Supreme Court Case: United States V. Patane

1. Issue
United States v. Patane is about the rights afforded us in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the prophylactic protections of these rights as provided by Miranda and the extent to which a perceived Miranda violation affects the admissibility of derivative evidence obtained through benefit of the unwarned statement. Appellate Courts in the First, Third, Fourth, and Eighth Circuits differed regarding the admissibility of evidence derived from unwarned statements and it was hoped that the ruling in Patane would provide clarification.

2. Case Facts
Patane was arrested for harassing and menacing his girlfriend and was subsequently released from custody with the proviso that he not communicate with his girlfriend during the ensuing 72 hours. The girlfriend attested that he did so; the investigating officer meanwhile received information from

The Supreme Court's decision in Dickerson v. United States confirmed that the protections afforded by Miranda were Constitutional rights and not merely prophylactic rules. Circuit Courts around the country split on the issue of whether this then created a new exception for derivative physical evidence. In a series of lower court cases wherein the “fruits of the poisonous tree” doctrine was applied to evidence obtained via the testimonial - i.e. Fifth Amendment - route, the Third, Fourth, and Eighth Circuits (in United States v. Desumma, United States v. Sterling and United States v. Villalba-Alvarado, respectively) held that the “fruits" doctrine did not apply to the extent of excluding physical evidence acquired through an unwarned statement. Meanwhile, in United States v. Faulkingham, the First Circuit held that the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine did apply so as to exclude derivative physical evidence acquired as a result of violations of