# Brown v. Illinois > Supreme Court of the United States · June 26, 1975 · 422 U.S. 590 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426179 ## Case - **Full name:** Brown v. Illinois - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** June 26, 1975 - **Citations:** 422 U.S. 590; 95 S. Ct. 2254; 45 L. Ed. 2d 416; 1975 U.S. LEXIS 82 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by White - **Judges:** Blackmun, White, Powell - **Cited by:** 3,846 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426179 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that an inculpatory statement given as a result of a Fourth Amendment violation such as an unconstitutional arrest is excludable even if the defendant subsequently receives his Mi randa warnings, unless the prosecution can show that the circumstances “make the [stateme… - holding that an officer’s erroneous belief that he was arresting the correct person was not sufficient misconduct to require suppression of post-arrest statements and bullets obtained from arrestee’s person; an “unreasonable mistake of fact ... does not constitute the type of … - stating that to ensure that a violation of the Fourth Amendment "has not been unduly exploited" to obtain a confession, the prosecutor must show "not merely that the statement meets the Fifth Amendment standard of voluntariness but that it be sufficiently an act of free will t… - finding, in contrast, no attenuation when the actions of law enforcement “had a quality of purposefulness” and the detectives “repeatedly acknowledged, in their testimony, that the purpose of their actions was ‘for investigation’ or for ‘questioning’ ” indicating an “expeditio… - concluding that giving of Miranda warnings, standing *382 alone, cannot support attenuation when confession follows unlawful arrest; but noting that giving of Miranda warnings is relevant factor to consider in determining whether confession was sufficiently attenuated from unl… ## Opinion text *606 Mr. Justice White, concurring in the judgment. Insofar as the Court holds (1) that despite Miranda warnings the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments require the exclusion from evidence of statements obtained as the fruit of an arrest which the arresting officers knew or should have known was without probable cause and unconstitutional, and (2) that the statements obtained in this case were in this category, I am in agreement and therefore concur in the judgment. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426179. Public record. Not legal advice.