of November 23, 1996. Cole clearly made multiple independent statements at the scene of his arrest, at the Milan Police Department, and on the way to the jail, even if their content was similar. The district court, therefore, did not err in finding that Cole made numerous statements, rather than one continuous statement, in which he admitted owning the gun. Cole’s argument might alternatively be construed as a legal claim that because he made one incriminating statement in response to custodial interrogation before having received the warnings mandated by Miranda, his subsequent, similar statements are so tainted that they too are inadmissible. The Supreme Court, however, has squarely rejected this argument. Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 309, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985) (<HOLDING>). Because the record reflects that Cole’s
holding that admission of statements obtained in violation of miranda was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where the substance of the statements was introduced through other untainted testimony holding that a confession obtained in violation of miranda was admissible for impeachment holding that a statement obtained in violation of miranda does not by its own force mandate the inadmissibility of subsequent similar statements that were constitution ally obtained holding that agents violation of irs regulations did not mandate exclusion of evidence obtained as a result of violation holding that although defendants voluntarily given initial statement was inadmissible because of miranda violation subsequent statement made after careful miranda warnings were given and waiver was obtained was admissible