Go to:	Argument, Parts I-II	Case Menu	Briefs Menu

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (CJLF) ⁽¹⁾ is a nonprofit corporation organized to participate in litigation relating to the criminal justice system as it affects the public interest. CJLF seeks to bring the constitutional protections of the accused into balance with the rights of the victim and of society to rapid, efficient, and reliable determination of guilt and swift execution of punishment.

The present case involves the suppression of evidence of a crime which is indisputably reliable, for reasons involving no actual violation of constitutional rights and of dubious value in safeguarding constitutional rights. The cost of suppression in a case such as this vastly outweighs the benefits, and suppression is contrary to the interests CJLF was formed to protect.

SUMMARY OF FACTS AND CASE

The relevant facts, as stated in the Court of Appeals' opinion, can be briefly stated. Colorado Springs police arrested defendant Samuel Patane for violation of a harassment restraining order on June 6, 2001, three days after his release from the county jail. United States v.Patane, 304 F. 3d 1013, 1014-1015 (CA10 2002). They had information that Patane was a convicted felon and that he possessed a Glock .40 caliber pistol. "Detective Benner began advising Patane of his Miranda rights, but only got as far as the right to silence when Patane said that he knew his rights. No further Miranda warnings were given, a fact which the Government concedes on appeal resulted in a Miranda violation." Id., at 1015. ⁽²⁾ Upon questioning about the gun, Patane told the officers it was in his bedroom and gave them permission to retrieve it. Ibid. ⁽³⁾

Patane was indicted in federal court for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(1). The District Court ordered that the gun be suppressed as evidence, on the ground that the police did not have probable cause to arrest Patane. Id., at 1014. The Court of Appeals concluded that the police did have probable cause, but it nonetheless affirmed the suppression order on the theory that the gun was the "fruit" of the Miranda violation. Ibid.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

On the facts of this case, it is doubtful whether a violation of the Miranda rule occurred. This Court has not ruled on the question, and other courts are divided. The issue should be expressly reserved, to be decided in a case where it is contested. The split of authority on the point, however, is relevant in that it shows that the police in this case acted in good faith and that the "bright-line" rule of Miranda is not as bright as advertised.

Dickerson v. United States affirmed the Miranda body of jurisprudence in its entirety, including the exceptions and limitations of the rule, and specifically including Michigan v. Tucker and Oregon v. Elstad.

Miranda is a rule developed to manage the risk that the inquiry into voluntariness of a statement might be decided incorrectly. Its conclusive presumption is doubtful even in its core area of operation and should not be extended beyond the core. The same balance of factors that led to admission of the evidence in Tucker and Elstad is present in this case, and it should produce the same result.

	Beginning of this file	Argument, Parts I - II	Case Menu

1. This brief was written entirely by counsel for amicus, as listed on the cover, and not by counsel for any party. No outside contributions were made to the preparation or submission of this brief.

Both parties have given written consent to the filing of this brief.

2. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). Amicus CJLF does not believe that this concession was correct. See Part I, infra.

3. Defendant disputes that he gave permission. See Brief in Opposition 5, n. 1.