*604Justice Souter

announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Justice Stevens, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join.

This case tests a police protocol for custodial interrogation that calls for giving no warnings of the rights to silence and counsel until interrogation has produced a confession. Although such a statement is generally inadmissible, since taken in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), the interrogating officer follows it with Miranda warnings and then leads the suspect to cover the same ground a second time. The question here is the admissibility of the repeated statement. Because this midstream recitation of warnings after interrogation and unwarned confession could not effectively comply with Miranda’s constitutional requirement, we hold that a statement repeated after a warning in such circumstances is inadmissible.

I

Respondent Patrice Seibert’s 12-year-old son Jonathan had cerebral palsy, and when he died in his sleep she feared charges of neglect because of bedsores on his body. In her presence, two of her teenage sons and two of their friends devised a plan to conceal the facts surrounding Jonathan’s death by incinerating his body in the course of burning the family’s mobile home, in which they planned to leave Donald Rector, a mentally ill teenager living with the family, to avoid any appearance that Jonathan had been unattended. Seibert’s son Darían and a friend set the fire, and Donald died.

Five days later, the police awakened Seibert at 3 a.m. at a hospital where Darían was being treated for burns. In arresting her, Officer Kevin Clinton followed instructions from Rolla, Missouri, Officer Richard Hanrahan that he refrain from giving Miranda warnings. After Seibert had been taken to the police station and left alone in an interview room for 15 to 20 minutes, Officer Hanrahan questioned her *605without Miranda warnings for 30 to 40 minutes, squeezing her arm and repeating “Donald was also to die in his sleep.” App. 59 (internal quotation marks omitted). After Seibert finally admitted she knew Donald was meant to die in the fire, she was given a 20-minute coffee and cigarette break. Officer Hanrahan then turned on a tape recorder, gave Seibert the Miranda warnings, and obtained a signed waiver of rights from her. He resumed the questioning with “Ok, ’trice, we’ve been talking for a little while about what happened on Wednesday the twelfth, haven’t we?” App. 66, and confronted her with her prewarning statements:

Hanrahan: “Now, in discussion you told us, you told us that there was a[n] understanding about Donald.”

Seibert: “Yes.”

Hanrahan: “Did that take place earlier that morning?” Seibert: “Yes.”

Hanrahan: “And what was the understanding about Donald?”

Seibert: “If they could get him out of the trailer, to take him out of the trailer.”

Hanrahan: “And if they couldn’t?”

Seibert: “I, I never even thought about it. I just figured they would.”

Hanrahan: “’Trice, didn’t you tell me that he was supposed to die in his sleep?”

Seibert: “If that would happen, ’cause he was on that new medicine, you know ....”

Hanrahan: “The Prozac? And it makes him sleepy. So he was supposed to die in his sleep?”

Seibert: “Yes.” Id., at 70.

After being charged with first-degree murder for her role in Donald’s death, Seibert sought to exclude both her pre-warning and postwarning statements. At the suppression hearing, Officer Hanrahan testified that he made a “conscious *606decision” to withhold Miranda warnings, thus resorting to an interrogation technique he had been taught: question first, then give the warnings, and then repeat the question “until I get the answer that she’s already provided once.” App. 31-34. He acknowledged that Seibert’s ultimate statement was “largely a repeat of information . . . obtained” prior to the warning. Id., at 30.

The trial court suppressed the prewarning statement but admitted the responses given after the Miranda recitation. A jury convicted Seibert of second-degree murder. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed, treating this case as indistinguishable from Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U. S. 298 (1985). No. 23729, 2002 WL 114804 (Jan. 30, 2002) (not released for publication).

The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed, holding that “[i]n the circumstances here, where the interrogation was nearly continuous, . . . the second statement, clearly the product of the invalid first statement, should have been suppressed.” 93 S. W. 3d 700, 701 (2002) (en banc). The court distinguished Elstad on the ground that warnings had not intentionally been withheld there, 93 S. W. 3d, at 704, and reasoned that “Officer Hanrahan’s intentional omission of a Miranda warning was intended to deprive Seibert of the opportunity knowingly and intelligently to waive her Miranda rights,” id., at 706. Since there were “no circumstances that would seem to dispel the effect of the Miranda violation,” the court held that the postwarning confession was involuntary and therefore inadmissible. Ibid. To allow the police to achieve an “end run” around Miranda, the court explained, would encourage Miranda violations and diminish Miranda’s role in protecting the privilege against self-incrimination. 93 S. W. 3d, at 706-707. Three judges dissented, taking the view that Elstad applied even though the police intentionally withheld Miranda warnings before the initial statement, and believing that “Seibert’s unwarned responses to Officer Hanrahan’s questioning did not prevent *607her from waiving her rights and confessing.” 93 S. W. 3d, at 708 (opinion of Benton, J.).

We granted certiorari, 538 U. S. 1031 (2003), to resolve a split in the Courts of Appeals. Compare United States v. Gale, 952 F. 2d 1412, 1418 (CADC 1992) (while “deliberate ‘end run’ around Miranda” would provide cause for suppression, case involved no conduct of that order); United States v. Carter, 884 F. 2d 368, 373 (CA8 1989) (“Elstad did not go so far as to fashion a rule permitting this sort of end run around Miranda”), with United States v. Orso, 266 F 3d 1030, 1034-1039 (CA9 2001) (en banc) (rejecting argument that “tainted fruit” analysis applies because deliberate withholding of Miranda warnings constitutes an “improper tactic”); United States v. Esquilin, 208 F 3d 315, 319-321 (CA1 2000) (similar). We now affirm.

II

“In criminal trials, in the courts of the United States, wherever a question arises whether a confession is incompetent because not voluntary, the issue is controlled by that portion of the Fifth Amendment . . . commanding that no person ‘shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.’ ” Bram v. United States, 168 U. S. 532, 542 (1897). A parallel rule governing the admissibility of confessions in state courts emerged from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, see, e. g., Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278 (1936), which governed state cases until we concluded in Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1, 8 (1964), that “[t]he Fourteenth Amendment secures against state invasion the same privilege that the Fifth Amendment guarantees against federal infringement — the right of a person to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will, and to suffer no penalty ... for such silence.” In unifying the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment voluntariness tests, Malloy “made clear what had already become apparent — that the substantive and procedural safe*608guards surrounding admissibility of confessions in state cases had become exceedingly exacting, reflecting all the policies embedded in the privilege” against self-incrimination. Miranda, 384 U. S., at 464.

In Miranda, we explained that the “voluntariness doctrine in the state cases ... encompasses all interrogation practices which are likely to exert such pressure upon an individual as to disable him from making a free and rational choice,” id., at 464-465. We appreciated the difficulty of judicial enquiry post hoc into the circumstances of a police interrogation, Dickerson v. United States, 530 U. S. 428, 444 (2000), and recognized that “the coercion inherent in custodial interrogation blurs the line between voluntary and involuntary statements, and thus heightens the risk” that the privilege against self-incrimination will not be observed, id., at 435. Hence our concern that the “traditional totality-of-the-eircumstances” test posed an “unacceptably great” risk that involuntary custodial confessions would escape detection. Id., at 442.

Accordingly, “to reduce the risk of a coerced confession and to implement the Self-Incrimination Clause,” Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U. S. 760, 790 (2003) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), this Court in Miranda concluded that “the accused must be adequately and effectively apprised of his rights and the exercise of those rights must be fully honored,” 384 U. S., at 467. Miranda conditioned the admissibility at trial of any custodial confession on warning a suspect of his rights: failure to give the prescribed warnings and obtain a waiver of rights before custodial questioning generally requires exclusion of any statements obtained.1 Conversely, giving the warnings and getting a *609waiver has generally produced a virtual ticket of admissibility; maintaining that a statement is involuntary even though given after warnings and voluntary waiver of rights requires unusual stamina, and litigation over voluntariness tends to end with the finding of a valid waiver. See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420, 433, n. 20 (1984) (“[C]ases in which a defendant can make a colorable argument that a self-incriminating statement was ‘compelled’ despite the fact that the law enforcement authorities adhered to the dictates of Miranda are rare”). To point out the obvious, this common consequence would not be common at all were it not that Miranda warnings are customarily given under circumstances allowing for a real choice between talking and remaining silent.

Ill

There are those, of course, who preferred the old way of doing things, giving no warnings and litigating the voluntariness of any statement in nearly every instance. In the aftermath of Miranda, Congress even passed a statute seeking to restore that old regime, 18 U. S. C. §3501, although the Act lay dormant for years until finally invoked and challenged in Dickerson v. United States, swpra. Dickerson reaffirmed Miranda and held that its constitutional character prevailed against the statute.

The technique of interrogating in successive, unwarned' and warned phases raises a new challenge to Miranda. Although we have no statistics on the frequency of this practice, it is not confined to Rolla, Missouri. An officer of that police department testified that the strategy of withholding Miranda warnings until after interrogating and drawing out a confession was promoted not only by his own department, but by a national police training organization and other departments in which he had worked. App. 31-32. Consistently with the officer’s testimony, the Police Law Institute, for example, instructs that “officers may conduct a two-stage interrogation. ... At any point during the pre-Miranda in*610terrogation, usually after arrestees have confessed, officers may then read the Miranda warnings and ask for a waiver. If the arrestees waive their Miranda rights, officers will be able to repeat any subsequent incriminating statements later in court.” Police Law Institute, Illinois Police Law Manual 83 (Jan. 2001-Dec. 2003) (available in Clerk of Court's case file) (hereinafter Police Law Manual) (emphasis in original).2 *611The upshot of all this advice is a question-first practice of some popularity, as one can see from the reported cases describing its use, sometimes in obedience to departmental policy.3

IV

When a confession so obtained is offered and challenged, attention must be paid to the conflicting objects of Miranda and question-first. Miranda addressed “interrogation practices . . . likely ... to disable [an individual] from making a free and rational choice” about speaking, 384 U. S., at 464-465, and held that a suspect .must be “adequately and effectively” advised of the choice the Constitution guarantees, id., at 467. The object of question-first is to render Miranda warnings ineffective by waiting for a particularly opportune time to give them, after the suspect has already confessed.

Just as “no talismanic incantation [is] required to satisfy [Miranda’s] strictures,” California v. Prysock, 453 U. S. 355, 359 (1981) (per curiam), it would be absurd to think that mere recitation of the litany suffices to satisfy Miranda in every conceivable circumstance. “The inquiry is simply whether the warnings reasonably ‘conve[y] to [a suspect] his rights as required by Miranda.’ ” Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U. S. 195, 203 (1989) (quoting Prysock, supra, at 361). The threshold issue when interrogators question first and warn later is thus whether it would be reasonable to find that in these circumstances the warnings could function “effec*612tively” as Miranda requires. Could the warnings effectively advise the suspect that he had a real choice about giving an admissible statement at that juncture? Could they reasonably convey that he could choose to stop talking even if he had talked earlier? For unless the warnings could place a suspect who has just been interrogated in a position to make such an informed choice, there is no practical justification for accepting the formal warnings as compliance with Miranda, or for treating the second stage of interrogation as distinct from the first, unwarned and inadmissible segment.4

There is no doubt about the answer that proponents of question-first give to this question about the effectiveness of *613warnings given only after successful interrogation, and we think their answer is correct. By any objective measure, applied to circumstances exemplified here, it is likely that if the interrogators employ the technique of withholding warnings until after interrogation succeeds in eliciting a confession, the warnings will be ineffective in preparing the suspect for successive interrogation, close in time and similar in content. After all, the reason that question-first is catching on is as obvious as its manifest purpose, which is to get a confession the suspect would not make if he understood his rights at the outset; the sensible underlying assumption is that with one confession in hand before the warnings, the interrogator can count on getting its duplicate, with trifling additional trouble. Upon hearing warnings only in the aftermath of interrogation and just after making a confession, a suspect would hardly think he had a genuine right to remain silent, let alone persist in so believing once the police began to lead him over the same ground again.5 A more likely reaction on a suspect’s part would be perplexity about the reason for discussing rights at that point, bewilderment being an unpromising frame of mind for knowledgeable decision. What is worse, telling a suspect that “anything you say can and will be used against you,” without expressly excepting the statement just given, could lead to an entirely reasonable inference that what he has just said will be used, with subsequent silence being of no avail. Thus, when Miranda warnings are inserted in the midst of coordinated and continuing interrogation, they are likely to mislead and “de*614priv[e] a defendant of knowledge essential to his ability to understand the nature of his rights and the consequences of abandoning them.” Moran v. Burbine, 475 U. S. 412, 424 (1986). By the same token, it would ordinarily be unrealistic to treat two spates of integrated and proximately conducted questioning as independent interrogations subject to independent evaluation simply because Miranda warnings formally punctuate them in the middle.

V

Missouri argues that a confession repeated at the end of an interrogation sequence envisioned in a question-first strategy is admissible on the authority of Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U. S. 298 (1985), but the argument disfigures that case. In Elstad, the police went to the young suspect’s house to take him into custody on a charge of burglary. Before the arrest, one officer spoke with the suspect’s mother, while the other one joined the suspect in a “brief stop in the living room,” id., at 315, where the officer said he “felt” the young man was involved in a burglary, id., at 301 (internal quotation marks omitted). The suspect acknowledged he had been at the scene. Ibid. This Court noted that the pause in the living room “was not to interrogate the suspect but to notify his mother of the reason for his arrest,” id., at 315, and described the incident as having “none of the earmarks of coercion,” id., at 316. The Court, indeed, took care to mention that the officer's initial failure to warn was an “oversight” that “may have been the result of confusion as to whether the brief exchange qualified as 'custodial interrogation’ or . . . may simply have reflected . . . reluctance to initiate an alarming police procedure before [an officer] had spoken with respondent’s mother." Id., at 315-316. At the outset of a later and systematic station house interrogation going well beyond the scope of the laconic prior admission, the suspect was given Miranda warnings and made a full confession. Elstad, supra, at 301, 314-315. In holding the *615second statement admissible and voluntary, Elstad rejected the “cat out of the bag” theory that any short, earlier admission, obtained in arguably innocent neglect of Miranda, determined the character of the later, warned confession, El-stad, 470 U. S., at 311-314; on the facts of that case, the Court thought any causal connection between the first and second responses to the police was “speculative and attenuated,” id., at 313. Although the Elstad Court expressed no explicit conclusion about either officer’s state of mind, it is fair to read Elstad as treating the living room conversation as a good-faith Miranda mistake, not only open to correction by careful warnings before systematic questioning in that particular case, but posing no threat to warn-first practice generally. See Elstad, supra, at 309 (characterizing the officers’ omission of Miranda warnings as “a simple failure to administer the warnings, unaccompanied by any actual coercion or other circumstances calculated to undermine the suspect’s ability to exercise his free will”); 470 U. S., at 318, n. 5 (Justice Brennan’s concern in dissent that Elstad would invite question-first practice “distorts the reasoning and holding of our decision, but, worse, invites trial courts and prosecutors to do the same”).

