Brown v. Illinois

E809984

United States Supreme Court case criminal procedure case

Brown v. Illinois is a 1975 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the admissibility of confessions obtained after an unlawful arrest by emphasizing the need to purge the taint of the initial Fourth Amendment violation.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Statements Referenced by

All labels observed (1)

Label	Occurrences
Brown v. Illinois canonical	1

Statements (50)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	United States Supreme Court case ⓘ criminal procedure case ⓘ
arguedDate	1975-01-13 ⓘ
citation	422 U.S. 590 ⓘ
concurrenceBy	Justice Byron R. White NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice Thurgood Marshall NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice William J. Brennan Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ
concurrenceInJudgmentBy	Justice William O. Douglas NERFINISHED ⓘ
constitutionalProvision	Fifth Amendment NERFINISHED ⓘ Fourth Amendment NERFINISHED ⓘ
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decidedDate	1975-06-26 ⓘ
decisionDate	1975-06-26 ⓘ
decisionType	opinion of the Court ⓘ
docketNumber	73-1302 ⓘ
effect	clarified standards for determining when evidence is sufficiently attenuated from a Fourth Amendment violation ⓘ limited admissibility of confessions obtained after an unlawful arrest unless the taint is purged ⓘ
fullCaseName	Brown v. Illinois NERFINISHED ⓘ
holding	Courts must determine whether a confession is obtained by exploitation of an illegal arrest or by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint. ⓘ Miranda warnings alone do not automatically purge the taint of an unlawful arrest for purposes of admitting a confession. ⓘ The State bears the burden of showing that a confession following an illegal arrest is admissible. ⓘ
joinedByInMajority	Chief Justice Warren E. Burger NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice Harry A. Blackmun NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice Potter Stewart NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice William H. Rehnquist NERFINISHED ⓘ
jurisdiction	United States of America ⓘ surface form: United States
keyFactor	presence of intervening circumstances ⓘ purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct ⓘ temporal proximity between the illegal arrest and the confession ⓘ
legalIssue	admissibility of confessions following an unlawful arrest ⓘ attenuation doctrine ⓘ fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine ⓘ
legalSubject	Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution NERFINISHED ⓘ constitutional law ⓘ criminal procedure ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ
page	590 ⓘ
party	Richard Brown NERFINISHED ⓘ State of Illinois NERFINISHED ⓘ
priorCourt	Supreme Court of Illinois NERFINISHED ⓘ
relatedDoctrine	attenuation exception ⓘ exclusionary rule ⓘ fruit of the poisonous tree ⓘ
reporter	U.S. NERFINISHED ⓘ
ruleOfLaw	Courts must consider temporal proximity, intervening circumstances, and the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct in assessing attenuation. ⓘ The giving of Miranda warnings is an important factor but not dispositive in determining attenuation from an unlawful arrest. ⓘ
subsequentCitationBy	Dunaway v. New York NERFINISHED ⓘ Kaupp v. Texas NERFINISHED ⓘ Taylor v. Alabama NERFINISHED ⓘ
volume	422 ⓘ

Referenced by (1)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Utah v. Strieff (dissent on Fourth Amendment rights) → relatedCase → Brown v. Illinois ⓘ

subject surface form: Utah v. Strieff