¶1concurring in part and dissenting' in part.
¶2The majority predicates its reversal in part upon the officers’ failure to give the Miranda warnings to Smith. The officers questioned him prior to his probation revocation hearing. Smith is charged with prejuring himself at the revocation hearing.
¶3The manifest reason for the rule in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. *1651602, 16 L.Ed. 694, is to prevent coerced confessions and inculpatory statements.
¶4How could law enforcement officers coerce a confession, etc., to a crime when the crime had not yet been committed?