Experimental. Doctrines is a new Annlex feature, starting with four areas: Self-incrimination, Brady, Terry and Miranda. Each page collects what courts have said about a leading case, quoted from the opinions that cite it. Annlex Chat uses these collections to help find relevant cases; what a case holds still comes from its opinion. We'd like to hear what's useful, missing or wrong: Send feedback
Physical fruits of voluntary unwarned statements not suppressible under Miranda
Leading case
United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004)
How courts have described it
holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to the physical fruits of Miranda violations
Robert Smith v. Stuart Sherman, 583 F. App'x 766 (9th Cir. 2014)
holding that physical evidence obtained as a result of unwarned statements is not excluded by Miranda
United States v. Capers, 627 F.3d 470 (2d Cir. 2010)
holding that nontestimonial physical evidence need not be suppressed under Miranda because it "does not implicate the Self-Incrimination Clause"
Brevard v. McCarthy (E.D.N.Y. 2025)
concluding that the failure to provide Miranda warnings did not require suppression of the physical evidence of the suspect’s voluntary statement given without Miranda warnings while in custody
Hayes v. State, 910 S.E.2d 198 (Ga. 2024)
holding that Miranda does not require the suppression of the fruits of a voluntary but un-Mirandized statement made during custodial questioning
Williams v. United States (D.C. 2022)
holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to physical evidence obtained as a result of questioning that violated Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
ABID VS. ABID (CHILD CUSTODY), 2017 NV 94 (Nev. 2017)
holding that the Fifth Amendment did not require the suppression of the physical fruits of a Miranda violation where the statement was voluntary
NYIA GORE v. UNITED STATES, 145 A.3d 540 (D.C. 2016)
holding that "the Miranda rule is a prophylactic employed to protect against violations of the Self-Incrimination Clause"
State v. Crook, 785 S.E.2d 771 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016)
holding that fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine does not apply to physical evidence obtained as a result of Miranda violations
State v. Bardales (Conn. App. Ct. 2016)
Related doctrines
- Constitutional basis of Miranda warnings (no legislative override)
- Question-First, Warn-Later Interrogation (Two-Step Interrogation)
About this page
The quotations above are from court opinions that cite the leading case, in each court's own words. The heading is a short label Annlex generated from those quotations. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer and is not legal advice.