Professional Documents
Culture Documents
UnitedStatesv.Patane
FromWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia
UnitedStatesv.Patane
Contents
1Background 2Questionpresented 3Holding 4Seealso 5References 6Externallinks
SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates ArguedDecember9,2003 DecidedJune28,2004 Fullcase UnitedStatesv.SamuelFrancisPatane name Docketnos. 021183 (http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx? FileName=/docketfiles/021183.htm) Citations 542U.S.630(more) 124S.Ct.2620159L.Ed.2d6672004 U.S.LEXIS457772U.S.L.W.4643 2004Fla.L.WeeklyFed.S482 Prior OnwritofcertioraritotheU.S.Courtof history AppealfortheTenthCircuit Argument Oralargument (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000 2009/2003/2003_02_1183/argument/) Courtmembership ChiefJustice WilliamRehnquist AssociateJustices JohnP.Stevens SandraDayO'Connor AntoninScalia AnthonyKennedy DavidSouter ClarenceThomas RuthBaderGinsburg StephenBreyer Caseopinions Majority Thomas,joinedbyRehnquist,Scalia Concurrence Kennedy,joinedbyO'Connor Dissent Souter,joinedbyStevens,Ginsburg Dissent Breyer
Background
SamuelPatanewasarrestedinfrontofhishomefor callinghisexgirlfriendinviolationofarestraining order.Duringthearrest,policeofficersbegan readingPatanehisMirandarights.Patanetoldthe officersthatheknewhisrights.Theofficersthen stoppedreadingthem,atwhichpointPatanetold policethathehadaguninhishouse.Theysearched thehousewithhispermissionandfoundthegun.As afelon,Patanewasnotpermittedtopossessagun andwasprosecutedforpossession. Duringthetrialongunpossessioncharges,Patane arguedthathisarrestviolatedtheFourth Amendmentprohibitionofunreasonablesearches andseizuresandtheFifthAmendmentrightnotto incriminateoneselfbecausetherewasnotprobable causetoarresthimandbecausethegunhadbeen foundasaresultofanunMirandizedconfession.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Patane
1/2
11/14/13
governmentappealed,arguingthatphysicalevidencefoundastheresultofunMirandizedtestimonycouldbe usedincourt,despitethefactthatthetestimonyitselfwasinadmissible.
Questionpresented
WhetherafailuretogiveasuspectthewarningsprescribedinMirandav.Arizonarequiresthesuppressionof physicalevidencederivedfromthesuspect'sunwarnedbutvoluntarystatement.[1]
Holding
Inadecisionwithoutamajorityopinion,threejusticeswrotethattheMirandawarningsweremerelyintended topreventviolationsoftheConstitution,andthatbecausePatane'sunMirandizedtestimonywasnotadmitted attrialtheConstitution(specificallytheFifthAmendment'sprotectionagainstselfincrimination)hadnotbeen violated.PhysicalevidenceobtainedfromunMirandizedstatements,aslongasthosestatementswerenot forcedbypolice,wereconstitutionallyadmissible.Twootherjusticesalsoheldthatthephysicalevidencewas constitutionallyadmissible,butdidsowiththeunderstandingthattheMirandawarningsmustbe accommodatedtootherobjectivesofthecriminaljusticesystem.TheydidnotdiscusswhethertheMiranda warningswere,inthemselves,constitutionallyrequired.
Seealso
Mirandav.Arizona Mirandawarning ListofUnitedStatesSupremeCourtcases,volume542 ListofUnitedStatesSupremeCourtcases
References
1. ^http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/0201183qp.pdf
Externallinks
WrittenOpinion(http://www.justia.us/us/542/021183/case.html) Retrievedfrom"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Patane&oldid=551821970" Categories: UnitedStatesSupremeCourtcases UnitedStatesFifthAmendmentselfincriminationcaselaw UnitedStatesFourthAmendmentcaselaw 2004inUnitedStatescaselaw Thispagewaslastmodifiedon23April2013at16:52. TextisavailableundertheCreativeCommonsAttributionShareAlikeLicenseadditionaltermsmay apply.Byusingthissite,youagreetotheTermsofUseandPrivacyPolicy. WikipediaisaregisteredtrademarkoftheWikimediaFoundation,Inc.,anonprofitorganization.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Patane
2/2