Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-499_gfbh.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

9 

Opinion of the Court 

to the public safety outweigh[ed] the need for the prophy-
lactic rule.”  467 U. S., at 654, 657. 
  Finally, in Elstad, 470 U. S. 298, the Court again distin-
guished between a constitutional violation and a violation 
of Miranda.  In that case, a suspect in custody was initially 
questioned without receiving a Miranda warning, and the 
statements made at that time were suppressed.  470 U. S., 
at 301–302.  But the suspect was later given Miranda warn-
ings, chose to waive his Miranda rights, and signed a writ-
ten confession.  470 U. S., at 301.  Asked to decide whether 
this confession was admissible, the Court followed the rea-
soning  in  Tucker  and  again  held  that  the  fruit-of-the- 
poisonous-tree rule that applies to constitutional violations
does not apply to violations of Miranda.  470 U. S., at 306– 
309, 318.  The Court refused to exclude the signed confes-
sion and emphasized that an officer’s error “in administer-
ing  the  prophylactic  Miranda  procedures  . . .  should  not 
breed  the  same  irremediable  consequences  as  police  in-
fringement of the Fifth Amendment itself.” 3  Id., at 309. 

—————— 

3 Two other decisions fall into this same category, but in both there was 
no opinion of the Court.  In Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U. S. 760 (2003), the 
suspect  gave  an  un-Mirandized  statement  while  in  custody  but  was 
never charged with a crime.  The Court held that the suspect could not
bring a 42 U. S. C. §1983 claim against the officer who questioned him,
and  Justice  Souter,  who  cast  the  necessary  fifth  vote  on  the  issue, 
reached  that  conclusion  based  on  “a  realistic  assessment  of  costs  and 
risks” of “expand[ing] protection of the privilege against compelled self-
incrimination  to  the  point  of  the  civil  liability”  at  issue.    538  U. S.,  at 
778–779 (opinion concurring in judgment). 

In United States v. Patane, 542 U. S. 630 (2004), the Court once again 
held that Miranda does not require the suppression of the fruits of a un-
Mirandized statement made during custodial questioning, and two of the 
five Justices in the majority engaged in the same type of balancing that
was used in Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433 (1974), and Elstad.  See 
Patane, 542 U. S., at 644–645 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment); see 
also id., at 641–644 (plurality opinion).