Argument of Speaker
Mr. Speaker: The opinion of the Court in No. 02-1183, United States against Patane will be announced by Justice Thomas.
Argument of Justice Thomas
Mr. Thomas: This case comes to us on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
In June 2001, local law enforcement officials investigated whether respondent, Samuel Francis Patane, a convicted felon, illegally possessed a firearm and whether he had violated a restraining order.
Officer Fox and detective Benner proceeded to respondent’s residence where after brief questioning relating to the restraining order, detective Benner attempted to advice respondent of his Miranda rights.
Respondent interrupted asserting that he knew his rights.
Neither officer attempted to complete the warning.
Detective Benner asked about the firearm and respondent told him that his pistol was in his bedroom and gave him permission to retrieve it.
A federal grand jury indicted respondent for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
The District Court granted respondent’s motion to suppress the gun reasoning that the officers lack probable cause for arresting respondent for violating the restraining order.
It therefore, did not need to rule on his alternative argument that the gun should be suppressed as a fruit of an unwarned statement.
The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s ruling with respect to probable cause but affirmed the suppression order on respondent’s alternative theory.
The Court rejected the government’s argument that this Court’s decision in Oregon versus Elstad and Michigan versus Tucker foreclosed the application of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine to the present context.
These holdings, the Court of Appeals have reasoned, were based on a view that Miranda announced the prophylactic rule a view that that Court could not reconcile with our decision in Dickerson versus the United States.
The Court of Appeals thereby equated Dickinson’s announcement that Miranda is a constitutional rule with the proposition that a failure to warn pursuant to Miranda is itself a violation of the constitution.
I have written an opinion filed with the Clerk today announcing the judgment of the Court to reverse.
The Chief Justice and Justice Scalia have joined that opinion; Justice Kennedy has filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in which Justice O’Connor has joined; Justice Suoter has filed a descending opinion in which Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg have joined; Justice Breyer has also filed a dissenting opinion.
