than based on ‘demonstrated historical facts capable of ready verification’ ” that the officers would have applied for, let alone obtained, a warrant to search appellant’s abode. Thus, the “requisite actuality that the discovery would have ultimately been made by lawful means” is entirely lacking here. We t officers entered her room, the government adds that "[e]ven assuming arguendo that appellant’s statement as to the location of the property [in her bath tub] violated Miranda because a ‘custodial interrogation' had been taking place at that time, the Miranda violation would not justify suppression of the [physical] evidence because the statement was nonetheless voluntary.” Id. at 16 n. 10 (citing United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630, 634, 124 S.Ct. 2620, 159 L.Ed.2d 667 (2004) (<HOLDING>)). 12 . Maryland v. Shatter, 559 U.S. 98, 112,
holding that the physical fruits of a miranda violation must be suppressed holding miranda violation does not vitiate voluntary consent holding that the statement ill take the fifth was an assertion of the fifth amendment privilege holding that the fifth amendment did not require the suppression of the physical fruits of a miranda violation where the statement was voluntary holding that miranda violation did not require suppression of immigrants fingerprints