The contrast between Elstad and this case reveals a series of relevant facts that bear on whether Miranda warnings delivered midstream could be effective enough to accomplish their object: the completeness and detail of the questions and answers in the first round of interrogation, the overlapping content of the two statements, the timing and setting of the first and the second, the continuity of police personnel, and the degree to which the interrogator’s questions treated the second round as continuous with the first. In Elstad, it was not unreasonable to see the occasion for questioning at the station house as presenting a markedly different experience from the short conversation at home; since a reasonable person in the suspect’s shoes could have seen the station house questioning as a new and distinct experience, the Miranda *616warnings could have made sense as presenting a genuine choice whether to follow up on the earlier admission.

At the opposite extreme are the facts here, which by any objective measure reveal a police strategy adapted to undermine the Miranda warnings.6 The unwarned interrogation was conducted in the station house, and the questioning was systematic, exhaustive, and managed with psychological skill. When the police were finished there was little, if anything, of incriminating potential left unsaid. The warned phase of questioning proceeded after a pause of only 15 to 20 minutes, in the same place as the unwarned segment. When the same officer who had conducted the first phase recited the Miranda warnings, he said nothing to counter the probable misimpression that the advice that anything Seibert said could be used against her also applied to the details of the inculpatory, statement previously elicited. In particular, the police did not advise that her prior statement could not be used.7 Nothing was said or done to dispel the oddity of warning about legal rights to silence and counsel right after the police had led her through a systematic interrogation, and any uncertainty on her part about a right to stop talking about matters previously discussed would only have been aggravated by the way Officer Hanrahan set the scene by saying “we’ve been talking for a little while about what happened on Wednesday the twelfth, haven’t we?” App. 66. The impression that the further questioning was a mere continuation of the earlier questions and responses was fostered by references back to the confession already given. It *617would have been reasonable to regard the two sessions as parts of a continuum, in which it would have been unnatural to refuse to repeat at the second stage what had been said before. These circumstances must be seen as challenging the comprehensibility and efficacy of the Miranda warnings to the point that a reasonable person in the suspect’s shoes would not have understood them to convey a message that she retained a choice about continuing to talk.8

VI

Strategists dedicated to draining the substance out of Miranda cannot accomplish by training instructions what Dickerson held Congress could not do by statute. Because the question-first tactic effectively threatens to thwart Miranda’s, purpose of reducing the risk that a coerced confession would be admitted, and because the facts here do not reasonably support a conclusion that the warnings given could have served their purpose, Seibert’s postwarning statements are inadmissible. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Justice Breyer,

concurring.

In my view, the following simple rule should apply to the two-stage interrogation technique: Courts should exclude the “fruits” of the initial unwarned questioning unless the failure to warn was in good faith. Cf. Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U. S. 298, 309, 318, n. 5 (1985); United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897 (1984). I believe this is a sound and workable approach to the problem this case presents. Prosecutors and judges have long understood how to apply the “fruits” approach, which they use in other areas of law. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963). And in the workaday *618world of criminal law enforcement the administrative simplicity of the familiar has significant advantages over a more complex exclusionary rule. Cf. post, at 628-629 (O’Connor, J., dissenting).

I believe the plurality’s approach in practice will function as a “fruits” test. The truly “effective” Miranda warnings on which the plurality insists, ante, at 615, will occur only when certain circumstances — a lapse in time, a change in location or interrogating officer, or a shift in the focus of the questioning — intervene between the unwarned questioning and any postwarning statement. Cf. Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U. S. 687, 690 (1982) (evidence obtained subsequent to a constitutional violation must be suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree” unless “intervening events break the causal connection”).

I consequently join the plurality’s opinion in full. I also agree with Justice Kennedy’s opinion insofar as it is consistent with this approach and makes clear that a good-faith exception applies. See post, at 622 (opinion concurring in judgment).

Justice Kennedy,

concurring in the judgment.

The interrogation technique used in this case is designed to circumvent Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). It undermines the Miranda wárning and obscures its meaning. The plurality opinion is correct to conclude that statements obtained through the use of this technique are inadmissible. Although I agree with much in the careful and convincing opinion for the plurality, my approach does differ in some respects, requiring this separate statement.

The Miranda rule has become an important and accepted element of the criminal justice system. See Dickerson v. United States, 530 U. S. 428 (2000). At the same time, not every violation of the rule requires suppression of the evidence obtained. Evidence is admissible when the central *619concerns of Miranda are not likely to be implicated and when other objectives of the criminal justice system are best served by its introduction. Thus, we have held that statements obtained in violation of the rule can be used for impeachment, so that the truth-finding function of the trial is not distorted by the defense, see Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222 (1971); that there is an exception to protect countervailing concerns of public safety, see New York v. Quarles, 467 U. S. 649 (1984); and that physical evidence obtained in reliance on statements taken in violation of the rule is admissible, see United States v. Patane, post, p. 630. These cases, in my view, are correct. They recognize that admission of evidence is proper when it would further important objectives without compromising Miranda’s central concerns. Under these precedents, the scope of the Miranda suppression remedy depends on a consideration of those legitimate interests and on whether admission of the evidence under the circumstances would frustrate Miranda’s central concerns and objectives.

Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U. S. 298 (1985), reflects this approach. In Elstad, a suspect made an initial incriminating statement at his home. The suspect had not received a Miranda warning before making the statement, apparently because it was not clear whether the suspect was in custody at the time. The suspect was taken to the station house, where he received a proper warning, waived his Miranda rights, and made a second statement. He later argued that the postwarning statement should be suppressed because it was related to the unwarned first statement, and likely induced or caused by it. The Court held that, although a Miranda violation made the first statement inadmissible, the postwarning statements could be introduced against the accused because “neither the general goal of deterring improper police conduct nor the Fifth Amendment goal of assuring trustworthy evidence would be served by suppres*620sion” given the facts of that case. Elstad, supra, at 308 (citing Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433, 445 (1974)).

In my view, Elstad was correct in its reasoning and its result. Elstad reflects a balanced and pragmatic approach to enforcement of the Miranda warning. An officer may not realize that a suspect is in custody and warnings are required. The officer may not plan to question the suspect or may be waiting for a more appropriate time. Skilled investigators often interview suspects multiple times, and good police work may involve referring to prior statements to test their veracity or to refresh recollection. In light of these realities it would be extravagant to treat the presence of one statement that cannot be admitted under Miranda as sufficient reason to prohibit subsequent statements preceded by a proper warning. See Elstad, 470 U. S., at 309 (“It is an unwarranted extension of Miranda to hold that a simple failure to administer the warnings... so taints the investigatory process that a subsequent voluntary and informed waiver is ineffective for some indeterminate period”). That approach would serve “neither the general goal of deterring improper police conduct nor the Fifth Amendment goal of assuring trustworthy evidence would be served by suppression of the . . . testimony.” Id., at 308.

This case presents different considerations. The police used a two-step questioning technique based on a deliberate violation of Miranda. The Miranda warning was withheld to obscure both the practical and legal significance of the admonition when finally given. As Justice Souter points out, the two-step technique permits the accused to conclude that the right not to respond did not exist when the earlier incriminating statements were made. The strategy is based on the assumption that Miranda warnings will tend to mean less when recited midinterrogation, after inculpatory statements have already been obtained. This tactic relies on an intentional misrepresentation of the protection that Mi *621 randa offers and does not serve any legitimate objectives that might otherwise justify its use.

Further, the interrogating officer here relied on the defendant’s prewarning statement to obtain the postwarning statement used against her at trial. The postwarning interview resembled a cross-examination. The officer confronted the defendant with her inadmissible prewarning statements and pushed her to acknowledge them. See App. 70 (“ ’Trice, didn’t you tell me that he was supposed to die in his sleep?”). This shows the temptations for abuse inherent in the two-step technique. Reference to the prewarning statement was an implicit suggestion that the. mere repetition of the earlier statement was not independently incriminating. The implicit suggestion was false.

The technique used in this case ’distorts the meaning of Miranda and furthers no legitimate countervailing interest. The Miranda rule would be frustrated were we to allow police to undermine its meaning and effect. The technique simply creates too high a risk that postwarning statements will be obtained when a suspect was deprived of “knowledge essential to his ability to understand the nature of his rights and the consequences of abandoning them.” Moran v. Bur-bine, 475 U. S. 412, 423-424 (1986). When an interrogator uses this deliberate, two-step strategy, predicated upon violating Miranda during an extended interview, postwarning statements that are related to the substance of prewarning statements must be excluded absent specific, curative steps.

The plurality concludes that whenever a two-stage interview occurs, admissibility of the postwarning statement should depend on “whether [the] Miranda warnings delivered midstream could have been effective enough to accomplish their object” given the specific facts of the case. Ante, • at 615. This test envisions an objective inquiry from the perspective of the suspect, and applies in the case of both intentional and unintentional two-stage interrogations. *622 Ante, at 615-617. In my view, this test cuts too broadly. Miranda's clarity is one of its strengths, and a multifactor test that applies to every two-stage interrogation may serve to undermine that clarity. Cf. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420, 430 (1984). I would apply a narrower test applicable only in the infrequent case, such as we have here, in which the two-step interrogation technique was used in a calculated way to undermine the Miranda warning.

The admissibility of postwarning statements should continue to be governed by the principles of Elstad unless the deliberate two-step strategy was employed. If the deliberate two-step strategy has been used, postwarning statements that are related to the substance of prewarning statements must be excluded unless curative measures are taken before the postwarning statement is made. Curative measures should be designed to ensure that a reasonable person in the suspect’s situation would understand the import and effect of the Miranda warning and of the Miranda waiver. For example, a substantial break in time and circumstances between the prewarning statement and the Miranda warning may suffice in most circumstances, as it allows the accused to distinguish the two contexts and appreciate that the interrogation has taken a new turn. Cf. Westover v. United States, decided with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). Alternatively, an additional warning that explains the likely inadmissibility of the prewarning custodial statement may be sufficient. No curative steps were taken in this ease, however, so the postwarning statements are inadmissible and the conviction cannot stand.

For these reasons, I concur in the judgment of the Court.

Justice O’Connor,

with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.

The plurality devours Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U. S. 298 (1985), even as it accuses petitioner’s argument of “disfiguring]” that decision. Ante, at 614. I believe that we *623are bound by Elstad to reach a different result, and I would vacate the judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri.

I

On two preliminary questions I am in full agreement with the plurality. First, the plurality appropriately follows El-stad in concluding that Seibert’s statement cannot be held inadmissible under a “fruit of the poisonous tree” theory. Ante, at 612, n. 4 (internal quotation marks omitted). Second, the plurality correctly declines to focus its analysis on the subjective intent of the interrogating officer.

A

This Court has made clear that there simply is no place for a robust deterrence doctrine with regard to violations of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). See Dickerson v. United States, 530 U. S. 428, 441 (2000) (“Our decision in [Elstad] — refusing to apply the traditional ‘fruits’ doctrine developed in Fourth Amendment cases — . . . simply recognizes the fact that unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment are different from unwarned interrogation under the Fifth Amendment”); Elstad, supra, at 306 (unlike the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, the “Miranda exclusionary rule ... serves the Fifth Amendment and sweeps more broadly than the Fifth Amendment itself”); see also United States v. Patane, post, at 644-645 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment) (refusal to suppress evidence obtained following an unwarned confession in Elstad, New York v. Quarles, 467 U. S. 649 (1984), and Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222 (1971), was based on “our recognition that the concerns underlying the Miranda . . . rule must be accommodated to other objectives of the criminal justice system”). Consistent with that view, the Court today refuses to apply the traditional “fruits” analysis to the physical fruit of a claimed Miranda violation. Patane, post, p. 630. The plu*624rality correctly refuses to apply a similar analysis to testimonial fruits.

Although the analysis the plurality ultimately espouses examines the same facts and circumstances that a “fruits” analysis would consider (such as the lapse of time between the two interrogations and change of questioner or location), it does so for entirely different reasons. The fruits analysis would examine those factors because they are relevant to the balance of deterrence value versus the “drastic and socially costly course” of excluding reliable evidence. Nix v. Williams, 467 U. S. 431, 442-443 (1984). The plurality, by contrast, looks to those factors to inform the psychological judgment regarding whether the suspect has been informed effectively of her right to remain silent. The analytical underpinnings of the two approaches are thus entirely distinct, and they should not be conflated just because they function similarly in practice. Cf. ante, at 617-618 (Breyer, J., concurring).

B

The plurality’s rejection of an intent-based test is also, in my view, correct. Freedom from compulsion lies at the heart of the Fifth Amendment, and requires us to assess whether a suspect’s decision to speak truly was voluntary. Because voluntariness is a matter of the suspect’s state of mind, we focus our analysis on the way in which suspects experience interrogation. See generally Miranda, 384 U. S., at 455 (summarizing psychological tactics used by police that “undermin[e]” the suspect’s “will to resist,” and noting that “the very fact of custodial interrogation . . . trades on the weakness of individuals”); id., at 467 (“[I]n-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely”).

Thoughts kept inside a police officer’s head cannot affect that experience. See Moran v. Burbine, 475 U. S. 412, 422 *625(1986) (“Events occurring outside of the presence of the suspect and entirely unknown to him surely can have no bearing on the capacity to comprehend and knowingly relinquish a constitutional right”). In Moran, an attorney hired by the suspect’s sister had been trying to contact the suspect and was told by the police, falsely, that they would not begin an interrogation that night. Id., at 416-418. The suspect was not aware that an attorney had been hired for him. Id., at 417. We rejected an analysis under which a different result would obtain for “the same defendant, armed with the same information and confronted with precisely the same police conduct” if something not known to the defendant — such as the fact that an attorney was attempting to contact him— had been different. Id., at 422. The same principle applies here. A suspect who experienced exactly the same interrogation as Seibert, save for a difference in the undivulged, subjective intent of the interrogating officer when he failed to give Miranda warnings, would not experience the interrogation any differently. “[Wjhether intentional or inadvertent, the state of mind of the police is irrelevant to the question of the intelligence and voluntariness of respondent’s election to abandon his rights. Although highly inappropriate, even deliberate deception of an attorney could not possibly affect a suspect’s decision to waive his Miranda rights unless he were at least aware of the incident.” 475 U. S., at 423. Cf. Stansbury v. California, 511 U. S. 318, 324-325 (1994) (per curiam) (police officer’s subjective intent is irrelevant to whether suspect is in custody for Miranda purposes; “one cannot expect the person under interrogation to probe the officer’s innermost thoughts”).

