United States v. Patane

E822433

Miranda doctrine case U.S. Supreme Court case criminal procedure case

United States v. Patane is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the exclusionary rule by holding that physical evidence obtained as a result of unwarned but voluntary statements is admissible despite a Miranda violation.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Statements Referenced by

Statements (47)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	Miranda doctrine case ⓘ U.S. Supreme Court case ⓘ criminal procedure case ⓘ
areaOfLaw	Fifth Amendment NERFINISHED ⓘ criminal procedure ⓘ self-incrimination ⓘ
citation	542 U.S. 630 ⓘ
citationStyle	United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004) NERFINISHED ⓘ
concurrenceBy	Anthony M. Kennedy NERFINISHED ⓘ William H. Rehnquist NERFINISHED ⓘ
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted	Self-Incrimination Clause NERFINISHED ⓘ U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment NERFINISHED ⓘ
country	United States of America ⓘ surface form: United States
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate	2004-06-28 ⓘ
dissentBy	David H. Souter NERFINISHED ⓘ John Paul Stevens NERFINISHED ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg NERFINISHED ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer NERFINISHED ⓘ
evidenceTypeAtIssue	handgun ⓘ physical evidence ⓘ
factPattern	Defendant interrupted Miranda warnings and admitted to possessing a gun. ⓘ Police, relying on the unwarned admission, recovered a handgun from the defendant’s residence. ⓘ
fullCaseName	United States v. Samuel Francis Patane NERFINISHED ⓘ
holding	A failure to give Miranda warnings does not require suppression of physical fruits of a suspect’s unwarned but voluntary statements. ⓘ Physical evidence obtained as a result of unwarned but voluntary statements is admissible at trial. ⓘ The Self-Incrimination Clause is not implicated by the introduction at trial of physical evidence resulting from voluntary statements. NERFINISHED ⓘ
impact	allowed admission of physical fruits of unwarned but voluntary statements ⓘ limited the scope of the Miranda exclusionary rule ⓘ
issue	admissibility of physical evidence derived from unwarned statements ⓘ scope of the exclusionary rule for Miranda violations ⓘ
joinedByInPlurality	Anthony M. Kennedy NERFINISHED ⓘ Antonin Scalia NERFINISHED ⓘ William H. Rehnquist NERFINISHED ⓘ
jurisdiction	United States of America ⓘ surface form: United States
languageOfOpinion	English ⓘ
legalRule	Miranda’s exclusionary rule is a prophylactic rule that does not extend to physical fruits of unwarned but voluntary statements. NERFINISHED ⓘ Only unwarned statements themselves, not derivative physical evidence, are generally subject to suppression under Miranda. ⓘ
lowerCourt	United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit NERFINISHED ⓘ
lowerCourtDisposition	suppressed the handgun as fruit of a Miranda violation ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	Clarence Thomas NERFINISHED ⓘ
pluralityOpinionBy	Clarence Thomas NERFINISHED ⓘ
relatedDoctrine	Miranda v. Arizona NERFINISHED ⓘ exclusionary rule ⓘ fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine ⓘ
supremeCourtDisposition	reversed the judgment of the Tenth Circuit ⓘ
term	October Term 2003 NERFINISHED ⓘ

Referenced by (1)

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

Michigan v. Tucker → citedBy → United States v. Patane ⓘ