United States v. Patane
E822433
United States v. Patane is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the exclusionary rule by holding that physical evidence obtained as a result of unwarned but voluntary statements is admissible despite a Miranda violation.
All labels observed (3)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| United States v. Patane canonical | 1 |
| United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004) | 1 |
| United States v. Samuel Francis Patane | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T9830659 — 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: United States v. Patane Context triple: [Michigan v. Tucker, citedBy, United States v. Patane]
-
A.
United States v. Bajakajian
United States v. Bajakajian is a 1998 U.S. Supreme Court case that held, for the first time, that a criminal forfeiture could violate the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause if it is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense.
-
B.
United States v. Eichman
United States v. Eichman is a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a federal law banning flag desecration as unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.
-
C.
United States v. Giordano
United States v. Giordano is a U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the strict procedural requirements for federal wiretap authorizations and limited who may approve such surveillance orders.
-
D.
United States v. Gratiot
United States v. Gratiot is an 1840 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld broad federal authority over public lands under the Constitution’s Property Clause.
-
E.
United States v. Classic
United States v. Classic is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court decision that expanded federal authority over primary elections by holding that Congress can regulate primaries when they are an integral part of the electoral process for federal offices.
- 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: United States v. Patane Target entity description: United States v. Patane is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the exclusionary rule by holding that physical evidence obtained as a result of unwarned but voluntary statements is admissible despite a Miranda violation.
-
A.
United States v. Bajakajian
United States v. Bajakajian is a 1998 U.S. Supreme Court case that held, for the first time, that a criminal forfeiture could violate the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause if it is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense.
-
B.
United States v. Eichman
United States v. Eichman is a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a federal law banning flag desecration as unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.
-
C.
United States v. Giordano
United States v. Giordano is a U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the strict procedural requirements for federal wiretap authorizations and limited who may approve such surveillance orders.
-
D.
United States v. Gratiot
United States v. Gratiot is an 1840 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld broad federal authority over public lands under the Constitution’s Property Clause.
-
E.
United States v. Classic
United States v. Classic is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court decision that expanded federal authority over primary elections by holding that Congress can regulate primaries when they are an integral part of the electoral process for federal offices.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (47)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Miranda doctrine case
ⓘ
U.S. Supreme Court case ⓘ criminal procedure case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
Fifth Amendment
ⓘ
criminal procedure ⓘ self-incrimination ⓘ |
| citation | 542 U.S. 630 ⓘ |
| citationStyle |
United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004)
ⓘ
linked to:
United States v. Patane
|
| concurrenceBy |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Self-Incrimination Clause
ⓘ
U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment ⓘ |
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2004-06-28 ⓘ |
| dissentBy |
David H. Souter
ⓘ
John Paul Stevens ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ |
| evidenceTypeAtIssue |
handgun
ⓘ
physical evidence ⓘ |
| factPattern |
Defendant interrupted Miranda warnings and admitted to possessing a gun.
ⓘ
Police, relying on the unwarned admission, recovered a handgun from the defendant’s residence. ⓘ |
| fullCaseName |
United States v. Samuel Francis Patane
ⓘ
linked to:
United States v. Patane
|
| holding |
A failure to give Miranda warnings does not require suppression of physical fruits of a suspect’s unwarned but voluntary statements.
ⓘ
Physical evidence obtained as a result of unwarned but voluntary statements is admissible at trial. ⓘ The Self-Incrimination Clause is not implicated by the introduction at trial of physical evidence resulting from voluntary statements. ⓘ |
| impact |
allowed admission of physical fruits of unwarned but voluntary statements
ⓘ
limited the scope of the Miranda exclusionary rule ⓘ |
| issue |
admissibility of physical evidence derived from unwarned statements
ⓘ
scope of the exclusionary rule for Miranda violations ⓘ |
| joinedByInPlurality |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
Antonin Scalia ⓘ William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| languageOfOpinion | English ⓘ |
| legalRule |
Miranda’s exclusionary rule is a prophylactic rule that does not extend to physical fruits of unwarned but voluntary statements.
ⓘ
Only unwarned statements themselves, not derivative physical evidence, are generally subject to suppression under Miranda. ⓘ |
| lowerCourt | United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ⓘ |
| lowerCourtDisposition | suppressed the handgun as fruit of a Miranda violation ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Clarence Thomas ⓘ |
| pluralityOpinionBy | Clarence Thomas ⓘ |
| relatedDoctrine |
Miranda v. Arizona
ⓘ
exclusionary rule ⓘ fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine ⓘ |
| supremeCourtDisposition | reversed the judgment of the Tenth Circuit ⓘ |
| term | October Term 2003 ⓘ |
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: United States v. Patane Description of subject: United States v. Patane is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the exclusionary rule by holding that physical evidence obtained as a result of unwarned but voluntary statements is admissible despite a Miranda violation.
Referenced by (3)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
linked to: United States v. Patane
linked to: United States v. Patane