Because the isolated fact of Officer Hanrahan’s intent could not have had any bearing on Seibert’s “capacity to comprehend and knowingly relinquish” her right to remain silent, Moran, supra, at 422, it could not by itself affect the volun-tariness of her confession. Moreover, recognizing an exception to Elstad for intentional violations would require focus*626ing constitutional analysis on a police officer’s subjective intent, an unattractive proposition that we all but uniformly avoid. In general, “we believe that ‘sending state and federal courts on an expedition into the minds of police officers would produce a grave and fruitless misallocation of judicial resources.’ ” United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 922, n. 23 (1984) (quoting Massachusetts v. Painten, 389 U. S. 560, 565 (1968) (White, J., dissenting)). This case presents the uncommonly straightforward circumstance of an officer openly admitting that the violation was intentional. But the inquiry will be complicated in other situations probably more likely to occur. For example, different officers involved in an interrogation might claim different states of mind regarding the failure to give Miranda warnings. Even in the simple case of a single officer who claims that a failure to give Miranda warnings was inadvertent, the likelihood of error will be high. See W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 1.4(e), p. 124 (3d ed. 1996) (“[T]here is no reason to believe that courts can with any degree of success determine in which instances the police had an ulterior motive”).

These evidentiary difficulties have led us to reject an intent-based test in several criminal procedure contexts. For example, in New York v. Quarles, one of the factors that led us to reject an inquiry into the subjective intent of the police officer in crafting a test for the “public safety” exception to Miranda was that officers’ motives will be “largely unverifiable.” 467 U. S., at 656. Similarly, our opinion in Whren v. United States, 517 U. S. 806, 813-814 (1996), made clear that “the evidentiary difficulty of establishing subjective intent” was one of the reasons (albeit not the principal one) for refusing to consider intent in Fourth Amendment challenges generally.

For these reasons, I believe that the approach espoused by Justice Kennedy is ill advised. Justice Kennedy would extend Miranda’s exclusionary rule to any case in which the use of the “two-step interrogation technique” was “deliber*627ate” or “calculated.” Ante, at 622 (opinion concurring in judgment). This approach untethers the analysis from facts knowable to, and therefore having any potential directly to affect, the suspect. Far from promoting “clarity,” ibid., the approach will add a third step to the suppression inquiry. In virtually every two-stage interrogation case, in addition to addressing the standard Miranda and voluntariness questions, courts will be forced to conduct the kind of difficult, state-of-mind inquiry that we normally take pains to avoid.

II

The plurality’s adherence to Elstad, and mine to the plurality, end there. Our decision in Elstad rejected, two lines of argument advanced in favor of suppression. The first was based on the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, discussed above. The second was the argument that the “lingering compulsion” inherent in a defendant’s having let the “cat out of the bag” required suppression. 470 U. S., at 311. The Court of Appeals of Oregon, in accepting the latter argument, had endorsed a theory indistinguishable from the one today’s plurality adopts: “[T]he coercive impact of the unconstitutionally obtained statement remains, because in a defendant’s mind it has sealed his fate. It is this impact that must be dissipated in order to make a subsequent confession admissible.” State v. Elstad, 61 Ore. App. 673, 677, 658 P. 2d 552, 554 (1983).

We rejected this theory outright. We did so not because we refused to recognize the “psychological impact of the suspect’s conviction that he has let the cat out of the bag,” but because we refused to “endo[w]” those “psychological effects” with “constitutional implications.” 470 U. S., at 311. To do so, we said, would “effectively immuniz[e] a suspect who responds to pre-Miranda warning questions from the consequences of his subsequent informed waiver,” an immunity that “comes at a high cost to legitimate law enforcement activity, while adding little desirable protection to the indi*628vidual’s interest in not being compelled to testify against himself.” Id., at 312. The plurality might very well think that we struck the balance between Fifth Amendment rights and law enforcement interests incorrectly in Elstad; but that is not normally a sufficient reason for ignoring the dictates of stare decisis.

I would analyze the two-step interrogation procedure under the voluntariness standards central to the Fifth. Amendment and reiterated in Elstad. Elstad commands that if Seibert’s first statement is shown to have been involuntary, the court must examine whether the taint dissipated through the passing of time or a change in circumstances: “When a prior statement is actually coerced, the time that passes between confessions, the change in place of interrogations, and the change in identity of the interrogators all bear on whether that coercion has carried over into the second confession.” Id., at 310 (citing Westover v. United States, decided with Miranda, 384 U. S., at 494). In addition, ,Sei-bert’s second statement should be suppressed if she showed that it was involuntary despite the Miranda warnings. El-stad, supra, at 318 (“The relevant inquiry is whether, in fact, the second statement was also voluntarily made. As in any such inquiry, the finder of fact must examine the surrounding circumstances and the entire course of police conduct with respect to the suspect in evaluating the voluntariness of his statements”). Although I would leave this analysis for the Missouri courts to conduct on remand, I note that, unlike the officers in Elstad, Officer Hanrahan referred to Seibert’s unwarned statement during the second part of the interrogation when she made a statement at odds with her unwarned confession. App. 70 (“ ’Trice, didn’t you tell me that he was supposed to die in his sleep?”); cf. Elstad, supra, at 316 (officers did not “exploit the unwarned admission to pressure respondent into waiving his right to remain silent”). Such a tactic may bear on the voluntariness inquiry. Cf. Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U. S. 731, 739 (1969) (fact that police had falsely *629told a suspect that his accomplice had already confessed was “relevant” to the voluntariness inquiry); Moran, 475 U. S., at 423-424 (in discussing police deception, stating that simply withholding information is “relevant to the constitutional validity of a waiver if it deprives a defendant of knowledge essential to his ability to understand the nature of his rights and the consequences of abandoning them”); Miranda, supra, at 476.

* * *

Because I believe that the plurality gives insufficient deference to Elstad and that Justice Kennedy places improper weight on subjective intent, I respectfully dissent.

Justice Thomas

announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice and Justice Scalia join.

In this case we must decide whether a failure to give a suspect the warnings prescribed by Miranda v. Arizona, *634384 U. S. 436 (1966), requires suppression of the physical fruits of the suspect’s unwarned but voluntary statements. The Court has previously addressed this question but has not reached a definitive conclusion. See Massachusetts v. White, 439 U. S. 280 (1978) (per curiam) (dividing evenly on the question); see also Patterson v. United States, 485 U. S. 922 (1988) (White, J., dissenting from denial of.certiorari). Although we believe that the Court’s decisions in Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U. S. 298 (1985), and Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433 (1974), are instructive, the Courts of Appeals have split on the question after our decision in Dickerson v. United States, 530 U. S. 428 (2000). See, e. g., United States v. Villalba-Alvarado, 345 F. 3d 1007 (CA8 2003) (holding admissible the physical fruits of a Miranda violation); United States v. Sterling, 283 F. 3d 216 (CA4 2002) (same); United States v. DeSumma, 272 F. 3d 176 (CA3 2001) (same); United States v. Faulkingham, 295 F. 3d 85 (CA1 2002) (holding admissible the physical fruits of a negligent Miranda violation). Because the Miranda rule protects against violations of the Self-Incrimination Clause, which, in turn, is not implicated by the introduction at trial of physical evidence resulting from voluntary statements, we answer the question presented in the negative.

I

In June 2001, respondent, Samuel Francis Patane, was arrested for harassing his ex-girlfriend, Linda O’Donnell. He was released on bond, subject to a temporary restraining order that prohibited him from contacting O’Donnell. Respondent apparently violated the restraining order by attempting to telephone O’Donnell. On June 6, 2001, Officer Tracy Fox of the Colorado Springs Police Department began to investigate the matter. On the same day, a county probation officer informed an agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), that respondent, a convicted felon, illegally possessed a .40 Glock pistol. The ATF relayed this information to Detective Josh Benner, who worked *635closely with the ATF. Together, Detective Benner and Officer Fox proceeded to respondent’s residence.

After reaching the residence and inquiring into respondent’s attempts to contact O’Donnell, Officer Fox arrested respondent for violating the restraining order. Detective Benner attempted to advise respondent of his Miranda rights but got no further than the right to remain silent. At that point, respondent interrupted, asserting that he knew his rights, and neither officer attempted to complete the warning.1 App. 40.

Detective Benner then asked respondent about the Glock. Respondent was initially reluctant to discuss the matter, stating: ‘T am not sure I should tell you anything about the Glock because I don’t want you to take it away from me.” Id., at 41. Detective Benner persisted, and respondent told him that the pistol was in his bedroom. Respondent then gave Detective Benner permission to retrieve the pistol. Detective Benner found the pistol and seized it.

A grand jury indicted respondent for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 922(g)(1). The District Court granted respondent’s motion to suppress the firearm, reasoning that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest respondent for violating the restraining order. It therefore declined to rule on respondent’s alternative argument that the gun should be suppressed as the fruit of an unwarned statement.

The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s ruling with respect to probable cause but affirmed the suppression order on respondent’s alternative theory. The court rejected the Government’s argument that this Court’s decisions in Elstad, supra, and Tucker, supra, foreclosed application of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine of Wong Sun *636v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963), to the present context. 304 F. 3d 1013, 1019 (CA10 2002). These holdings were, the Court of Appeals reasoned, based on the view that Miranda announced a prophylactic rule, a position that it found to be incompatible with this Court’s decision in Dickerson, swpra, at 444 (“Miranda announced a constitutional rule that Congress may not supersede legislatively”).2 The Court of Appeals thus equated Dickerson’s announcement that Miranda is a constitutional rule with the proposition that a failure to warn pursuant to Miranda is itself a violation of the Constitution (and, more particularly, of the suspect’s Fifth Amendment rights). Based on its understanding of Dickerson, the Court of Appeals rejected the post-Dickerson views of the Third and Fourth Circuits that the fruits doctrine does not apply to Miranda violations. 304 F. 3d, at 1023-1027 (discussing United States v. Sterling, 283 F. 3d 216 (CA4 2002), and United States v. DeSumma, 272 F. 3d 176 (CA3 2001)). It also disagreed with the First Circuit’s conclusion that suppression is not generally required in the case of negligent failures to warn, 304 F. 3d, at 1027-1029 (discussing United States v. Faulkingham, 295 F. 3d 85 (CAI 2002)), explaining that “[djeterrence is necessary not merely to deter intentional wrongdoing, but also to ensure that officers diligently (non-negligently) protect — and properly are trained to protect — the constitutional rights of citizens,” 304 F. 3d, at 1028-1029. We granted certiorari. 538 U. S. 976 (2003).

As we explain below, the Miranda rule is a prophylactic employed .to protect against violations of the Self-Incrimination Clause. The Self-Incrimination Clause, however, is not implicated by the admission into evidence of the physical fruit of a- voluntary statement. Accordingly, there is no justification for extending the Miranda rule to this con*637text. And just as the Self-Incrimination Clause primarily focuses on the criminal trial, so too does the Miranda rule. The Miranda rule is not a code of police conduct, and police do not violate the Constitution (or even the Miranda rule, for that matter) by mere failures to warn. For this reason, the exclusionary rule articulated in cases such as Wong Sun does not apply. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings.

II

The Self-Incrimination Clause provides: “No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” U. S. Const., Amdt. 5. We need not decide here the precise boundaries of the Clause’s protection. For present purposes, it suffices to note that the core protection afforded by the Self-Incrimination Clause is a prohibition on compelling a criminal defendant to testify against himself at trial. See, e. g., Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U. S. 760, 764-768 (2003) (plurality opinion); id., at 777-779 (Souter, J., concurring in judgment); 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2263, p. 378 (J. McNaughton rev. ed. 1961) (explaining that the Clause “was directed at the employment of legal process to extract from the person's own lips an admission of guilt, which would thus take the place of other evidence”); see also United States v. Hubbell, 530 U. S. 27, 49-56 (2000) (Thomas, J., concurring) (explaining that the privilege might extend to bar the compelled production of any incriminating evidence, testimonial or otherwise). The Clause cannot be violated by the introduction of nontestimonial evidence obtained as a result of voluntary statements. See, e. g., id., at 34 (noting that the word “ ‘witness’ ” in the Self-Incrimination Clause “limits the relevant category of compelled incriminating communications to those that are ‘testimonial’ in character”); id., at 35 (discussing why compelled blood samples do not violate the Clause; cataloging other examples and citing cases); Elstad, 470 U. S., at 304 (“The Fifth Amendment, of *638course, is not concerned with nontestimonial evidence”); id., at 306-307 (“The Fifth Amendment prohibits use by the prosecution in its case in chief only of compelled testimony”); Withrow v. Williams, 507 U. S. 680, 705 (1993) (O’CONNOR, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (describing “true Fifth Amendment claims [as] the extraction and use of compelled testimony”); New York v. Quarles, 467 U. S. 649, 665-672, and n. 4 (1984) (O’CONNOR, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part) (explaining that the physical fruit of a Miranda violation need not be suppressed for these reasons).

To be sure, the Court has recognized and applied several prophylactic rules designed to protect the core privilege against self-incrimination. See, e. g., Chavez, supra, at 770-772 (plurality opinion). For example, although the text of the Self-Incrimination Clause at least suggests that “its coverage [is limited to] compelled testimony that is used against the defendant in the trial itself,” Hubbell, supra, at 37, potential suspects may, at times, assert the privilege in proceedings in which answers might be used to incriminate them in a subsequent criminal case. See, e. g., United States v. Balsys, 524 U. S. 666, 671-672 (1998); Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U. S. 420, 426 (1984); cf. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441 (1972) (holding that the Government may compel grand jury testimony from witnesses over Fifth Amendment objections if the witnesses receive “use and derivative use immunity”); Uniformed Sanitation Men Assn., Inc. v. Commissioner of Sanitation of City of New York, 392 U. S. 280, 284 (1968) (allowing the Government to use economic compulsion to secure statements but only if the Government grants appropriate immunity). We have explained that “[t]he natural concern which underlies [these] decisions is that an inability to protect the right at one stage of a proceeding may make its invocation useless at a later stage.” Tucker, 417 U. S., at 440-441.

*639Similarly, in Miranda, the Court concluded that the possibility of coercion inherent in custodial interrogations unacceptably raises the risk that a suspect’s privilege against self-incrimination might be violated. See Dickerson, 530 U. S., at 434-435; Miranda, 384 U. S., at 467. To protect against this danger, the Miranda rule creates a presumption of coercion, in the absence of specific warnings, that is generally irrebuttable for purposes of the prosecution’s case in chief.

