Document: 542 U.S. 630 UNITED STATESv.PATANE No. 02-1183. Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 9, 2003. Decided June 28, 2004. After Officer Fox began to investigate respondent's apparent violation a temporary restraining order, federal agent told Fox's colleague, Detective Benner, that respondent, convicted felon, illegally possessed pistol. and Benner proceeded home, where arrested him for violating the order. attempted advise respondent his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, but interrupted, asserting he knew rights. then asked about pistol retrieved seized it. Respondent was indicted possession firearm by 18 C. § 922(g)(1). The District granted motion suppress pistol, reasoning officers lacked probable cause arrest him, declining rule on alternative argument gun should be suppressed as fruit an unwarned statement. Tenth Circuit reversed probable-cause ruling, affirmed suppression order theory. Rejecting Government's Oregon Elstad, 470 298, Michigan Tucker, 417 433, foreclosed application poisonous tree doctrine Wong Sun States, 371 471, 488, present context, appeals court reasoned Elstad which were based view announced prophylactic rule, incompatible with Dickerson 530 428, 444, in this held constitutional rule. thus equated Dickerson's ruling proposition failure warn pursuant is itself suspect's Fifth Amendment Held: judgment reversed, case remanded. 304 F.3d 1013, 1 JUSTICE THOMAS, joined THE CHIEF SCALIA, concluded give suspect warnings does not require physical fruits voluntary statements. Pp. 637-644. 2 (a) employed protect against violations Self-Incrimination Clause, Const., Amdt. 5. That Clause's core protection prohibition compelling criminal defendant testify himself at trial. See, e. g., Chavez Martinez, 538 760, 764-768. It cannot violated introduction nontestimonial evidence obtained result States Hubbell, 27, 34. has recognized applied several rules designed privilege self-incrimination. For example, creates presumption coercion custodial interrogations, absence specific warnings, generally irrebuttable purposes prosecution's chief. E. S., 467. But because such necessarily sweep beyond actual protections, see, Withrow Williams, 507 680, 690-691, any further extension one them must justified its necessity right compelled self-incrimination, Chavez, supra, 778. Thus, uncompelled statements taken without can used impeach defendant's testimony trial, see 307-308, though actually cannot, New Jersey Portash, 440 450, 458-459. A blanket requiring noncompliant could reference "Fifth goal assuring trustworthy evidence" or deterrence rationale, 308, would therefore fail Court's requirement closest possible fit maintained between Clause Furthermore, contains own exclusionary automatically protects those subjected coercive police interrogations from use their involuntary (or derived statements) subsequent id., 307-308. This explicit textual supports strong expanding further. Cf. Graham Connor, 490 386. Finally, nothing calls into question continued insistence close-fit requirement. 637-641. 3 (b) mere not, itself, violate even evident many pre-Dickerson cases, adhered since Dickerson, 772-773. follows nature "fundamental trial right" protected Withrow, 691, turn, protects. do rule) negligent deliberate failures provide full warnings. Potential occur, if all, only upon admission evidence. And, point, exclusion complete sufficient remedy perceived violation. 790. Unlike there is, respect warn, deter no reason apply Sun's "fruit tree" doctrine. impose preferred practices either state officials. 641-642. 4 (c) erred taking violates characterization lessen need maintain There here. Introduction statement, implicate Clause. presents risk coerced (however defined) will In case, Similarly, statements, effect law enforcement, below believed. word "witness" text limits scope testimonial 34-35. And although requires are presumed have been certain when necessary declines extend 642-644. 5 KENNEDY, O'CONNOR, it unnecessary decide whether detective's Patane characterized anything so long later introduced York Quarles, 467 649, Harris York, 401 222, following admissible large part recognition concerns underlying accommodated other objectives justice system. Here, note Government stronger admitting Patane's statement than presented 433. Admission (the here) run accused's incriminating himself. light reliable evidence's important probative value, doubtful rationale sensitive both enforcement interests during in-custody interrogation. 644-645. 6 J., delivered opinion, REHNQUIST, joined. filed opinion concurring judgment, joined, post, p. 644. SOUTER, dissenting STEVENS GINSBURG, JJ., 645. BREYER, 647. 7 CERTIORARI TO STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR TENTH CIRCUIT. 