Michigan v. Tucker
E238772
Michigan v. Tucker is a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the exclusionary rule’s application to statements obtained without full Miranda warnings, holding that derivative evidence from such statements could still be admissible.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Michigan v. Tucker canonical | 3 |
| Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433 (1974) | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T2151519 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Michigan v. Tucker Context triple: [Dickerson v. United States, relatedCase, Michigan v. Tucker]
-
A.
Timbs v. Indiana
Timbs v. Indiana is a 2019 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
B.
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce was a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld restrictions on corporate independent political expenditures under the First Amendment until it was later overturned by Citizens United.
-
C.
Virginia v. Black
Virginia v. Black is a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a ban on cross burning carried out with intent to intimidate while clarifying the limits of First Amendment protection for hate speech and symbolic expression.
-
D.
Maryland v. Wirtz
Maryland v. Wirtz was a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the extension of federal minimum wage and overtime provisions to employees of state-operated schools and hospitals under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
-
E.
Washington v. Davis
Washington v. Davis is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that held laws or policies with a racially disproportionate impact do not violate the Equal Protection Clause absent proof of discriminatory intent.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Michigan v. Tucker Target entity description: Michigan v. Tucker is a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the exclusionary rule’s application to statements obtained without full Miranda warnings, holding that derivative evidence from such statements could still be admissible.
-
A.
Timbs v. Indiana
Timbs v. Indiana is a 2019 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
B.
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce was a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld restrictions on corporate independent political expenditures under the First Amendment until it was later overturned by Citizens United.
-
C.
Virginia v. Black
Virginia v. Black is a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a ban on cross burning carried out with intent to intimidate while clarifying the limits of First Amendment protection for hate speech and symbolic expression.
-
D.
Maryland v. Wirtz
Maryland v. Wirtz was a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the extension of federal minimum wage and overtime provisions to employees of state-operated schools and hospitals under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
-
E.
Washington v. Davis
Washington v. Davis is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that held laws or policies with a racially disproportionate impact do not violate the Equal Protection Clause absent proof of discriminatory intent.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (41)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Miranda doctrine case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ criminal procedure case ⓘ |
| addresses | fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine in the Miranda context ⓘ |
| appliesDoctrine |
Miranda warnings
ⓘ
linked to:
Miranda v. Arizona
exclusionary rule ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
Fifth Amendment
ⓘ
constitutional criminal procedure ⓘ police interrogation law ⓘ self-incrimination ⓘ |
| characterizesMirandaAs | prophylactic rule ⓘ |
| citedBy |
Dickerson v. United States
ⓘ
Oregon v. Elstad ⓘ United States v. Patane ⓘ |
| clarifies | Miranda v. Arizona ⓘ |
| concludes | police conduct did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation requiring suppression of derivative evidence ⓘ |
| distinguishes | Miranda v. Arizona ⓘ |
| hasCitation | 417 U.S. 433 ⓘ |
| hasCountry |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| hasCourt | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| hasDecisionDate | 1974 ⓘ |
| hasEffect |
allowed use of derivative evidence obtained from technically defective Miranda warnings
ⓘ
narrowed the reach of the Miranda exclusionary rule ⓘ |
| hasLegalIssue |
admissibility of derivative evidence
ⓘ
effect of incomplete Miranda warnings ⓘ scope of the exclusionary rule ⓘ |
| hasPetitioner |
State of Michigan
ⓘ
linked to:
Michigan
|
| hasPrecedent |
Miranda v. Arizona
ⓘ
Wong Sun v. United States ⓘ |
| hasRespondent | Tucker ⓘ |
| holds |
derivative evidence discovered as a result of a statement taken without full Miranda warnings may be admissible
ⓘ
statements obtained without full Miranda warnings do not automatically require exclusion of derivative evidence ⓘ |
| involves |
police interrogation without complete Miranda warnings
ⓘ
testimony of a witness discovered through an unwarned statement ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | federal ⓘ |
| languageOfProceeding | English ⓘ |
| limits | application of the exclusionary rule to Miranda violations ⓘ |
| reasoningIncludes |
Miranda safeguards are not themselves constitutional rights but measures to protect the Fifth Amendment
ⓘ
not all Miranda violations require exclusion of all fruits of the statement ⓘ |
| result |
conviction affirmed in part
ⓘ
evidence not excluded despite Miranda defect ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Michigan v. Tucker Description of subject: Michigan v. Tucker is a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the exclusionary rule’s application to statements obtained without full Miranda warnings, holding that derivative evidence from such statements could still be admissible.
Referenced by (4)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
linked to: Michigan v. Tucker