Patane (D) was arrested for harassing his ex-girlfriend. He was released subject to a temporary restraining order. D violated the order, and an officer investigated. On the same day, a county probation officer informed an agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), that D, a convicted felon, illegally possessed a .40 Glock pistol. This information was given to the Detective who proceeded with an Officer to D's residence. D was arrested for violating the restraining order. The Detective attempted to advise D of his Miranda rights but got no further than the right to remain silent. D interrupted, asserting that he knew his rights, and neither officer attempted to complete the warning. Eventually, D admitted that the pistol was in his bedroom. D gave the Detective permission to retrieve the pistol. D was indicted for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The District Court granted respondent's motion to suppress the firearm, reasoning that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest respondent for violating the restraining order. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's ruling with respect to probable cause but affirmed the suppression order on D's alternative theory as the fruit of the poisonous tree. The Court of Appeals thus equated Dickerson'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 (and, more particularly, of the suspect's Fifth Amendment rights). The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.