InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Dunaway v. New York

The Court held that a later Miranda warning was not enough to cure the taint of an unlawful arrest when that arrest led to a coerced confession.· AI-written

442 U.S. 200 · No. 78-5066 · 1978 term · Burger Court

Decided Jun 5, 1979 · argued Mar 21, 1979

Criminal procedure · Involuntary confession

Majority opinion: William Brennan

The voteMajorityDissent

6–26 in the majority, 2 in dissent

2 dissents (7–2)

Reversed. Dunaway won.

What this ruling means

Reversed: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the New York appellate court, and its own ruling ends the case.

Dunaway was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case that held a subsequent Miranda warning is not sufficient to cure the taint of an unlawful arrest, when the unlawful arrest led to a coerced confession.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1978 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 2 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianMarshallBrennanStevensWhiteBlackmunStewartBurgerRehnquist

Majority(6)

Dissent(2)

Did not take part: Lewis Powell.

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
DunawayArrested person, or pretrial detainee
Respondent
New YorkState (New York)
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Fourth Amendment
Kind of law
Constitutional Amendment
Decided by
Judicial review (state level)
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jun 5, 1979DecidedDecided · Decided 6–2: reversed. Dunaway won.
  2. Mar 21, 1979ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the New York appellate court: reversed, with a dissent.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the New York trial court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

49 other argued cases since 1946 on involuntary confession, newest first.

  1. Kansas v. Donnie Ray Ventris556 U.S. 586Apr 29, 2009 · 556 U.S. 586Criminal procedure7–27–2 band

  2. Arizona v. Fulminante499 U.S. 279Mar 26, 1991 · 499 U.S. 279Criminal procedure5–45–4 band

  3. Colorado v. Spring479 U.S. 564Jan 27, 1987 · 479 U.S. 564Criminal procedure7–27–2 band

  4. Colorado v. Connelly479 U.S. 157Dec 10, 1986 · 479 U.S. 157Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  5. Crane v. Kentucky476 U.S. 683Jun 9, 1986 · 476 U.S. 683Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  6. Taylor v. Alabama457 U.S. 687Jun 23, 1982 · 457 U.S. 687Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  7. Brown v. Illinois422 U.S. 590Jun 26, 1975 · 422 U.S. 590Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band

  8. Fontaine v. United States411 U.S. 213Apr 2, 1973 · 411 U.S. 213Criminal procedure8–18–1 band
  9. Swenson, Warden v. Stidham409 U.S. 224Dec 7, 1972 · 409 U.S. 224Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  10. Lego v. Twomey, Warden404 U.S. 477Jan 12, 1972 · 404 U.S. 477Criminal procedure4–36–3 band
  11. Procunier, Director, California Department of Corrections v. Atchley400 U.S. 446Jan 19, 1971 · 400 U.S. 446Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  12. Monks v. New Jersey398 U.S. 71May 25, 1970 · 398 U.S. 71Criminal procedure6–27–2 band
  13. Morales v. New York396 U.S. 102Dec 8, 1969 · 396 U.S. 102Criminal procedure7–18–1 band
  14. Boulden v. Holman, Warden394 U.S. 478Apr 2, 1969 · 394 U.S. 478Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
  15. Harrison v. United States392 U.S. 219Jun 10, 1968 · 392 U.S. 219Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  16. Clewis v. Texas386 U.S. 707Apr 24, 1967 · 386 U.S. 707Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  17. Sims v. Georgia385 U.S. 538Jan 23, 1967 · 385 U.S. 538Criminal procedure8–18–1 band
  18. Davis v. North Carolina384 U.S. 737Jun 20, 1966 · 384 U.S. 737Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  19. Haynes v. Washington373 U.S. 503May 27, 1963 · 373 U.S. 503Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  20. Lynumn v. Illinois372 U.S. 528Mar 25, 1963 · 372 U.S. 528Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  21. Gallegos v. Colorado370 U.S. 49Jun 4, 1962 · 370 U.S. 49Criminal procedure4–36–3 band
  22. Culombe v. Connecticut367 U.S. 568Jun 19, 1961 · 367 U.S. 568Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  23. Reck v. Pate, Warden367 U.S. 433Jun 12, 1961 · 367 U.S. 433Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  24. Coppola v. United States365 U.S. 762Apr 17, 1961 · 365 U.S. 762Criminal procedure8–18–1 band
  25. Rogers v. Richmond, Warden365 U.S. 534Mar 20, 1961 · 365 U.S. 534Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  26. Blackburn v. Alabama361 U.S. 199Jan 11, 1960 · 361 U.S. 199Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  27. Spano v. New York360 U.S. 315Jun 22, 1959 · 360 U.S. 315Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  28. Cicenia v. Lagay, Superintendent, New Jersey State Prison Farm357 U.S. 504Jun 30, 1958 · 357 U.S. 504Criminal procedure5–36–3 band
  29. Crooker v. California357 U.S. 433Jun 30, 1958 · 357 U.S. 433Criminal procedure5–45–4 band

  30. Ashdown v. Utah357 U.S. 426Jun 30, 1958 · 357 U.S. 426Criminal procedure7–27–2 band

  31. Payne v. Arkansas356 U.S. 560May 19, 1958 · 356 U.S. 560Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  32. Thomas v. Arizona356 U.S. 390May 19, 1958 · 356 U.S. 390Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  33. Fikes v. Alabama352 U.S. 191Jan 14, 1957 · 352 U.S. 191Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  34. Pennsylvania ex rel. Herman v. Claudy, Warden350 U.S. 116Jan 9, 1956 · 350 U.S. 116Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  35. Reeves v. Alabama.348 U.S. 891Dec 6, 1954 · 348 U.S. 891Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
  36. Leyra v. Denno, Warden347 U.S. 556Jun 1, 1954 · 347 U.S. 556Criminal procedure5–36–3 band
  37. Stein v. New York346 U.S. 156Jun 15, 1953 · 346 U.S. 156Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  38. Brown v. Allen, WardenLandmark344 U.S. 443Feb 9, 1953 · 344 U.S. 443Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  39. Stroble v. California343 U.S. 181Apr 7, 1952 · 343 U.S. 181Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  40. Rochin v. California342 U.S. 165Jan 2, 1952 · 342 U.S. 165Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
  41. Gallegos v. Nebraska342 U.S. 55Nov 26, 1951 · 342 U.S. 55Criminal procedure6–27–2 band
  42. United States v. Carignan342 U.S. 36Nov 13, 1951 · 342 U.S. 36Criminal procedure5–36–3 band
  43. Harris v. South Carolina338 U.S. 68Jun 27, 1949 · 338 U.S. 68Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  44. Turner v. Pennsylvania338 U.S. 62Jun 27, 1949 · 338 U.S. 62Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  45. Watts v. Indiana338 U.S. 49Jun 27, 1949 · 338 U.S. 49Criminal procedure6–36–3 band

  46. Upshaw v. United States335 U.S. 410Dec 13, 1948 · 335 U.S. 410Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  47. Townsend v. Burke, Warden334 U.S. 736Jun 14, 1948 · 334 U.S. 736Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  48. Lee v. Mississippi332 U.S. 742Jan 19, 1948 · 332 U.S. 742Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  49. Haley v. Ohio332 U.S. 596Jan 12, 1948 · 332 U.S. 596Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.