Samuel Patane was arrested in front of his home for calling his ex-girlfriend in violation of a restraining order.

During the trial on gun possession charges, Patane argued that his arrest violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate oneself because there was not probable cause to arrest him and because the gun had been found as a result of an un-Mirandized confession.

A Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals panel disagreed, holding that Patane's ex-girlfriend had given police probable cause for the arrest.

However, the panel held that the gun could not be used as evidence because it had been found as the result of an un-Mirandized (and therefore unconstitutional) confession.

[1] In a decision without a majority opinion, three justices wrote that the Miranda warnings were merely intended to prevent violations of the Constitution, and that because Patane's un-Mirandized testimony was not admitted at trial, the Constitution (specifically the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination) had not been violated.