But because these prophylactic rules (including the Miranda rule) necessarily sweep beyond the actual protections of the Self-Incrimination Clause, see, e. g,, Withrow, supra, at 690-691; Elstad, supra, at 306, any further extension of these rules must be justified by its necessity for the protection of the actual right against compelled self-incrimination, Chavez, supra, at 778 (Souter, J., concurring in judgment) (requiring a “ ‘powerful showing’ ” before “expanding] . . . the privilege against compelled self-incrimination”). Indeed, at times the Court has declined to extend Miranda even where it has perceived a need to protect the privilege against self-incrimination. See, e. g., Quarles, supra, at 657 (concluding “that the need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination”).

It is for these reasons that statements taken without Miranda warnings (though not actually compelled) can be used to impeach a defendant’s testimony at trial, see Elstad, supra, at 307-308; Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222 (1971), though the fruits of actually compelled testimony cannot, see New Jersey v. Portash, 440 U. S. 450, 458-459 (1979). More generally, the Miranda rule “does not require that the statements [taken without complying with the rule] and their fruits be discarded as inherently tainted,” Elstad, 470 U. S., at 307. Such a blanket suppression rule could not be justi*640fied by reference to the “Fifth Amendment goal of assuring trustworthy evidence” or by any deterrence rationale, id., at 308; see Tucker, supra, at 446-449; Harris, supra, at 225-226, and n. 2, and would therefore fail our close-fit requirement.

Furthermore, the Self-Incrimination Clause contains its own exclusionary rule. It provides that “[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” Arndt. 5. Unlike the Fourth Amendment’s bar on unreasonable searches, the Self-Incrimination Clause is self-executing. We have repeatedly explained “that those subjected to coercive police interrogations have an automatic protection from the use of their involuntary statements (or evidence derived from their statements) in any subsequent criminal trial.” Chavez, 538 U. S., at 769 (plurality opinion) (citing, for example, Elstad, supra, at 307-308). This explicit textual protection supports a strong presumption against expanding the Miranda rule any further. Cf. Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386 (1989).

Finally, nothing in Dickerson, including its characterization of Miranda as announcing a constitutional rule, 530 U. S., at 444, changes any of these observations. Indeed, in Dickerson, the Court specifically noted that the Court’s “subsequent cases have reduced the impact of the Miranda rule on legitimate law enforcement while reaffirming [Miranda]’s core ruling that unwarned statements may not be used as evidence in the prosecution’s case in chief.” Id., at 443-444. This description of Miranda, especially the emphasis on the use of “unwarned statements ... in the prosecution’s case in chief,” makes clear our continued focus on the protections of the Self-Incrimination Clause. The Court’s reliance on our Miranda precedents, including both Tucker and Elstad, see, e. g., Dickerson, supra, at 438, 441, further demonstrates the continuing validity of those decisions. In short, nothing in Dickerson calls into question our continued *641insistence that the closest possible fit be maintained between the Self-Incrimination Clause and any rule designed to protect it.

Ill

Our cases also make clear the related point that a mere failure to give Miranda warnings does not, by itself, violate a suspect’s constitutional rights or even the Miranda rule. So much was evident in many of our pre-Dickerson cases, and we have adhered to this view since Dickerson. See Chavez, 538 U. S., at 772-773 (plurality opinion) (holding that a failure to read Miranda warnings did not violate the respondent’s constitutional rights); 538 U. S., at 789 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (agreeing “that failure to give a Miranda warning does not, without more, establish a completed violation when the unwarned interrogation ensues”); Elstad, supra, at 308; Quarles, 467 U. S., at 654; cf. Chavez, supra, at 777-779 (Souter, J., concurring in judgment). This, of course, follows from the nature of the right protected by the Self-Incrimination Clause, which the Miranda rule, in turn, protects. It is “ ‘a fundamental trial right.’” Withrow, 507 U.S., at 691 (quoting United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 264 (1990)). See also Chavez, 538 U. S., at 766-768 (plurality opinion); id., at 790 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“The identification of a Miranda violation and its consequences, then, ought to be determined at trial”).

It follows that police do not violate a suspect’s constitutional rights (or the Miranda rule) by negligent or even deliberate failures to provide the suspect with the full panoply of warnings prescribed by Miranda. Potential violations occur, if at all, only upon the admission of unwarned statements into evidence at trial. And, at that point, “[t]he exclusion of unwarned statements ... is a complete and sufficient *642remedy” for any perceived Miranda violation. Chavez, supra, at 790.3

Thus, unlike unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment or actual violations of the Due Process Clause or the Self-Incrimination Clause, there is, with respect to mere failures to warn, nothing to deter. There is therefore no reason to apply the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine of Wong Sun, 371 U. S., at 488.4 See also Nix v. Williams, 467 U. S. 431, 441 (1984) (discussing the exclusionary rule in the Sixth Amendment context and noting that it applies to “illegally obtained evidence [and] other incriminating evidence derived from [it]” (emphasis added)). It is. not for this Court to impose its preferred police practices on either federal law enforcement officials or their state counterparts.

IV

In the present case, the Court of Appeals, relying on Dickerson, wholly adopted the position that the taking of unwarned statements violates a suspect’s constitutional rights. 304 F. 3d, at 1028-1029.5 And, of course, if this were so, a *643strong deterrence-based argument could be made for suppression of the fruits. See, e.g., Nix, supra, at 441-444; Wong Sun, supra, at 484-486; cf. Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338, 341 (1939).

But Dickerson’s characterization of Miranda as a constitutional rule does not lessen the need to maintain the closest possible fit between the Self-Incrimination Clause and any judge-made rule designed to protect it. And there is no such fit here. Introduction of the nontestimonial fruit of a voluntary statement, such as respondent’s Glock, does not' implicate the Self-Incrimination Clause. The admission of such fruit presents no risk that a defendant’s coerced statements (however defined) will be used against him at a criminal trial. In any case, “[t]he exclusion of unwarned statements ... is a complete and sufficient remedy” for any perceived Miranda violation. Chavez, supra, at 790 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). See also H. Friendly, Benchmarks 280-281 (1967). There is simply no need to extend (and therefore no justification for extending) the prophylactic rule of Miranda to this context.

Similarly, because police cannot violate the Self-Incrimination Clause by taking unwarned though voluntary statements, an exclusionary rule cannot be justified by reference to a deterrence effect on law enforcement, as the Court of Appeals believed, 304 F. 3d, at 1028-1029. Our decision not to apply Wong Sun to mere failures to give Miranda warnings was sound at the time Tucker and Elstad were decided, and we decline to apply Wong Sun to such failures now.

The Court of Appeals ascribed significance to the fact that, in this case, there might be “little [practical] difference between [respondent’s] confessional statement” and the actual physical evidence. 304 F. 3d, at 1027. The distinction, the court said, “appears to make little sense as a matter of policy.” Ibid. But, putting policy aside, we have held that “[t]he word ‘witness’ in the constitutional text limits the” *644scope of the Self-Incrimination Clause to testimonial evidence. Hubbell, 530 U. S., at 34-35. The Constitution itself makes the distinction.6 And although it is true that the Court requires the exclusion of the physical fruit of actually coerced statements, it must be remembered that statements taken without sufficient Miranda warnings are presumed to have been coerced only for certain purposes and then only when necessary to protect the privilege against self-incrimination. See Part II, supra. For the reasons discussed above, we decline to extend that presumption further.7

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Ap: peals and remand the case for further-proceedings.

It is so ordered.

Justice Kennedy,

with whom Justice O’Connor joins, concurring in the judgment.

In Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U. S. 298 (1985), New York v. Quarles, 467 U. S. 649 (1984), and Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222 (1971), evidence obtained following an unwarned interrogation was held admissible. This result was based in large part on our recognition that the concerns underlying the Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), rule must be accommodated to other objectives of the criminal justice sys*645tem. I agree with the plurality that Dickerson v. United States, 530 U. S. 428 (2000), did not undermine these precedents and, in fact, cited them in support. Here, it is sufficient to note that the Government presents an even stronger case for admitting the evidence obtained as the result of Pa-tane’s unwarned statement. Admission of nontestimonial physical fruits (the Glock in this case), even more so than the postwarning statements to the police in Elstad and Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433 (1974), does not run the risk of admitting into trial an accused’s coerced incriminating statements against himself. In light of the important probative value of reliable physical evidence, it is doubtful that exclusion can be justified by a deterrence rationale sensitive to both law enforcement interests and a suspect’s rights during an in-custody interrogation. Unlike the plurality, however, I find it unnecessary to decide whether the detective’s failure to give Patane the full Miranda warnings should be characterized as a violation of the Miranda rule itself, or whether there is “[anything to deter” so long as the unwarned statements are not later introduced at trial. Ante, at 641-642.

With these observations, I concur in the judgment of the Court.

Justice Souter,

with whom Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting.

The plurality repeatedly says that the Fifth Amendment does not address the admissibility of nontestimonial evidence, an overstatement that is beside the point. The issue actually presented today is whether courts should apply the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine lest we create an incentive for the police to omit Miranda warnings, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), before custodial interrogation.1 *646In closing their eyes to the consequences of giving an eviden-tiary advantage to those who ignore Miranda, the plurality adds an important inducement for interrogators to ignore the rule in that case.

Miranda rested on insight into the inherently coercive character of custodial interrogation and the inherently difficult exercise of assessing the voluntariness of any confession resulting from it. Unless the police give the prescribed warnings meant to counter the coercive atmosphere, a custodial confession is inadmissible, there being no need for the previous time-consuming and difficult enquiry into voluntariness. That inducement to forestall involuntary statements and troublesome issues of fact can only atrophy if we turn around and recognize an evidentiary benefit when an unwarned statement leads investigators to tangible evidence. There is, of course, a price for excluding evidence, but the Fifth Amendment is worth a price, and in the absence of a very good reason, the logic of Miranda should be followed: a Miranda violation raises a presumption of coercion, Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U. S. 298, 306-307, and n. 1 (1985), and the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination extends to the exclusion of derivative evidence, see United States v. Hubbell, 530 U. S. 27, 37-38 (2000) (recognizing “the Fifth Amendment’s protection against the prosecutor’s use of incriminating information derived directly or indirectly from ... [actually] compelled testimony”); Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441, 453 (1972); That should be the end of this case.

The fact that the books contain some exceptions to the Miranda exclusionary rule carries no weight here. In Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222 (1971), it was respect for the integrity of the judicial process that justified the admission *647of unwarned statements as impeachment evidence. But Pa-tane’s suppression motion can hardly be described as seeking to “perver[t]” Miranda “into a license to use perjury” or otherwise handicap the “traditional truth-testing devices of the adversary process.” 401 U. S., at 225-226. Nor is there any suggestion that the officers’ failure to warn Patane was justified or mitigated by a public emergency or other exigent circumstance, as in New York v. Quarles, 467 U. S. 649 (1984). And of course the premise of Oregon v. Elstad, supra, is not on point; although a failure to give Miranda warnings before one individual statement does not necessarily bar the admission of a subsequent statement given after adequate warnings, 470 U. S. 298; cf. Missouri v. Seibert, ante, at 614-615 (plurality opinion), that rule obviously does not apply to. physical evidence seized once and for all.2

There is no way to read this case except as an unjustifiable invitation to law enforcement officers to flout Miranda when there may be physical evidence to be gained. The incentive is an odd one, coming from the Court on the same day it decides Missouri v. Seibert, ante, p. 600. I respectfully dissent.

Justice Breyer,

dissenting.

For reasons similar to those set forth in Justice Souter’s dissent and in my concurring opinion in Missouri v. Seibert, ante, at 617, I would extend to this context the “fruit of the poisonous tree” approach, which I believe the Court has come close to adopting in Seibert. Under that approach, *648courts would exclude physical evidence derived from unwarned questioning unless the failure to provide Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), warnings was in good faith. See Seibert, ante, at 617-618 (Breyer, J., concurring); cf. ante, at 645-646, n. 1 (Souter, J., dissenting). Because the courts below made no explicit finding as to good or bad faith, I would remand for such a determination.

*900Justice White

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This ease presents the question whether the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should be modified so as not to bar the use in the prosecution’s case in chief of evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate but ultimately found to be unsupported by probable cause. To resolve this question, we must consider once again the tension between the sometimes competing goals of, on the one hand, deterring official misconduct and removing inducements to unreasonable invasions of privacy and, on the other, establishing procedures under which criminal defendants are “ac*901quitted or convicted on the basis of all the evidence which exposes the truth.” Alderman v. United States, 394 U. S. 165, 175 (1969).

I

In August 1981, a confidential informant of unproven reliability informed an officer of the Burbank Police Department that two persons known to him as “Armando” and “Patsy” were selling large quantities of cocaine and methaqualone from their residence at 620 Price Drive in Burbank, Cal. The informant also indicated that he had witnessed a sale of methaqualone by “Patsy” at the residence approximately five months earlier and had observed at that time a shoebox containing a large amount of cash that belonged to “Patsy.” He further declared that “Armando” and “Patsy” generally kept only small quantities of drugs at their residence and stored the remainder at another location in Burbank.

On the basis of this information, the Burbank police initiated an extensive investigation focusing first on the Price Drive residence and later on two other residences as well. Cars parked at the Price Drive residence were determined to belong to respondents Armando Sanchez, who had previously been arrested for possession of marihuana, and Patsy Stewart, who had no criminal record. During the course of the investigation, officers observed an automobile belonging to respondent Ricardo Del Castillo, who had previously been arrested for possession of 50 pounds of marihuana, arrive at the Price Drive residence. The driver of that car entered the house, exited shortly thereafter carrying a small paper sack, and drove away. A check of Del Castillo’s probation records led the officers to respondent Alberto Leon, whose telephone number Del Castillo had listed as his employer’s. Leon had been arrested in 1980 on drug charges, and a companion had informed the police at that time that Leon was heavily involved in the importation of drugs into this country. Before the current investigation began, the Burbank officers had *902learned that an informant had told a Glendale police officer that Leon stored a large quantity of methaqualone at his residence in Glendale. During the course of this investigation, the Burbank officers learned that Leon was living at 716 South Sunset Canyon in Burbank.

Subsequently, the officers observed several persons, at least one of whom had prior drug involvement, arriving at the Price Drive residence and leaving with small packages; observed a variety of other material activity at the two residences as well as at a condominium at 7902 Via Magdalena; and witnessed a variety of relevant activity involving respondents’ automobiles. The officers also observed respondents Sanchez and Stewart board separate flights for Miami. The pair later returned to Los Angeles together, consented to a search of their luggage that revealed only a small amount of marihuana, and left the airport. Based on these and other observations summarized in the affidavit, App. 34, Officer Cyril Rombach of the Burbank Police Department, an experienced and well-trained narcotics investigator, prepared an application for a warrant to search 620 Price Drive, 716 South Sunset Canyon, 7902 Via Magdalena, and automobiles registered to each of the respondents for an extensive list of items believed to be related to respondents’ drug-trafficking activities. Officer Rombach’s extensive application was reviewed by several Deputy District Attorneys.

