Brown v. Illinois
E809984
Brown v. Illinois is a 1975 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the admissibility of confessions obtained after an unlawful arrest by emphasizing the need to purge the taint of the initial Fourth Amendment violation.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Brown v. Illinois canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T9607456 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Brown v. Illinois Context triple: [Utah v. Strieff, relatedCase, Brown v. Illinois]
-
A.
Moore v. Illinois
Moore v. Illinois is a United States Supreme Court decision addressing constitutional criminal procedure issues, particularly concerning the rights of defendants in state prosecutions.
-
B.
Escobedo v. Illinois
Escobedo v. Illinois is a landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that expanded the Sixth Amendment right to counsel during police interrogations and helped lay the groundwork for the later Miranda warnings.
-
C.
Scott v. Illinois
Scott v. Illinois is a 1979 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel applies only when a defendant is actually sentenced to imprisonment, thereby limiting the broader protections suggested in Argersinger v. Hamlin.
-
D.
Munn v. Illinois
Munn v. Illinois is an 1877 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld state regulation of private industries affecting the public interest, marking a key moment in the development of government regulatory power.
-
E.
Jacobellis v. Ohio
Jacobellis v. Ohio is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision that refined the constitutional standards for obscenity under the First Amendment, famously associated with Justice Potter Stewart’s “I know it when I see it” concurrence.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Brown v. Illinois Target entity description: Brown v. Illinois is a 1975 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the admissibility of confessions obtained after an unlawful arrest by emphasizing the need to purge the taint of the initial Fourth Amendment violation.
-
A.
Moore v. Illinois
Moore v. Illinois is a United States Supreme Court decision addressing constitutional criminal procedure issues, particularly concerning the rights of defendants in state prosecutions.
-
B.
Escobedo v. Illinois
Escobedo v. Illinois is a landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that expanded the Sixth Amendment right to counsel during police interrogations and helped lay the groundwork for the later Miranda warnings.
-
C.
Scott v. Illinois
Scott v. Illinois is a 1979 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel applies only when a defendant is actually sentenced to imprisonment, thereby limiting the broader protections suggested in Argersinger v. Hamlin.
-
D.
Munn v. Illinois
Munn v. Illinois is an 1877 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld state regulation of private industries affecting the public interest, marking a key moment in the development of government regulatory power.
-
E.
Jacobellis v. Ohio
Jacobellis v. Ohio is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision that refined the constitutional standards for obscenity under the First Amendment, famously associated with Justice Potter Stewart’s “I know it when I see it” concurrence.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (50)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
criminal procedure case ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 1975-01-13 ⓘ |
| citation | 422 U.S. 590 ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy |
Justice Byron R. White
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Justice Thurgood Marshall NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice William J. Brennan Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| concurrenceInJudgmentBy | Justice William O. Douglas NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvision |
Fifth Amendment
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Fourth Amendment NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decidedDate | 1975-06-26 ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1975-06-26 ⓘ |
| decisionType | opinion of the Court ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 73-1302 ⓘ |
| effect |
clarified standards for determining when evidence is sufficiently attenuated from a Fourth Amendment violation
ⓘ
limited admissibility of confessions obtained after an unlawful arrest unless the taint is purged ⓘ |
| fullCaseName | Brown v. Illinois NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| holding |
Courts must determine whether a confession is obtained by exploitation of an illegal arrest or by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.
ⓘ
Miranda warnings alone do not automatically purge the taint of an unlawful arrest for purposes of admitting a confession. ⓘ The State bears the burden of showing that a confession following an illegal arrest is admissible. ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Justice Harry A. Blackmun NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice Potter Stewart NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice William H. Rehnquist NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| keyFactor |
presence of intervening circumstances
ⓘ
purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct ⓘ temporal proximity between the illegal arrest and the confession ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
admissibility of confessions following an unlawful arrest
ⓘ
attenuation doctrine ⓘ fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine ⓘ |
| legalSubject |
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ criminal procedure ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| page | 590 ⓘ |
| party |
Richard Brown
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
State of Illinois NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| priorCourt | Supreme Court of Illinois NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| relatedDoctrine |
attenuation exception
ⓘ
exclusionary rule ⓘ fruit of the poisonous tree ⓘ |
| reporter | U.S. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| ruleOfLaw |
Courts must consider temporal proximity, intervening circumstances, and the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct in assessing attenuation.
ⓘ
The giving of Miranda warnings is an important factor but not dispositive in determining attenuation from an unlawful arrest. ⓘ |
| subsequentCitationBy |
Dunaway v. New York
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Kaupp v. Texas NERFINISHED ⓘ Taylor v. Alabama NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| volume | 422 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Brown v. Illinois Description of subject: Brown v. Illinois is a 1975 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the admissibility of confessions obtained after an unlawful arrest by emphasizing the need to purge the taint of the initial Fourth Amendment violation.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
subject surface form:
Utah v. Strieff