8 Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben argued petitioner. With briefs Olson, Acting Assistant Attorney Wray, James A. Feldman, Joseph Wyderko. 9 Jill M. Wichlens respondent. her brief Michael G. Katz Virginia L. Grady.* 10 THOMAS SCALIA join. 11 we prescribed 436 (1966), previously addressed reached definitive conclusion. See Massachusetts White, 439 280 (1978) (per curiam) (dividing evenly question); also Patterson 485 922 (1988) (White, denial certiorari). Although believe decisions 298 (1985), 433 (1974), instructive, Courts Appeals split after our decision 428 (2000). Villalba-Alvarado, 345 F. 3d 1007 (CA8 2003) (holding violation); Sterling, 283 216 (CA4 2002) (same); DeSumma, 272 176 (CA3 2001) Faulkingham, 295 85 (CA1 violation). Because which, implicated resulting answer negative. 12 * 2001, Samuel Francis Patane, harassing ex-girlfriend, Linda O'Donnell. He released bond, subject prohibited contacting apparently attempting telephone On 6, Tracy Colorado Springs Police Department matter. same day, county probation officer informed Bureau Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms (ATF), .40 Glock ATF relayed information Josh who worked closely ATF. Together, residence. 13 reaching residence inquiring attempts contact O'Donnell, got remain silent. At rights, neither warning.1 App. 40. 14 Glock. initially reluctant discuss matter, stating: "I am sure I tell you don't want take away me." Id., 41. persisted, bedroom. gave permission retrieve found 15 grand jury firearm, declined 16 rejected 471 (1963), context. 1019 (CA10 2002). These holdings were, reasoned, position 444 ("Miranda Congress may supersede legislatively").2 announcement Constitution (and, more particularly, rights). Based understanding post-Dickerson views Third Fourth Circuits violations. 3d, 1023-1027 (discussing 2002), 2001)). disagreed First Circuit's conclusion required 1027-1029 2002)), explaining "[d]eterrence merely intentional wrongdoing, ensure diligently (non-negligently) — properly trained citizens," 1028-1029. We certiorari. 976 (2003). 17 As explain below, however, Accordingly, justification extending just primarily focuses too code conduct, matter) warn. reason, articulated cases apply. reverse remand proceedings. II provides: "No person . shall witness himself." here precise boundaries protection. purposes, suffices afforded 764-768 (2003) (plurality opinion); 777-779 (SOUTER, judgment); J. Wigmore, Evidence 2263, 378 (J. McNaughton rev. ed. 1961) (explaining "was directed employment legal process extract person's lips guilt, place evidence"); 49-56 (2000) (THOMAS, concurring) might bar production evidence, otherwise). 34 (noting "`witness'" "limits relevant category communications `testimonial' character"); 35 why blood samples Clause; cataloging examples citing cases); ("The Amendment, course, concerned 306-307 prohibits prosecution chief testimony"); 705 (1993) (O'CONNOR, part) (describing "true claims [as] extraction 665-672, n. (1984) these reasons). 19 To sure, 770-772 opinion). least suggests "its coverage [is limited to] itself," 37, potential suspects may, times, assert proceedings answers incriminate case. Balsys, 524 666, 671-672 (1998); Minnesota Murphy, 465 420, 426 (1984); cf. Kastigar 406 441 (1972) compel witnesses over objections receive "use derivative immunity"); Uniformed Sanitation Men Assn., Inc. Commissioner City 392 280, 284 (1968) (allowing economic compulsion secure grants appropriate immunity). explained "[t]he natural concern underlies [these] inability stage proceeding make invocation useless stage." 440-441. 20 Miranda, possibility inherent unacceptably raises self-incrimination violated. 434-435; danger, coercion, 21 (including protections 690-691; 306, 778 judgment) (requiring "`powerful showing'" before "expand[ing] self-incrimination"). Indeed, times 657 (concluding "that questions situation posing threat public safety outweighs protecting Amendment's 22 reasons (though compelled) 307-308; 222 (1971), 458-459 (1979). More generally, "does [taken complying rule] discarded inherently tainted," 307. Such 308; 446-449; Harris, 225-226, 2, 23 provides "[n]o unreasonable searches, self-executing. repeatedly automatic trial." 769 opinion) (citing, 307-308). 386 (1989). 24 including announcing changes observations. specifically noted "subsequent reduced impact legitimate while reaffirming [Miranda]'s chief." 443-444. description especially emphasis "unwarned chief," makes clear focus reliance precedents, Tucker 438, 441, demonstrates continuing validity decisions. short, III 25 Our related point So much Dickerson. 772-773 read did rights); 789 (KENNEDY, (agreeing warning more, establish completed interrogation ensues"); 654; judgment). This, "`a fundamental right.'" 