Because the Miranda rule protects against violations of the Self-Incrimination Clause, which, in turn, is not implicated by the introduction at trial of physical evidence resulting from voluntary statements, the court answers the question presented in the negative.
After Officer Fox began to investigate respondent's apparent violation of a temporary restraining order, a federal agent told Fox's colleague, Detective Benner, that respondent, a convicted felon, illegally possessed a pistol. Officer Fox and Detective Benner proceeded to respondent's home, where Fox arrested him for violating the restraining order. Benner attempted to advise respondent of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, but respondent interrupted, asserting that he knew his rights. Benner then asked about the pistol and retrieved and seized it. Respondent was indicted for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The District Court granted his motion to suppress the pistol, reasoning that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him, and declining to rule on his alternative argument that the gun should be suppressed as the fruit of an unwarned statement. The Tenth Circuit reversed the probable-cause ruling, but affirmed the suppression order on respondent's alternative theory. Rejecting the Government's argument that Oregon v. Elstad, and Michigan v. Tucker foreclosed application of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine of Wong Sun v. United States to the present context, the appeals court reasoned that Elstad and Tucker, which were based on the view that Miranda announced a prophylactic rule, were incompatible with Dickerson v. United States, in which this Court held that Miranda announced a constitutional rule. The appeals court thus equated Dickerson's ruling with the proposition that a failure to warn pursuant to Miranda is itself a violation of the suspect's Fifth Amendment rights.
The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.
Justice Thomas, joined by The Chief Justice and Justice Scalia, concluded that a failure to give a suspect Miranda warnings does not require suppression of the physical fruits of the suspect's unwarned but voluntary statements.
(a) The Miranda rule is a prophylactic employed to protect against violations of the Self-Incrimination Clause, U. S Const., Amdt. 5. That Clause's core protection is a prohibition on compelling a criminal defendant to testify against himself at trial. It cannot be violated by the introduction of nontestimonial evidence obtained as a result of voluntary statements. The Court has recognized and applied several prophylactic rules designed to protect the core privilege against self-incrimination. For example, the Miranda rule creates a presumption of coercion in custodial interrogations, in the absence of specific warnings, that is generally irrebuttable for purposes of the prosecution's case in chief. But because such prophylactic rules necessarily sweep beyond the Self-Incrimination Clause's actual protections, any further extension of one of them must be justified by its necessity for the protection of the actual right against compelled self-incrimination. Thus, uncompelled statements taken without Miranda warnings can be used to impeach a defendant's testimony at trial, though the fruits of actually compelled testimony cannot. A blanket rule requiring suppression of statements noncompliant with the Miranda rule could not be justified by reference to the "Fifth Amendment goal of assuring trustworthy evidence" or by any deterrence rationale, and would therefore fail the Court's requirement that the closest possible fit be maintained between the Self-Incrimination Clause and any rule designed to protect it. Furthermore, the Clause contains its own exclusionary rule that automatically protects those subjected to coercive police interrogations from the use of their involuntary statements (or evidence derived from their statements) in any subsequent criminal trial. This explicit textual protection supports a strong presumption against expanding the Miranda rule any further. Finally, nothing in Dickerson calls into question the Court's continued insistence on its close-fit requirement.
(b) That a mere failure to give Miranda warnings does not, by itself, violate a suspect's constitutional rights or even the Miranda rule was evident in many of the Court's pre-Dickerson cases, and the Court has adhered to that view since Dickerson. This follows from the nature of the "fundamental trial right" protected by the Self-Incrimination Clause, which the Miranda rule, in turn, protects. Thus, the police do not violate a suspect's constitutional rights (or the Miranda rule) by negligent or even deliberate failures to provide full Miranda warnings. Potential violations occur, if at all, only upon the admission of unwarned statements into evidence. And, at that point, the exclusion of such statements is a complete and sufficient remedy for any perceived Miranda violation. Unlike actual violations of the Self-Incrimination Clause, there is, with respect to mere failures to warn, nothing to deter and therefore no reason to apply Wong Sun's "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. It is not for this Court to impose its preferred police practices on either federal or state officials.
(c) The Tenth Circuit erred in ruling that the taking of unwarned statements violates a suspect's constitutional rights. Dickerson's characterization of Miranda as a constitutional rule does not lessen the need to maintain the close-fit requirement. There is no such fit here. Introduction of the nontestimonial fruit of a voluntary statement, such as respondent's pistol, does not implicate the Clause. It presents no risk that a defendant's coerced statements (however defined) will be used against him at a criminal trial. In any case, the exclusion of unwarned statements is a complete and sufficient remedy for any perceived Miranda violation. Similarly, because police cannot violate the Clause by taking unwarned though voluntary statements, an exclusionary rule cannot be justified by reference to a deterrence effect on law enforcement, as the court below believed. The word "witness" in the constitutional text limits the Self-Incrimination Clause's scope to testimonial evidence. And although the Court requires the exclusion of the physical fruit of actually coerced statements, statements taken without sufficient Miranda warnings are presumed to have been coerced only for certain purposes and then only when necessary to protect the privilege against self-incrimination. This Court declines to extend that presumption further.
