Dunaway v. New York
- Decided
- June 5, 1979
- Docket
- 78-5066
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,633 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- concluding that defendant’s confession should have been suppressed, as "[n]o intervening events broke the connection between [defendant’s] illegal detention and his confession” — Commonwealth v. Strickler (2000)
- holding that probable cause was required where petitioner’s detention, though not styled as an arrest, “was in important respects indistinguishable from a traditional arrest” — Alfano v. Lynch (2017)
- holding that a voluntary statement must be suppressed under the exclusionary rule if it was causally connected to an illegal seizure — United States v. David Lopez-Arias and Antonio Egues (2003)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court.
We decide in this case the question reserved 10 years ago in Morales v. New York, 396 U. S. 102 (1969), namely, “the question of the legality of custodial questioning on less than probable cause for a full-fledged arrest.” Id., at 106.
I
Cite this
Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979)Read the full opinion
Free account needed
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.