A facially valid search warrant was issued in September 1981 by a State Superior Court Judge. The ensuing searches produced large quantities of drugs at the Via Magdalena and Sunset Canyon addresses and a small quantity at the Price Drive residence. Other evidence was discovered at each of the residences and in Stewart’s and Del Castillo’s automobiles. Respondents were indicted by a grand jury in the District Court for the Central District of California and charged with conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine and a variety of substantive counts.

*903The respondents then filed motions to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant.1 The District Court held an evidentiary hearing and, while recognizing that the case was a close one, see id., at 131, granted the motions to suppress in part. It concluded that the affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause,2 but did not suppress all of the evidence as to all of the respondents because none of the respondents had standing to challenge all of the searches.3 In *904response to a request from the Government, the court made clear that Officer Rombach had acted in good faith, but it rejected the Government’s suggestion that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should not apply where evidence is seized in reasonable, good-faith reliance on a search warrant.4

The District Court denied the Government’s motion for reconsideration, id., at 147, and a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, judgt. order reported at 701 F. 2d 187 (1983). The Court of Appeals first concluded that Officer Rombach’s affidavit could not establish probable cause to search the Price Drive residence. To the extent that the affidavit set forth facts demonstrating the basis of the informant’s knowledge of criminal activity, the information included was fatally stale. The affidavit, moreover, failed to establish the informant’s credibility. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded that the information provided by the informant was inadequate under both prongs of the two-part test established in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108 (1964), and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 (1969).5 The officers’ independent investigation neither cured the staleness nor corroborated the details of the informant’s declarations. The Court of Appeals then considered whether the affidavit formed a proper basis for the *905search of the Sunset Canyon residence. In its view, the affidavit included no facts indicating the basis for the informants’ statements concerning respondent Leon’s criminal activities and was devoid of information establishing the informants’ reliability. Because these deficiencies had not been cured by the police investigation, the District Court properly suppressed the fruits of the search. The Court of Appeals refused the Government’s invitation to recognize a good-faith exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. App. to Pet. for Cert. 4a.

The Government’s petition for certiorari expressly declined to seek review of the lower courts’ determinations that the search warrant was unsupported by probable cause and presented only the question “[w]hether the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should be modified so as not to bar the admission of evidence seized in reasonable, good-faith reliance on a search warrant that is subsequently held to be defective.” We granted certiorari to consider the propriety of such a modification. 463 U. S. 1206 (1983). Although it undoubtedly is within our power to consider the question whether probable cause existed under the “totality of the circumstances” test announced last Term in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213 (1983), that question has not been briefed or argued; and it is also within our authority, which we choose to exercise, to take the case as it comes to us, accepting the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that probable cause was lacking under the prevailing legal standards. See this Court’s Rule 21.1(a).

We have concluded that, in the Fourth Amendment context, the exclusionary rule can be modified somewhat without jeopardizing its ability to perform its intended functions. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

II

Language in opinions of this Court and of individual Justices has sometimes implied that the exclusionary rule is a necessary corollary of the Fourth Amendment, Mapp v. *906 Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 651, 655-657 (1961); Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 462-463 (1928), or that the rule is required by the conjunction of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Mapp v. Ohio, supra, at 661-662 (Black, J., concurring); Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20, 33-34 (1925). These implications need not detain us long. The Fifth Amendment theory has not withstood critical analysis or the test of time, see Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U. S. 463 (1976), and the Fourth Amendment “has never been interpreted to proscribe the introduction of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons.” Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465, 486 (1976).

A

The Fourth Amendment contains no provision expressly precluding the use of evidence obtained in violation of its commands, and an examination of its origin and purposes makes clear that the use of fruits of a past unlawful search or seizure “work[s] no new Fourth Amendment wrong.” United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338, 354 (1974). The wrong condemned by the Amendment is “fully accomplished” by the unlawful search or seizure itself, ibid., and the exclusionary rule is neither intended nor able to “cure the invasion of the defendant’s rights which he has already suffered.” Stone v. Powell, supra, at 540 (White, J., dissenting). The rule thus operates as “a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect, rather than a personal constitutional right of the party aggrieved.” United States v. Calandra, supra, at 348.

Whether the exclusionary sanction is appropriately imposed in a particular case, our decisions make clear, is “an issue separate from the question whether the Fourth Amendment rights of the party seeking to invoke the rule were violated by police conduct.” Illinois v. Gates, supra, at 223. Only the former question is currently before us, and it must *907be resolved by weighing the costs and benefits of preventing the use in the prosecution’s case in chief of inherently trustworthy tangible evidence obtained in reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate that ultimately is found to be defective.

The substantial social costs exacted by the exclusionary rule for the vindication of Fourth Amendment rights have long been a source of concern. “Our cases have consistently recognized that unbending application of the exclusionary sanction to enforce ideals of governmental rectitude would impede unacceptably the truth-finding functions of judge and jury.” United States v. Payner, 447 U. S. 727, 734 (1980). An objectionable collateral consequence of this interference with the criminal justice system’s truth-finding function is that some guilty defendants may go free or receive reduced sentences as a result of favorable plea bargains.6 Particu*908larly when law enforcement officers have acted in objective good faith or their transgressions have been minor, the magnitude of the benefit conferred on such guilty defendants offends basic concepts of the criminal justice system. Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S., at 490. Indiscriminate application of the exclusionary rule, therefore, may well “generate] disrespect for the law and administration of justice.” Id., at 491. Accordingly, “[a]s with any remedial device, the application of the rule has been restricted to those areas where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served.” United States v. Calandra, supra, at 348; see Stone v. Powell, supra, at 486-487; United States v. Janis, 428 U. S. 433, 447 (1976).

B

Close attention to those remedial objectives has characterized our recent decisions concerning the scope of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. The Court has, to be sure, not seriously questioned, “in the absence of a more efficacious sanction, the continued application of the rule to suppress ev*909idence from the [prosecution’s] case where a Fourth Amendment violation has been substantial and deliberate. ...” Franks v. Delaware, 438 U. S. 154, 171 (1978); Stone v. Powell, supra, at 492. Nevertheless, the balancing approach that has evolved in various contexts — including criminal trials — “forcefully suggests] that the exclusionary rule be more generally modified to permit the introduction of evidence obtained in the reasonable good-faith belief that a search or seizure was in accord with the Fourth Amendment.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S., at 255 (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment).

In Stone v. Powell, supra, the Court emphasized the costs of the exclusionary rule, expressed its view that limiting the circumstances under which Fourth Amendment claims could be raised in federal habeas corpus proceedings would not reduce the rule’s deterrent effect, id., at 489-495, and held that a state prisoner who has been afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate a Fourth Amendment claim may not obtain federal habeas relief on the ground that unlawfully obtained evidence had been introduced at his trial. Cf. Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U. S. 545, 560-563 (1979). Proposed extensions of the exclusionary rule to proceedings other than the criminal trial itself have been evaluated and rejected under the same analytic approach. In United States v. Calandra, for example, we declined to allow grand jury witnesses to refuse to answer questions based on evidence obtained from an unlawful search or seizure since “[a]ny incremental deterrent effect which might be achieved by extending the rule to grand jury proceedings is uncertain at best.” 414 U. S., at 348. Similarly, in United States v. Janis, supra, we permitted the use in federal civil proceedings of evidence illegally seized by state officials since the likelihood of deterring police misconduct through such an extension of the exclusionary rule was insufficient to outweigh its substantial social costs. In so doing, we declared that, “[i]f . . . the exclusionary rule does not result in appreciable deterrence, then, clearly, its use in the instant situation is unwarranted.” Id., at 454.

*910As cases considering the use of unlawfully obtained evidence in criminal trials themselves make clear, it does not follow from the emphasis on the exclusionary rule’s deterrent value that “anything which deters illegal searches is thereby commanded by the Fourth Amendment.” Alderman v. United States, 394 U. S., at 174. In determining whether persons aggrieved solely by the introduction of damaging evidence unlawfully obtained from their co-conspirators or codefendants could seek suppression, for example, we found that the additional benefits of such an extension of the exclusionary rule would not outweigh its costs. Id., at 174-175. Standing to invoke the rule has thus been limited to cases in which the prosecution seeks to use the fruits of an illegal search or seizure against the victim of police misconduct. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U. S. 128 (1978); Brown v. United States, 411 U. S. 223 (1973); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, 491-492 (1963). Cf. United States v. Payner, 447 U. S. 727 (1980).

Even defendants with standing to challenge the introduction in their criminal trials of unlawfully obtained evidence cannot prevent every conceivable use of such evidence. Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and inadmissible in the prosecution’s case in chief may be used to impeach a defendant’s direct testimony. Walder v. United States, 347 U. S. 62 (1954). See also Oregon v. Hass, 420 U. S. 714 (1975); Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222 (1971). A similar assessment of the “incremental furthering” of the ends of the exclusionary rule led us to conclude in United States v. Havens, 446 U. S. 620, 627 (1980), that evidence inadmissible in the prosecution’s case in chief or otherwise as substantive evidence of guilt may be used to impeach statements made by a defendant in response to “proper cross-examination reasonably suggested by the defendant’s direct examination.” Id., at 627-628.

When considering the use of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment in the prosecution’s case in chief, moreover, we have declined to adopt a per se or “but for” rule *911that would render inadmissible any evidence that came to light through a chain of causation that began with an illegal arrest. Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590 (1975); Wong Sun v. United States, supra, at 487-488. We also have held that a witness’ testimony may be admitted even when his identity was discovered in an unconstitutional search. United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U. S. 268 (1978). The perception underlying these decisions — that the connection between police misconduct and evidence of crime may be sufficiently attenuated to permit the use of that evidence at trial — is a product of considerations relating to the exclusionary rule and the constitutional principles it is designed to protect. Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200, 217-218 (1979); United States v. Ceccolini, supra, at 279.7 In short, the “dissipation of the taint” concept that the Court has applied in deciding whether exclusion is appropriate in a particular case “attempts to mark the point at which the detrimental consequences of illegal police action become so attenuated that the deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule no longer justifies its cost.” Brown v. Illinois, supra, at 609 (Powell, J., concurring in part). Not surprisingly in view of this purpose, an assessment of the flagrancy of the police misconduct constitutes an important step in the calculus. Dunaway v. New York, supra, at 218; Brown v. Illinois, supra, at 603-604.

The same attention to the purposes underlying the exclusionary rule also has characterized decisions not involving the scope of the rule itself. We have not required suppression of the fruits of a search incident to an arrest made in good-faith reliance on a substantive criminal statute that subsequently *912is declared unconstitutional. Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U. S. 31 (1979).8 Similarly, although the Court has been unwilling to conclude that new Fourth Amendment principles are always to have only prospective effect, United States v. Johnson, 457 U. S. 537, 560 (1982),9 no Fourth Amendment decision marking a “clear break with the past” has been applied retroactively. See United States v. Peltier, 422 U. S. 531 (1975); Desist v. United States, 394 U. S. 244 (1969); Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618 (1965).10 The propriety *913of retroactive application of a newly announced Fourth Amendment principle, moreover, has been assessed largely in terms of the contribution retroactivity might make to the deterrence of police misconduct. United States v. Johnson, supra, at 560-561; United States v. Peltier, supra, at 536-539, 542.

As yet, we have not recognized any form of good-faith exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule.11 But the balancing approach that has evolved during the years of experience with the rule provides strong support for the modification currently urged upon us. As we discuss below, our evaluation of the costs and benefits of suppressing reliable physical evidence seized by officers reasonably relying on a warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate leads to the conclusion that such evidence should be admissible in the prosecution’s case in chief.

HH HH

A

Because a search warrant “provides the detached scrutiny of a neutral magistrate, which is a more reliable safeguard *914against improper searches than the hurried judgment of a law enforcement officer ‘engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime,’ ” United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1, 9 (1977) (quoting Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 14 (1948)), we have expressed a strong preference for warrants and declared that “in a doubtful or marginal case a search under a warrant may be sustainable where without one it would fall.” United States v. Ventresca, 380 U. S. 102, 106 (1965). See Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S., at 111. Reasonable minds frequently may differ on the question whether a particular affidavit establishes probable cause, and we have thus concluded that the preference for warrants is most appropriately effectuated by according “great deference” to a magistrate’s determination. Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S., at 419. See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S., at 236; United States v. Ventresca, supra, at 108-109.

Deference to the magistrate, however, is not boundless. It is clear, first, that the deference accorded to a magistrate’s finding of probable cause does not preclude inquiry into the knowing or reckless falsity of the affidavit on which that determination was based. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U. S. 154 (1978).12 Second, the courts must also insist that the magistrate purport to “perform his ‘neutral and detached’ function and not serve merely as a rubber stamp for the police.” Aguilar v. Texas, supra, at 111. See Illinois v. Gates, supra, at 239. A magistrate failing to “manifest that neutrality and detachment demanded of a judicial officer when presented with a warrant application” and who acts instead as “an adjunct law enforcement officer” cannot provide valid authorization for an otherwise unconstitutional search. Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U. S. 319, 326-327 (1979).

*915Third, reviewing courts will not defer to a warrant based on an affidavit that does not “provide the magistrate with a substantial basis for determining the existence of probable cause.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S., at 239. “Sufficient information must be presented to the magistrate to allow that official to determine probable cause; his action cannot be a mere ratification of the bare conclusions of others.” Ibid. See Aguilar v. Texas, supra, at 114-115; Giordenello v. United States, 357 U. S. 480 (1958); Nathanson v. United States, 290 U. S. 41 (1933).13 Even if the warrant application was supported by more than a “bare bones” affidavit, a reviewing court may properly conclude that, notwithstanding the deference that magistrates deserve, the warrant was invalid because the magistrate’s probable-cause determination reflected an improper analysis of the totality of the circumstances, Illinois v. Gates, supra, at 238-239, or because the form of the warrant was improper in some respect.

