In the case of Taylor v. Alabama (1981), the U.S. Supreme Court examined whether a confession obtained by police after an illegal arrest could be used as evidence in court. The defendant, Robert Lee Taylor, was arrested without a warrant at his home for suspected involvement in a robbery and subsequently confessed to the crime during interrogation at the police station. He later sought to suppress this confession on grounds that it was derived from an unlawful arrest made without probable cause or exigent circumstances justifying warrantless entry into his home. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against Taylor, holding that even if his initial arrest had been illegal under Payton v. New York (which prohibits non-emergency arrests inside homes without warrants), there were sufficient intervening events between his arrest and subsequent confession - including being advised twice of Miranda rights - which broke any causal connection between them; thus making his statement admissible as evidence. This decision marked another instance where exclusionary rule exceptions allowed potentially illegally obtained evidence to be admitted in court trials.

In the dissenting opinion for Taylor v. Alabama, Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall and Blackmun, disagreed with the majority's ruling that a confession obtained after an illegal arrest could be admissible in court if it was voluntary. The dissent argued that this decision undermined previous rulings which aimed to deter unlawful police conduct by excluding evidence gained through such actions. They contended that allowing confessions obtained after an illegal arrest would encourage law enforcement officers to disregard Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures as they could potentially benefit from any subsequent voluntary confessions regardless of their initial misconduct. Furthermore, they expressed concern over how voluntariness is determined and suggested it should not solely rely on whether Miranda warnings were given but also consider factors like length of detention before arraignment or questioning tactics used during interrogation.