691 (quoting Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 259, 264 (1990)). 766-768 790 identification consequences, then, ought determined trial"). 26 panoply Miranda. ... remedy" 790.3 27 unlike searches Due Process deter. Sun, 488.4 Nix 431, Sixth context noting applies "illegally [and] [it]" (emphasis added)). officials counterparts. IV 28 Appeals, relying wholly adopted 1028-1029.5 so, deterrence-based made fruits. Nix, 441-444; 484-486; Nardone 308 338, 341 (1939). 29 judge-made Glock, part). H. Friendly, Benchmarks 280-281 (1967). simply (and extending) 30 believed, sound time decided, decline now. 31 ascribed significance fact that, "little [practical] difference [respondent's] confessional statement" 1027. distinction, said, "appears little sense matter policy." Ibid. But, putting policy aside, `witness' the" distinction.6 true remembered Part II, supra. discussed above, further.7 32 33 ordered. Notes: Briefs ofamici curiae urging reversal State Alabama et al. William Pryor, Jr., Alabama, Nathan Forrester, General, B. Billingsley, Marc Starrett, Attorneys respective follows: Jane Brady Delaware, Charles Crist, Florida, Mark Bennett Hawaii, Lisa Madigan Illinois, Steve Carter Indiana, Mike McGrath Montana, Jim Petro Ohio, D. Fisher Pennsylvania, Lawrence Long South Dakota, Paul Summers Tennessee, Greg Abbott Texas, Shurtleff Utah, Sorrell Vermont, Jerry W. Kilgore Virginia, Peggy Lautenschlager Wisconsin, Patrick Crank Wyoming; Criminal Justice Legal Foundation Kent Scheidegger. amici affirmance Brennan Center Stephen Schulhofer, Frederick O. Schwarz, Tom Gerety, Joshua Rosenkranz; National Association Defense Lawyers Tomkovicz, David Porter, Steven R. Shapiro. concedes on-the-scene questioning inadmissible underMiranda despite partial assertions distinguishedOregon ground second warned) confession issue product volition. F.3d, 1019, 1021. find distinction relevant. acknowledge language some post-Miranda suggest operates direct constraint police. Stansbury California, 511 318, 322 (1994) curiam); Moran Burbine, 475 412, 420 (1986) (stating "Miranda imposed obligation follow procedures"); Edwards 451 477, (1981). admissibility 439, 467, reaffirmed 443-444 (equating chief" reject invitation balancing test ofNardone 338 Brief 15-33. wiretap statute, once again, (statutory constitutional) worth mentioning benefit inChavez 760 While "persons, houses, papers, effects," "a himself," processes produce reasonable have. See,e. 42-45 (2000); Baltimore Dept. Social Servs. Bouknight, 493 549, 554-556 (1990); 425 391 (1976); Warden, Md. Penitentiary Hayden, 387 294, 302-303 (1967); Schmerber 757, 761 (1966). Commonwealth Hughes, 380 Mass. 583, 404 N. 2d 1239 (1980); Goldsmith Superior Court, 152 Cal. 76, 199 Rptr. 366 (1984). this, odd exclude whom O'CONNOR joins, judgment. 649 (1984), admissible. agree plurality (2000), undermine precedents and, fact, cited support. case), postwarning value plurality, "[any]thing deter" Ante, 36 observations, concur Court. 37 GINSBURG join, dissenting. 38 says address overstatement beside point. today courts lest create incentive omit interrogation.1 closing eyes consequences giving evidentiary advantage ignore adds inducement interrogators 39 rested insight character difficult exercise assessing voluntariness Unless meant counter atmosphere, inadmissible, being previous time-consuming enquiry voluntariness. forestall troublesome issues atrophy turn around recognize leads investigators tangible price excluding price, very good logic followed: 306-307, extends 37-38 (recognizing "the prosecutor's directly indirectly [actually] 453 (1972). end 40 books contain exceptions carries weight integrity judicial impeachment hardly described seeking "perver[t]" "into license perjury" otherwise handicap "traditional truth-testing devices adversary process." 225-226. Nor suggestion officers' mitigated emergency exigent circumstance, course premise point; individual given adequate 298; Missouri Seibert, ante, 614-615 opinion), obviously all.2 41 way except unjustifiable flout gained. one, coming day decides 600. respectfully dissent. 42 43 similar set forth SOUTER's dissent my 617, approach, come close adopting Seibert. Under unless faith. 617-618 (BREYER, concurring); 645-646, dissenting). finding bad faith, determination. saying, comes us, facts off scent made-up If aMiranda failure, most immediate stop already easily analogy bumbling mistake committed (1985). extent thatMichigan (1974) (admitting discovered interrogation), created another exception explicitly lay down broad Instead, "place[d] holding narrower ground," principally occurred decided conducted faith according standards governing time. 447-448 (citing Escobedo 478 (1964)).

Category: 0