Only in the first of these three situations, however, has the Court set forth a rationale for suppressing evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant; in the other areas, it has simply excluded such evidence without considering whether *916Fourth Amendment interests will be advanced. To the extent that proponents of exclusion rely on its behavioral effects on judges and magistrates in these areas, their reliance is misplaced. First, the exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrates. Second, there exists no evidence suggesting that judges and magistrates are inclined to ignore or subvert the Fourth Amendment or that lawlessness among these actors requires application of the extreme sanction of exclusion.14

Third, and most important, we discern no basis, and are offered none, for believing that exclusion of evidence seized pursuant to a warrant will have a significant deterrent effect on the issuing judge or magistrate.15 Many of the factors *917that indicate that the exclusionary rule cannot provide an effective “special” or “general” deterrent for individual offending law enforcement officers16 apply as well to judges or magistrates. And, to the extent that the rule is thought to operate as a “systemic” deterrent on a wider audience,17 it clearly can have no such effect on individuals empowered to issue search warrants. Judges and magistrates are not adjuncts to the law enforcement team; as neutral judicial officers, they have no stake in the outcome of particular criminal prosecutions. The threat of exclusion thus cannot be expected significantly to deter them. Imposition of the exclusionary sanction is not necessary meaningfully to inform judicial officers of their errors, and we cannot conclude that admitting evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant while at the same time declaring that the warrant was somehow defective will in any way reduce judicial officers’ professional incentives to comply with the Fourth Amendment, encourage them to repeat their mistakes, or lead to the granting of all colorable warrant requests.18

*918B

If exclusion of evidence obtained pursuant to a subsequently invalidated warrant is to have any deterrent effect, therefore, it must alter the behavior of individual law enforcement officers or the policies of their departments. One could argue that applying the exclusionary rule in cases where the police failed to demonstrate probable cause in the warrant application deters future inadequate presentations or “magistrate shopping” and thus promotes the ends of the Fourth Amendment. Suppressing evidence obtained pursuant to a technically defective warrant supported by probable cause also might encourage officers to scrutinize more closely the form of the warrant and to point out suspected judicial errors. We find such arguments speculative and conclude that suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule.19

We have frequently questioned whether the exclusionary rule can have any deterrent effect when the offending officers acted in the objectively reasonable belief that their conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment. “No empirical researcher, proponent or opponent of the rule, has yet been able to establish with any assurance whether the rule has a deterrent effect. . . .” United States v. Janis, 428 U. S., at 452, n. 22. But even assuming that the rule effectively *919deters some police misconduct and provides incentives for the law enforcement profession as a whole to conduct itself in accord with the Fourth Amendment, it cannot be expected, and should not be applied, to deter objectively reasonable law enforcement activity.

As we observed in Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433, 447 (1974), and reiterated in United States v. Peltier, 422 U. S., at 539:

“The deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule necessarily assumes that the police have engaged in willful, or at the very least negligent, conduct which has deprived the defendant of some right. By refusing to admit evidence gained as a result of such conduct, the courts hope to instill in those particular investigating officers, or in their future counterparts, a greater degree of care toward the rights of an accused. Where the official action was pursued in complete good faith, however, the deterrence rationale loses much of its force.”

The Peltier Court continued, id., at 542:

“If the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter unlawful police conduct, then evidence obtained from a search should be suppressed only if it can be said that the law enforcement officer had knowledge, or may properly be charged with knowledge, that the search was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.”

See also Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S., at 260-261 (White, J., concurring in judgment); United States v. Janis, supra, at 459; Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S., at 610-611 (Powell, J., concurring in part).20 In short, where the officer’s conduct is objectively reasonable,

*920“excluding the evidence will not further the ends of the exclusionary rule in any appreciable way; for it is painfully apparent that. . . the officer is acting as a reasonable officer would and should act in similar circumstances. Excluding the evidence can in no way affect his future conduct unless it is to make him less willing to do his duty.” Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S., at 539-540 (White, J., dissenting).

This is particularly true, we believe, when an officer acting with objective good faith has obtained a search warrant from a judge or magistrate and acted within its scope.21 In most *921such cases, there is no police illegality and thus nothing to deter. It is the magistrate’s responsibility to determine whether the officer’s allegations establish probable cause and, if so, to issue a warrant comporting in form with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. In the ordinary case, an officer cannot be expected to question the magistrate’s probable-cause determination or his judgment that the form of the warrant is technically sufficient. “[Ojnce the warrant issues, there is literally nothing more the policeman can do in seeking to comply with the law.” Id., at 498 (Burger, C. J., concurring). Penalizing the officer for the magistrate’s error, rather than his own, cannot logically contribute to the deterrence of Fourth Amendment violations.22

*922c

We conclude that the marginal or nonexistent benefits produced by suppressing evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant cannot justify the substantial costs of exclusion. We do not suggest, however, that exclusion is always inappropriate in cases where an officer has obtained a warrant and abided by its terms. “[Searches pursuant to a warrant will rarely require any deep inquiry into reasonableness,” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S., at 267 (White, J., concurring in judgment), for “a warrant issued by a magistrate normally suffices to establish” that a law enforcement officer has “acted in good faith in conducting the search.” United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798, 823, n. 32 (1982). Nevertheless, the officer’s reliance on the magistrate’s probable-cause determination and on the technical sufficiency of the warrant he issues must be objectively reasonable, cf. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800, 815-819 (1982),23 and it is clear that in some eircum-*923stances the officer24 will have no reasonable grounds for believing that the warrant was properly issued.

Suppression therefore remains an appropriate remedy if the magistrate or judge in issuing a warrant was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of the truth. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U. S. 154 (1978). The exception we recognize today will also not apply in cases where the issuing magistrate wholly abandoned his judicial role in the manner condemned in Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U. S. 319 (1979); in such circumstances, no reasonably well trained officer should rely on the warrant. Nor would an officer manifest objective good faith in relying on a warrant based on an affidavit “so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.” Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S., at 610-611 (Powell, J., concurring in part); see Illinois v. Gates, supra, at 263-264 (White, J., concurring in judgment). Finally, depending on the circumstances of the particular case, a warrant may be so facially deficient — i. e., in failing to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized— that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid. Cf. Massachusetts v. Sheppard, post, at 988-991.

In so limiting the suppression remedy, we leave untouched the probable-cause standard and the various requirements for a valid warrant. Other objections to the modification of *924the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule we consider to be insubstantial. The good-faith exception for searches conducted pursuant to warrants is not intended to signal our unwillingness strictly to enforce the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, and we do not believe that it will have this effect. As we have already suggested, the good-faith exception, turning as it does on objective reasonableness, should not be difficult to apply in practice. When officers have acted pursuant to a warrant, the prosecution should ordinarily be able to establish objective good faith without a substantial expenditure of judicial time.

Nor are we persuaded that application of a good-faith exception to searches conducted pursuant to warrants will preclude review of the constitutionality of the search or seizure, deny needed guidance from the courts, or freeze Fourth Amendment law in its present state.25 There is no need for courts to adopt the inflexible practice of always deciding whether the officers’ conduct manifested objective good faith before turning to the question whether the Fourth Amendment has been violated. Defendants seeking suppression of the fruits of allegedly unconstitutional searches or seizures undoubtedly raise live controversies which Art. Ill empowers federal courts to adjudicate. As cases addressing questions of good-faith immunity under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, compare O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U. S. 563 (1975), with Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U. S. 555, 566, n. 14 (1978), and cases involving the harmless-error doctrine, compare Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U. S. 371, 372 (1972), with Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U. S. 1 (1970), make clear, courts have consid*925erable discretion in conforming their decisionmaking processes to the exigencies of particular cases.

If the resolution of a particular Fourth Amendment question is necessary to guide future action by law enforcement officers and magistrates, nothing will prevent reviewing courts from deciding that question before turning to the good-faith issue.26 Indeed, it frequently will be difficult to determine whether the officers acted reasonably without resolving the Fourth Amendment issue. Even if the Fourth Amendment question is not one of broad import, reviewing courts could decide in particular cases that magistrates under their supervision need to be informed of their errors and so evaluate the officers’ good faith only after finding a violation. In other circumstances, those courts could reject suppression motions posing no important Fourth Amendment questions by turning immediately to a consideration of the officers’ good faith. We have no reason to believe that our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence would suffer by allowing reviewing courts to exercise an informed discretion in making this choice.

IV

When the principles we have enunciated today are applied to the facts of this case, it is apparent that the judgment of the Court of Appeals cannot stand. The Court of Appeals applied the prevailing legal standards to Officer Rombach’s warrant application and concluded that the application could not support the magistrate’s probable-cause determination. In so doing, the court clearly informed the magistrate that he *926had erred in issuing the challenged warrant. This aspect of the court’s judgment is not under attack in this proceeding.

Having determined that the warrant should not have issued, the Court of Appeals understandably declined to adopt a modification of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule that this Court had not previously sanctioned. Although the modification finds strong support in our previous cases, the Court of Appeals’ commendable self-restraint is not to be criticized. We have now reexamined the purposes of the exclusionary rule and the propriety of its application in cases where officers have relied on a subsequently invalidated search warrant. Our conclusion is that the rule’s purposes will only rarely be served by applying it in such circumstances.

In the absence of an allegation that the magistrate abandoned his detached and neutral role, suppression is appropriate only if the officers were dishonest or reckless in preparing their affidavit or could not have harbored an objectively reasonable belief in the existence of probable cause. Only respondent Leon has contended that no reasonably well trained police officer could have believed that there existed probable cause to search his house; significantly, the other respondents advance no comparable argument. Officer Rombach’s application for a warrant clearly was supported by much more than a “bare bones” affidavit. The affidavit related the results of an extensive investigation and, as the opinions of the divided panel of the Court of Appeals make clear, provided evidence sufficient to create disagreement among thoughtful and competent judges as to the existence of probable cause. Under these circumstances, the officers’ reliance on the magistrate’s determination of probable cause was objectively reasonable, and application of the extreme sanction of exclusion is inappropriate.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Reversed.

*927Justice Blackmun,

concurring.

The Court today holds that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment by officers acting in objectively reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate need not be excluded, as a matter of federal law, from the case in chief of federal and state criminal prosecutions. In so doing, the Court writes another chapter in the volume of Fourth Amendment law opened by Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383 (1914). I join the Court’s opinion in this case and the one in Massachusetts v. Sheppard, post, p. 981, because I believe that the rule announced today advances the legitimate interests of the criminal justice system without sacrificing the individual rights protected by the Fourth Amendment. I write separately, however, to underscore what I regard as the unavoidably provisional nature of today’s decisions.

As the Court’s opinion in this case makes clear, the Court has narrowed the scope of the exclusionary rule because of an empirical judgment that the rule has little appreciable effect in cases where officers act in objectively reasonable reliance on search warrants. See ante, at 918-921. Because I share the view that the exclusionary rule is not a constitutionally compelled corollary of the Fourth Amendment itself, see ante, at 905-906, I see no way to avoid making an empirical judgment of this sort, and I am satisfied that the Court has made the correct one on the information before it. Like all courts, we face institutional limitations on our ability to gather information about “legislative facts,” and the exclusionary rule itself has exacerbated the shortage of hard data concerning the behavior of police officers in the absence of such a rule. See United States v. Janis, 428 U. S. 433, 448-453 (1976). Nonetheless, we cannot escape the responsibility to decide the question before us, however imperfect our information may be, and I am prepared to join the Court on the information now at hand.

*928What must be stressed, however, is that any empirical judgment about the effect of the exclusionary rule in a particular class of cases necessarily is a provisional one. By their very nature, the assumptions on which we proceed today cannot be cast in stone. To the contrary, they now will be tested in the real world of state and federal law enforcement, and this Court will attend to the results. If it should emerge from experience that, contrary to our expectations, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule results in a material change in police compliance with the Fourth Amendment, we shall have to reconsider what we have undertaken here. The logic of a decision that rests on untested predictions about police conduct demands no less.

If a single principle may be drawn from this Court’s exclusionary rule decisions, from Weeks through Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961), to the decisions handed down today, it is that the scope of the exclusionary rule is subject to change in light of changing judicial understanding about the effects of the rule outside the confines of the courtroom. It is incumbent on the Nation’s law enforcement officers, who must continue to observe the Fourth Amendment in the wake of today’s decisions, to recognize the double-edged nature of that principle.

Justice Brennan,

with whom Justice Marshall joins, dissenting.*

Ten years ago in United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338 (1974), I expressed the fear that the Court’s decision “may signal that a majority of my colleagues have positioned themselves to reopen the door [to evidence secured by official lawlessness] still further and abandon altogether the exclusionary rule in search-and-seizure cases.” Id., at 365 (dissenting opinion). Since then, in case after case, I have witnessed the Court’s gradual but determined strangulation *929of the rule.1 It now appears that the Court’s victory over the Fourth Amendment is complete. That today’s decisions represent the piece de resistance of the Court’s past efforts cannot be doubted, for today the Court sanctions the use in the prosecution’s case in chief of illegally obtained evidence against the individual whose rights have been violated — a result that had previously been thought to be foreclosed.

The Court seeks to justify this result on the ground that the “costs” of adhering to the exclusionary rule in cases like those before us exceed the “benefits.” But the language of deterrence and of cost/benefit analysis, if used indiscriminately, can have a narcotic effect. It creates an illusion of technical precision and ineluctability. It suggests that not only constitutional principle but also empirical data support the majority’s result. When the Court’s analysis is examined carefully, however, it is clear that we have not been treated to an honest assessment of the merits of the exclusionary rule, but have instead been drawn into a curious world where the “costs” of excluding illegally obtained evidence loom to exaggerated heights and where the “benefits” of such exclusion are made to disappear with a mere wave of the hand.

The majority ignores the fundamental constitutional importance of what is at stake here. While the machinery of law enforcement and indeed the nature of crime itself have changed dramatically since the Fourth Amendment became part of the Nation’s fundamental law in 1791, what the Framers understood then remains true today — that the task of combating crime and convicting the guilty will in every era seem of such critical and pressing concern that we may be lured by the temptations of expediency into forsaking our *930commitment to protecting individual liberty and privacy. It was for that very reason that the Framers of the Bill of Rights insisted that law enforcement efforts be permanently and unambiguously restricted in order to preserve personal freedoms. In the constitutional scheme they ordained, the sometimes unpopular task of ensuring that the government’s enforcement efforts remain within the strict boundaries fixed by the Fourth Amendment was entrusted to the courts. As James Madison predicted in his address to the First Congress on June 8, 1789:

“If [these rights] are incorporated into the Constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the Legislative or Executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the Constitution by the declaration of rights.” 1 Annals of Cong. 439.

If those independent tribunals lose their resolve, however, as the Court has done today, and give way to the seductive call of expediency, the vital guarantees of the Fourth Amendment are reduced to nothing more than a “form of words.” Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385, 392 (1920).

