Citation network
Taylor Vs. Alabama
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 23, 1982
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 687 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Taylor v. AlabamaSearch
-
U.S. 687 (1982) Taylor v. AlabamaSearch
-
Petitioner's confession should have been suppressed as the fruit of an illegal arrest. Brown v. IllinoisSearch
-
Dunaway v. NewSearch
-
held that the evidence was properly admitted. Because the decision below is inconsistent with our decisions in Dunaway v. NewSearch
-
York, 442 U. S. 200 (1979), and Brown v. IllinoisSearch
-
searched him, and took him to the station for questioning. Petitioner was given the warnings required by Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
holding that the facts of this case are virtually indistinguishable from those presented to this Court in Dunaway v. NewSearch
-
Court of Criminal Appeals, 399 So.2d 881 (1981), and we granted certiorari, 454 U.S. 963 (1981). II In Brown v. IllinoisSearch
-
supra, and Dunaway v. NewSearch
-
Brown v. IllinoisSearch
-
supra, at 422 U. S. 602 (quoting Wong Sun v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 371 U. S. 471 , 371 U. S. 486 (1963)). See also Dunaway v. NewSearch
-
for purposes of the Fifth Amendment is merely a threshold requirement for Fourth Amendment analysis. See Dunaway v. NewSearch
-
Amendment. Brown v. IllinoisSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Id. at 422 U. S. 603 (quoting Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
however, is irrelevant to whether the confession was the fruit of the illegal arrest. This case is not like Johnson v. LouisianaSearch
-
fingerprints, Page 457 U. S. 693 which were themselves the fruit of petitioner's illegal arrest, see Davis v. MississippiSearch
-
III In sum, petitioner's confession was the fruit of his illegal arrest. Under our decisions in Brown v. IllinoisSearch
-
and Dunaway v. NewSearch
-
court granted petitioner's motion to suppress the initial fingerprints as the fruit of his illegal arrest under Davis v. MississippiSearch
-
Ante at 457 U. S. 690 (quoting Brown v. IllinoisSearch
-
The Court held that, as a consequence, the confession should have been suppressed. Four Terms later, in Dunaway v. NewSearch
-
express findings by the district court, there is any reasonable view of the evidence to support it. See United States v. PaytonSearch
-
United States v. VicknairSearch
-
The holding in Brown was derived from this Court's seminal decision in Wong Sun v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Taylor v. AlabamaSearch
-
and Brown v. IllinoisSearch
-
Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
II In Brown v. IllinoisSearch
-
Wong Sun v. UnitedSearch
-
See Dunaway v. NewSearch
-
Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
Johnson v. LouisianaSearch
-
Davis v. MississippiSearch
-
See United States v. PaytonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial