United States v. Samuel Francis Patane (542 U.S. 630)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 28, 2004 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 542 U.S. 630 · 124 S. Ct. 2620
- Decided
- June 28, 2004
- Term
- October Term 2003
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Thomas
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Thomas announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice and Justice Scalia join. In this case we must decide whether a failure to give a suspect the warnings prescribed by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), requires suppression of the physical fruits of the suspect’s unwarned but voluntary statements. The Court has previously addressed this question but has not reached a definitive conclusion. See Massachusetts v. White, 439 U. S. 280 (1978) (per curiam) (dividing evenly on the question); see also Patterson v. United States, 485 U. S. 922 (1988) (White, J., dissenting from denial of.certiorari). Although we believe that the Court’s decisions in Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U. S. 298 (1985), and Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433 (1974), are instructive, the Courts of Appeals have split on the question after our decision in Dickerson v. United States, 530 U. S. 428 (2000). See, e. g., United States v. Villalba-Alvarado, 345 F. 3d 1007 (CA8 2003) (holding admissible the physical fruits of a Miranda violation); United States v. Sterling, 283 F. 3d 216 (CA4 2002) (same); United States v. DeSumma, 272 F. 3d 176 (CA3 2001) (same); United States v. Faulkingham, 295 F. 3d 85 (CA1 2002) (holding admissible the physical fruits of a negligent Miranda violation). Because the Miranda rule protects against violations of the Self-Incrimination…
Excerpt of a 22,305-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.