A proper understanding of the broad purposes sought to be served by the Fourth Amendment demonstrates that the principles embodied in the exclusionary rule rest upon a far firmer constitutional foundation than the shifting sands of the Court’s deterrence rationale. But even if I were to accept the Court’s chosen method of analyzing the question posed by these cases, I would still conclude that the Court’s decision cannot be justified.

I

The Court holds that physical evidence seized by police officers reasonably relying upon a warrant issued by a de*931tached and neutral magistrate is admissible in the prosecution’s case in chief, even though a reviewing court has subsequently determined either that the warrant was defective, No. 82-963, or that those officers failed to demonstrate when applying for the warrant that there was probable cause to conduct the search, No. 82-1771. I have no doubt that these decisions will prove in time to have been a grave mistake. But, as troubling and important as today’s new doctrine may be for the administration of criminal justice in this country, the mode of analysis used to generate that doctrine also requires critical examination, for it may prove in the long run to pose the greater threat to our civil liberties.

A

At bottom, the Court’s decision turns on the proposition that the exclusionary rule is merely a “‘judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect, rather than a personal constitutional right.’” Ante, at 906, quoting United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S., at 348. The germ of that idea is found in Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25 (1949), and although I had thought that such a narrow conception of the rule had been forever put to rest by our decision in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961), it has been revived by the present Court and reaches full flower with today’s decision. The essence of this view, as expressed initially in the Calandra opinion and as reiterated today, is that the sole “purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to prevent unreasonable governmental intrusions into the privacy of one’s person, house, papers, or effects. The wrong condemned is the unjustified governmental invasion of these areas of an individual’s life. That wrong . . . is fully accomplished by the original search without probable cause.” 414 U. S., at 354 (emphasis added); see also ante, at 906. This reading of the Amendment implies that its proscriptions are directed solely at those government agents who may actually invade an individual’s constitution*932ally protected privacy. The courts are not subject to any direct constitutional duty to exclude illegally obtained evidence, because the question of the admissibility of such evidence is not addressed by the Amendment. This view of the scope of the Amendment relegates the judiciary to the periphery. Because the only constitutionally cognizable injury has already been “fully accomplished” by the police by the time a case comes before the courts, the Constitution is not itself violated if the judge decides to admit the tainted evidence. Indeed, the most the judge can do is wring his hands and hope that perhaps by excluding such evidence he can deter future transgressions by the police.

Such a reading appears plausible, because, as critics of the exclusionary rule never tire of repeating,2 the Fourth Amendment makes no express provision for the exclusion of evidence secured in violation of its commands. A short answer to this claim, of course, is that many of the Constitution’s most vital imperatives are stated in general terms and the task of giving meaning to these precepts is therefore left to subsequent judicial decisionmaking in the context of concrete cases. The nature of our Constitution, as Chief Justice Marshall long ago explained, “requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves.” McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 407 (1819).

A more direct answer may be supplied by recognizing that the Amendment, like other provisions of the Bill of Rights, restrains the power of the government as a whole; it does not specify only a particular agency and exempt all others. The judiciary is responsible, no less than the executive, for ensuring that constitutional rights are respected.

*933When that fact is kept in mind, the role of the courts and their possible involvement in the concerns of the Fourth Amendment comes into sharper focus. Because seizures are executed principally to secure evidence, and because such evidence generally has utility in our legal system only in the context of a trial supervised by a judge, it is apparent that the admission of illegally obtained. evidence implicates the same constitutional concerns as the initial seizure of that evidence. Indeed, by admitting unlawfully seized evidence, the judiciary becomes a part of what is in fact a single governmental action prohibited by the terms of the Amendment.3 Once that connection between the evidence-gathering role of the police and the evidence-admitting function of the courts is acknowledged, the plausibility of the Court’s interpretation becomes more suspect. Certainly nothing in the language or history of the Fourth Amendment suggests that a recognition of this evidentiary link between the police and the courts was meant to be foreclosed.4 It is difficult to give any meaning *934at all to the limitations imposed by the Amendment if they are read to proscribe only certain conduct by the police but to allow other agents of the same government to take advantage of evidence secured by the police in violation of its requirements.5 The Amendment therefore must be read to condemn not only the initial unconstitutional invasion of privacy — which is done, after all, for the purpose of securing evidence — but also the subsequent use of any evidence so obtained.

*935The Court evades this principle by drawing an artificial line between the constitutional rights and responsibilities that are engaged by actions of the police and those that are engaged when a defendant appears before the courts. According to the Court, the substantive protections of the Fourth Amendment are wholly exhausted at the moment when police unlawfully invade an individual’s privacy and thus no substantive force remains to those protections at the time of trial when the government seeks to use evidence obtained by the police.

I submit that such a crabbed reading of the Fourth Amendment casts aside the teaching of those Justices who first formulated the exclusionary rule, and rests ultimately on an impoverished understanding of judicial responsibility in our constitutional scheme. For my part, “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” comprises a personal right to exclude all evidence secured by means of unreasonable searches and seizures. The right to be free from the initial invasion of privacy and the right of exclusion are coordinate components of the central embracing right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Such a conception of the rights secured by the Fourth Amendment was unquestionably the original basis of what has come to be called the exclusionary rule when it was first formulated in Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383 (1914). There the Court considered whether evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment by a United States Marshal could be admitted at trial after the defendant had moved that the evidence be returned. Significantly, although the Court considered the Marshal’s initial invasion of the defendant’s home to be unlawful, it went on to consider a question that “involves the right of the court in a criminal prosecution to retain for the purposes of evidence the letters and correspondence of the accused, seized in his house in his absence without his authority, by a United States Marshal holding no *936warrant for . . . the search of his premises.” Id., at 393. In answering that question, Justice Day, speaking for a unanimous Court, expressly recognized that the commands of the Fourth Amendment were addressed to both the courts and the Executive Branch:

“The effect of the Fourth Amendment is to put the courts of the United States and Federal officials, in the exercise of their power and authority, under limitations and restraints as to the exercise of such power and authority, and to forever secure the people, their persons, houses, papers and effects against all unreasonable searches and seizures under the guise of law. This protection reaches all alike, whether accused of crime or not, and the duty of giving to it force and effect is obligatory upon all entrusted under our Federal system with the enforcement of the laws. The tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to obtain conviction by means of unlawful seizures . . . should find no sanction in the judgments of the courts which are charged at all times with the support of the Constitution and to which people of all conditions have a right to appeal for the maintenance of such fundamental rights.” Id., at 391-392.

The heart of the Weeks opinion, and for me the beginning of wisdom about the Fourth Amendment’s proper meaning, is found in the following passage:

“If letters and private documents can ... be seized and held and used in evidence against a citizen accused of an offense, the protection of the Fourth Amendment declaring his right to be secure against such searches and seizures is of no value, and, so far as those thus placed are concerned, might as well be stricken from the Constitution. The efforts of the courts and [federal] officials to bring the guilty to punishment, praiseworthy as they are, are not to be aided by the sacrifice of those great *937principles established by years of endeavor and suffering which have resulted in their embodiment in the fundamental law of the land. The United States Marshal could only have invaded the house of the accused when armed with a warrant issued as required by the Constitution. . . . Instead, he acted without sanction of law, doubtless prompted by the desire to bring further proof to the aid of the Government, and under color of his office undertook to make a seizure of private papers in direct violation of the constitutional prohibition against such action. ... To sanction such proceedings would be to affirm by judicial decision a manifest neglect if not an open defiance of the prohibitions of the Constitution, intended for the protection of the people against such unauthorized action.” Id., at 393-394.

What this passage succinctly captures is the essential recognition, ignored by the present Court, that seizures are generally executed for the purpose of bringing “proof to the aid of the Government,” id., at 393, that the utility of such evidence in a criminal prosecution arises ultimately in the context of the courts, and that the courts therefore cannot be absolved of responsibility for the means by which evidence is obtained. As the Court in Weeks clearly recognized, the obligations cast upon government by the Fourth Amendment are not confined merely to the police. In the words of Justice Holmes: “If the search and seizure are unlawful as invading personal rights secured by the Constitution those rights would be infringed yet further if the evidence were allowed to be used.” Dodge v. United States, 272 U. S. 530, 532 (1926). As the Court further explained in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438 (1928):

“The striking outcome of the Weeks case and those which followed it was the sweeping declaration that the Fourth Amendment, although not referring to or limiting the use of evidence in courts, really forbade its introduction if obtained by government officers through a *938violation of the Amendment. Theretofore many had supposed under the ordinary common law rules, if the tendered evidence was pertinent, the method of obtaining it was unimportant. . . . But in the Weeks case, and those which followed, this Court decided with great emphasis, and established as the law for the federal courts, that the protection of the Fourth Amendment would be much impaired unless it was held that not only was the official violator of the rights under the Amendment subject to an action at the suit of the injured defendant, but also that the evidence thereby obtained could not be received.” Id., at 462-463.

That conception of the rule, in my view, is more faithful to the meaning and purpose of the Fourth Amendment and to the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the people’s constitutional liberties. In contrast to the present Court’s restrictive reading, the Court in Weeks recognized that, if the Amendment is to have any meaning, police and the courts cannot be regarded as constitutional strangers to each other; because the evidence-gathering role of the police is directly linked to the evidence-admitting function of the courts, an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights may be undermined as completely by one as by the other.

B

From the foregoing, it is clear why the question whether the exclusion of evidence would deter future police misconduct was never considered a relevant concern in the early cases from Weeks to Olmstead. 6 In those formative decisions, the Court plainly understood that the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence was compelled not by judicially fash*939ioned remedial purposes, but rather by a direct constitutional command. A new phase in the history of the rule, however, opened with the Court’s decision in Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25 (1949). Although that decision held that the security of one’s person and privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment was “implicit in ‘the concept of ordered liberty’ and as such enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment, id., at 27-28, quoting Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 325 (1937), the Court went on, in what can only be regarded as a tour de force of constitutional obfuscation, to say that the “ways of enforcing such a basic right raise questions of a different order,” 338 U. S., at 28. Notwithstanding the force of the Weeks doctrine that the Fourth Amendment required exclusion, a state court was free to admit illegally seized evidence, according to the Court in Wolf, so long as the State had devised some other “effective” means of vindicating a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. 338 U. S., at 31.

Twelve years later, in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961), however, the Court restored the original understanding of the Weeks case by overruling the holding of Wolf and repudiating its rationale. Although in the course of reaching this conclusion the Court in Mapp responded at certain points to the question, first raised in Wolf, of whether the exclusionary rule was an “effective” remedy compared to alternative means of enforcing the right, see 367 U. S., at 651-653, it nevertheless expressly held that “all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a state court.” Id., at 655 (emphasis added). In the Court’s view, the exclusionary rule was not one among a range of options to be selected at the discretion of judges; it was “an essential part of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.” Id., at 657. Rejection of the Wolf approach was constitutionally required, the Court explained, because “the admission of the new constitutional right by Wolf could not consistently tolerate denial of *940its most important constitutional privilege, namely, the exclusion of the evidence which an accused had been forced to give by reason of the unlawful seizure. To hold otherwise is to grant the right but in reality to withhold its privilege and enjoyment.” 367 U. S., at 656. Indeed, no other explanation suffices to account for the Court’s holding in Mapp, since the only possible predicate for the Court’s conclusion that the States were bound by the Fourteenth Amendment to honor the Weeks doctrine is that the exclusionary rule was “part and parcel of the Fourth Amendment’s limitation upon [governmental] encroachment of individual privacy.” 367 U. S., at 651.7

Despite this clear pronouncement, however, the Court since Calandra has gradually pressed the deterrence rationale for the rule back to center stage. See, e. g., United States v. Peltier, 422 U. S. 531 (1975); United States v. Janis, 428 U. S. 433 (1976); Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465 (1976). The various arguments advanced by the Court in this campaign have only strengthened my conviction that the deterrence theory is both misguided and unworkable. First, *941the Court has frequently bewailed the “cost” of excluding reliable evidence. In large part, this criticism rests upon a refusal to acknowledge the function of the Fourth Amendment itself. If nothing else, the Amendment plainly operates to disable the government from gathering information and securing evidence in certain ways. In practical terms, of course, this restriction of official power means that some incriminating evidence inevitably will go undetected if the government obeys these constitutional restraints. It is the loss of that evidence that is the “price” our society pays for enjoying the freedom and privacy safeguarded by the Fourth Amendment. Thus, some criminals will go free not, in Justice (then Judge) Cardozo’s misleading epigram, “because the constable has blundered,” People v. Defore, 242 N. Y. 13, 21, 150 N. E. 585, 587 (1926), but rather because official compliance with Fourth Amendment requirements makes it more difficult to catch criminals. Understood in this way, the Amendment directly contemplates that some reliable and incriminating evidence will be lost to the government; therefore, it is not the exclusionary rule, but the Amendment itself that has imposed this cost.8

*942In addition, the Court’s decisions over the past decade have made plain that the entire enterprise of attempting to assess the benefits and costs of the exclusionary rule in various contexts is a virtually impossible task for the judiciary to perform honestly or accurately. Although the Court’s language in those cases suggests that some specific empirical basis may support its analyses, the reality is that the Court’s opinions represent inherently unstable compounds of intuition, hunches, and occasional pieces of partial and often inconclusive data. In Calandra, for example, the Court, in considering whether the exclusionary rule should apply in grand jury proceedings, had before it no concrete evidence whatever concerning the impact that application of the rule in such proceedings would have either in terms of the long-term costs or the expected benefits. To the extent empirical data are available regarding the general costs and benefits of the exclusionary rule, such data have shown, on the one hand, as the Court acknowledges today, that the costs are not as substantial as critics have asserted in the past, see ante, at 907-908, n. 6, and, on the other hand, that while the exclusionary rule may well have certain deterrent effects, it is extremely difficult to determine with any degree of precision whether the incidence of unlawful conduct by police is now lower than it was prior to Mapp. See United States v. Janis, 428 U. S., at 449-453, and n. 22; Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S., at 492, n. 32.9 The *943Court has sought to turn this uncertainty to its advantage by casting the burden of proof upon proponents of the rule, see, e. g., United States v. Janis, supra, at 453-454. “Obviously,” however, “the assignment of the burden of proof on an issue where evidence does not exist and cannot be obtained is outcome determinative. [The] assignment of the burden is merely a way of announcing a predetermined conclusion.”10

By remaining within its redoubt of empiricism and by basing the rule solely on the deterrence rationale, the Court has robbed the rule of legitimacy. A doctrine that is explained as if it were an empirical proposition but for which there is only limited empirical support is both inherently unstable and an easy mark for critics. The extent of this Court’s fidelity to Fourth Amendment requirements, however, should not turn on such statistical uncertainties. I share the view, expressed by Justice Stewart for the Court in Faretta v. California, 422 U. S. 806 (1975), that “[pjersonal liberties are not rooted in the law of averages.” Id., at 834. Rather than seeking to give effect to the liberties secured by the Fourth Amendment through guesswork about deterrence, the Court should restore to its proper place the principle framed 70 years ago in Weeks that an individual whose privacy has been invaded in violation of the Fourth Amendment has a right grounded in that Amendment to prevent the government from subsequently making use of any evidence so obtained.