Justice Kennedy, joined by Justice O'Connor, concluded that it is unnecessary to decide whether the detective's failure to give Patane full Miranda v. Arizona warnings should be characterized as a violation of the Miranda rule itself, or whether there is anything to deter so long as the unwarned statements are not later introduced at trial. In Oregon v. Elstad, New York v. Quarles, and Harris v. New York evidence obtained following unwarned interrogations was held admissible based in large part on the Court's recognition that the concerns underlying the Miranda rule must be accommodated to other objectives of the criminal justice system. Here, it is sufficient to note that the Government presents an even stronger case for admitting the evidence obtained as the result of Patane's unwarned statement than was presented in Elstad and Michigan v. Tucker. Admission of nontestimonial physical fruits (the pistol here) does not run the risk of admitting into trial an accused's coerced incriminating statements against himself. In light of reliable physical evidence's important probative value, it is doubtful that exclusion can be justified by a deterrence rationale sensitive to both law enforcement interests and a suspect's rights during an in-custody interrogation.
How the Justices Voted
Plurality: Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia
Concurrence: Kennedy, joined by O'Connor
Dissent: Souter, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg
United States v. Patane
542 US 630 (2004)
(The Physical Fruits Statements Case)
Patane, was arrested for harassing his ex-girlfriend, Linda O'Donnell. He was released on bond, subject to a temporary restraining order that prohibited him from contacting O'Donnell. Respondent apparently violated the restraining order by attempting to telephone O'Donnell. On June 6, 2001, Officer Tracy Fox of the Colorado Springs Police Department began to investigate the matter. On the same day, a county probation officer informed an agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), that respondent, a convicted felon, illegally possessed a .40 Glock pistol. The ATF relayed this information to Detective Josh Benner, who worked closely with the ATF. Together, Detective Benner and Officer Fox proceeded to respondent's residence.
After reaching the residence and inquiring into respondent's attempts to contact O'Donnell, Officer Fox arrested respondent for violating the restraining order. Detective Benner attempted to advise respondent of his Miranda rights but got no further than the right to remain silent. At that point, respondent interrupted, asserting that he knew his rights, and neither officer attempted to complete the warning.
Detective Benner then asked respondent about the Glock. Respondent was initially reluctant to discuss the matter, stating: "I am not sure I should tell you anything about the Glock because I don't want you to take it away from me." Detective Benner persisted, and respondent told him that the pistol was in his bedroom. Respondent then gave Detective Benner permission to retrieve the pistol. Detective Benner found the pistol and seized it.
Whether a failure to give a suspect the warnings prescribed by Miranda v. Arizona requires suppression of the physical fruits of the suspect's unwarned but voluntary statements.
The Self-Incrimination Clause provides: "No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The Clause cannot be violated by the introduction of nontestimonial evidence obtained as a result of voluntary statements.
in Miranda, the Court concluded that the possibility of coercion inherent in custodial interrogations unacceptably raises the risk that a suspect's privilege against self-incrimination might be violated. To protect against this danger, the Miranda rule creates a presumption of coercion, in the absence of specific warnings, that is generally irrebuttable for purposes of the prosecution's case in chief.
Unlike the Fourth Amendment's bar on unreasonable searches, the Self-Incrimination Clause is self-executing. We have repeatedly explained "that those subjected to coercive police interrogations have an automatic protection from the use of their involuntary statements (or evidence derived from their statements) in any subsequent criminal trial."
A mere failure to give Miranda warnings does not, by itself, violate a suspect's constitutional rights or even the Miranda rule.
Police do not violate a suspect's constitutional rights (or the Miranda rule) by negligent or even deliberate failures to provide the suspect with the full panoply of warnings prescribed by Miranda. Potential violations occur, if at all, only upon the admission of unwarned statements into evidence at trial.
Introduction of the nontestimonial fruit of a voluntary statement, such as respondent's Glock, does not implicate the Self-Incrimination Clause. The admission of such fruit presents no risk that a defendant's coerced statements (however defined) will be used against him at a criminal trial. In any case, "[t]he exclusion of unwarned statements . . . is a complete and sufficient remedy" for any perceived Miranda violation.
Similarly, because police cannot violate the Self-Incrimination Clause by taking unwarned though voluntary statements, an exclusionary rule cannot be justified by reference to a deterrence effect on law enforcement.
We have held that "[t]he word 'witness' in the constitutional text limits the" scope of the Self-Incrimination Clause to testimonial evidence. Although it is true that the Court requires the exclusion of the physical fruit of actually coerced statements, it must be remembered that statements taken without sufficient Miranda warnings are presumed to have been coerced only for certain purposes and then only when necessary to protect the privilege against self-incrimination.
There is simply no need to extend (and therefore no justification for extending) the prophylactic rule of Miranda to this context.