefore having any potential directly to affect, the suspect.).