*944H-t HH

Application of that principle clearly requires affirmance m the two cases decided today. In the first, United States v. Leon, No. 82-1771, it is conceded by the Government and accepted by the Court that the affidavit filed by the police officers in support of their application for a search warrant failed to provide a sufficient basis on which a neutral and detached magistrate could conclude that there was probable cause to issue the warrant. Specifically, it is conceded that the officers’ application for a warrant was based in part on information supplied by a confidential informant of unproven reliability that was over five months old by the time it was relayed to the police. Although the police conducted an independent investigation on the basis of this tip, both the District Court and the Court of Appeals concluded that the additional information gathered by the officers failed to corroborate the details of the informant’s tip and was “as consistent with innocence as . . . with guilt.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 10a. The warrant, therefore, should never have issued. Stripped of the authority of the warrant, the conduct of these officers was plainly unconstitutional — it amounted to nothing less than a naked invasion of the privacy of respondents’ homes without the requisite justification demanded by the Fourth Amendment. In order to restore the Government to the position it would have occupied had this unconstitutional search not occurred, therefore, it was necessary that the evidence be suppressed. As we said in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443 (1971), the Warrant Clause is not “an inconvenience to be somehow ‘weighed’ against the claims of police efficiency. It is, or should be, an important working part of our machinery of government, operating as a matter of course to check the ‘well-intentioned but mistakenly overzealous executive officers’ who are part of any system of law enforcement.” Id., at 481 (footnote omitted).

A close examination of the facts of this case reveals that this is neither an extraordinary nor indeed a very costly step. *945The warrant had authorized a search for cocaine, methaqua-lone tablets, and miscellaneous narcotics paraphernalia at several locations: a condominium at 7902 Via Magdalena in Los Angeles; a residence at 620 Price Drive in Burbank; a residence at 716 South Sunset Canyon in Burbank; and four automobiles owned respectively by respondents Leon, Sanchez, Stewart, and Del Castillo. App. 31-33. Pursuant to this warrant, the officers seized approximately four pounds of cocaine and over 1,000 methaqualone tablets from the Via Magdalena condominium, nearly one pound of cocaine from the Sunset Canyon residence, about an ounce of cocaine from the Price Drive residence, and certain paraphernalia from Del Castillo’s and Stewart’s automobiles. On the basis of this and other evidence, the four respondents were charged with violating 21 U. S. C. § 846 for conspiring to possess and distribute cocaine, and § 841(a)(1) for possessing methaqua-lone and cocaine with intent to distribute. The indictment specifically alleged that respondents had maintained the Via Magdalena condominum as a storage area for controlled substances which they distributed to prospective purchasers. App. 27-28.

At the suppression hearing, the District Court determined that none of the respondents had a sufficient expectation of privacy to contest the search of the Via Magdalena condominium, that respondents Stewart and Sanchez could challenge the search of their home at Price Drive, that respondent Leon was entitled to challenge the search of his home at Sunset Canyon, and that respondents Del Castillo and Stewart could contest the search of their cars. Given its finding that probable cause to issue the warrant was lacking, the District Court ruled that the evidence from the Price Drive residence could not be used against respondents Stewart and Sanchez, that evidence from the Sunset Canyon residence could not be used against Leon, and that evidence obtained from both Del Castillo’s and Stewart’s automobiles could not be used against them. App. to Pet. for Cert. 10a-13a.

*946The tenor of the Court’s opinion suggests that this order somehow imposed a grave and presumably unjustifiable cost on society. Such a suggestion, however, is a gross exaggeration. Since the indictment focused upon a conspiracy among all respondents to use the Via Magdalena condominium as a storage area for controlled substances, and since the bulk of the evidence seized was from that condominium and was plainly admissible under the District Court’s order, the Government would clearly still be able to present a strong case to the jury following the court’s suppression order. I emphasize these details not to suggest how the Government’s case would fare before the jury but rather to clarify a point that is lost in the Court’s rhetorical excesses over the costs of the exclusionary rule — namely, that the suppression of evidence will certainly tend to weaken the Government’s position but it will rarely force the Government to abandon a prosecution. Cf. infra, at 950-951, and n. 11. In my view, a doctrine that preserves intact the constitutional rights of the accused, and, at the same time, is sufficiently limited to permit society’s legitimate and pressing interest in criminal law enforcement to be served should not be so recklessly discarded. It is a doctrine that gives life to the “very heart of the Fourth Amendment directive: that... a governmental search and seizure should represent both the efforts of the officer to gather evidence of wrongful acts and the judgment of the magistrate that the collected evidence is sufficient to justify invasion of a citizen’s private premises.” United States v. United States District Court, 407 U. S. 297, 316 (1972).

In the second case before the Court, Massachusetts v. Sheppard, No. 82-963, the State concedes and the Court accepts that the warrant issued to search respondent’s home completely failed to state with particularity the things to be seized. Indeed, the warrant expressly and particularly described things such as “controlled substance[s]” and “other paraphernalia used in, for, or in connection with the unlawful possession or use of any controlled substance” that the police had no reason whatsoever to believe were to be found in *947respondent’s home. App. 17a. Given the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . . and particularly describing the . . . things to be seized,” this warrant should never have been issued. The police who entered respondent’s home, therefore, were without constitutional authority to do so.

Although the Court’s opinion tends to overlook this fact, the requirement of particularity is not a mere “technicality,” it is an express constitutional command. Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U. S. 85, 92 (1979); Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U. S. 319 (1979); Stanford v. Texas, 379 U. S. 476 (1965); Marron v. United States, 275 U. S. 192, 196 (1927). The purpose of that requirement is to prevent precisely the kind of governmental conduct that the faulty warrant at issue here created a grave risk of permitting — namely, a search that was not narrowly and particularly limited to the things that a neutral and detached magistrate had reason to believe might be found at respondent’s home. Although it is true, as Justice Stevens observes, see post, at 964, that the affidavit submitted by the police set forth with particularity those items that they sought authority to search for, it is nevertheless clear that the warrant itself — the document which actually gave the officers legal authority to invade respondent’s privacy — made no mention of these items. And, although it is true that the particular officers who applied for the warrant also happened to execute it and did so in accordance with the limits proposed in their affidavit, this happenstance should have no bearing on the central question whether these officers secured that prior judicial authority to conduct their search required by the Fourth Amendment. As we made clear in United States v. United States District Court, supra, at 317 (footnote omitted), “[t]he Fourth Amendment contemplates a prior judicial judgment, not the risk that executive discretion may be reasonably exercised.” See also Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 356-357 (1967) (“this Court has never sustained a search upon the sole ground that officers reasonably expected to find evidence of a particular crime *948and voluntarily confined their activities to the least intrusive means consistent with that end”). Had the warrant actually been enforced by officers other than those who prepared the affidavit, the same result might not have occured; indeed, the wholly erroneous nature of the warrant might have led such officers to feel at liberty to roam throughout respondent’s home in search of drugs. Cf. Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U. S. 560 (1971). I therefore fail to see how a search pursuant to such a fundamentally defective warrant can be characterized as “reasonable.”

What the Framers of the Bill of Rights sought to accomplish through the express requirements of the Fourth Amendment was to define precisely the conditions under which government agents could search private property so that citizens would not have to depend solely upon the discretion and restraint of those agents for the protection of their privacy. Although the self-restraint and care exhibited by the officers in this case is commendable, that alone can never be a sufficient protection for constitutional liberties. I am convinced that it is not too much to ask that an attentive magistrate take those minimum steps necessary to ensure that every warrant he issues describes with particularity the things that his independent review of the warrant application convinces him are likely to be found in the premises. And I am equally convinced that it is not too much to ask that well-trained and experienced police officers take a moment to check that the warrant they have been issued at least describes those things for which they have sought leave to search. These convictions spring not from my own view of sound criminal law enforcement policy, but are instead compelled by the language of the Fourth Amendment and the history that led to its adoption.

Ill

Even if I were to accept the Court’s general approach to the exclusionary rule, I could not agree with today’s result. *949There is no question that in the hands of the present Court the deterrence rationale has proved to be a powerful tool for confining the scope of the rule. In Calandra, for example, the Court concluded that the “speculative and undoubtedly minimal advance in the deterrence of police misconduct,” was insufficient to outweigh the “expense of substantially impeding the role of the grand jury.” 414 U. S., at 351-352. In Stone v. Powell, the Court found that “the additional contribution, if any, of the consideration of search-and-seizure claims of state prisoners on collateral review is small in relation to the costs.” 428 U. S., at 493. In United States v. Janis, 428 U. S. 433 (1976), the Court concluded that “exclusion from federal civil proceedings of evidence unlawfully seized by a state criminal enforcement officer has not been shown to have a sufficient likelihood of deterring the conduct of the state police so that it outweighs the societal costs imposed by the exclusion.” Id., at 454. And in an opinion handed down today, the Court finds that the “balance between costs and benefits comes out against applying the exclusionary rule in civil deportation hearings held by the [Immigration and Naturalization Service].” INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, post, at 1050.

Thus, in this bit of judicial stagecraft, while the sets sometimes change, the actors always have the same lines. Given this well-rehearsed pattern, one might have predicted with some assurance how the present case would unfold. First there is the ritual incantation of the “substantial social costs” exacted by the exclusionary rule, followed by the virtually foreordained conclusion that, given the marginal benefits, application of the rule in the circumstances of these cases is not warranted. Upon analysis, however, such a result cannot be justified even on the Court’s own terms.

At the outset, the Court suggests that society has been asked to pay a high price — in terms either of setting guilty persons free or of impeding the proper functioning of trials— as a result of excluding relevant physical evidence in cases *950where the police, in conducting searches and seizing evidence, have made only an “objectively reasonable” mistake concerning the constitutionality of their actions. See ante, at 907-908. But what evidence is there to support such a claim?

Significantly, the Court points to none, and, indeed, as the Court acknowledges, see ante, at 907-908, n. 6, recent studies have demonstrated that the “costs” of the exclusionary rule — calculated in terms of dropped prosecutions and lost convictions — are quite low. Contrary to the claims of the rule’s critics that exclusion leads to “the release of countless guilty criminals,” Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, 416 (1971) (Burger, C. J., dissenting), these studies have demonstrated that federal and state prosecutors very rarely drop cases because of potential search and seizure problems. For example, a 1979 study prepared at the request of Congress by the General Accounting Office reported that only 0.4% of all cases actually declined for prosecution by federal prosecutors were declined primarily because of illegal search problems. Report of the Comptroller General of the United States, Impact of the Exclusionary Rule on Federal Criminal Prosecutions 14 (1979). If the GAO data are restated as a percentage of all arrests, the study shows that only 0.2% of all felony arrests are declined for prosecution because of potential exclusionary rule problems. See Davies, A Hard Look at What We Know (and Still Need to Learn) About the “Costs” of the Exclusionary Rule: The NIJ Study and Other Studies of “Lost” Arrests, 1983 A. B. F. Res. J. 611, 635.11 Of course, these data de*951scribe only the costs attributable to the exclusion of evidence in all cases; the costs due to the exclusion of evidence in the narrower category of cases where police have made objectively reasonable mistakes must necessarily be even smaller. The Court, however, ignores this distinction and mistakenly weighs the aggregated costs of exclusion in all cases, irrespective of the circumstances that led to exclusion, see ante, at 907, against the potential benefits associated with only those cases in which evidence is excluded because police reasonably but mistakenly believe that their conduct does not violate the Fourth Amendment, see ante, at 915-921. When such faulty scales are used, it is little wonder that the balance tips in favor of restricting the application of the rule.

*952What then supports the Court’s insistence that this evidence be admitted? Apparently, the Court’s only answer is that even though the costs of exclusion are not very substantial, the potential deterrent effect in these circumstances is so marginal that exclusion cannot be justified. The key to the Court’s conclusion in this respect is its belief that the prospective deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule operates only in those situations in which police officers, when deciding whether to go forward with some particular search, have reason to know that their planned conduct will violate the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. See ante, at 919-921. If these officers in fact understand (or reasonably should understand because the law is well settled) that their proposed conduct will offend the Fourth Amendment and that, consequently, any evidence they seize will be suppressed in court, they will refrain from conducting the planned search. In those circumstances, the incentive system created by the exclusionary rule will have the hoped-for deterrent effect. But in situations where police officers reasonably (but mistakenly) believe that their planned conduct satisfies Fourth Amendment requirements — presumably either (a) because they are acting on the basis of an apparently valid warrant, or (b) because their conduct is only later determined to be invalid as a result of a subsequent change in the law or the resolution of an unsettled question of law — then such officers will have no reason to refrain from conducting the search and the exclusionary rule will have no effect.

At first blush, there is some logic to this position. Undoubtedly, in the situation hypothesized by the Court, the existence of the exclusionary rule cannot be expected to have any deterrent effect on the particular officers at the moment they are deciding whether to go forward with the search. Indeed, the subsequent exclusion of any evidence seized under such circumstances appears somehow “unfair” to the particular officers involved. As the Court suggests, these officers have acted in what they thought was an appropriate *953and constitutionally authorized manner, but then the fruit of their efforts is nullified by the application of the exclusionary rule. Ante, at 920-921.

The flaw in the Court’s argument, however, is that its logic captures only one comparatively minor element of the generally acknowledged deterrent purposes of the exclusionary rule. To be sure, the rule operates to some extent to deter future misconduct by individual officers who have had evidence suppressed in their own cases. But what the Court overlooks is that the deterrence rationale for the rule is not designed to be, nor should it be thought of as, a form of “punishment” of individual police officers for their failures to obey the restraints imposed by the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Peltier, 422 U. S., at 556-557 (Brennan, J., dissenting). Instead, the chief deterrent function of the rule is its tendency to promote institutional compliance with Fourth Amendment requirements on the part of law enforcement agencies generally.12 Thus, as the Court has previ*954ously recognized, “over the long term, [the] demonstration [provided by the exclusionary rule] that our society attaches serious consequences to violation of constitutional rights is thought to encourage those who formulate law enforcement policies, and the officers who implement them, to incorporate Fourth Amendment ideals into their value system.” Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S., at 492. It is only through such an in-stitutionwide mechanism that information concerning Fourth Amendment standards can be effectively communicated to rank-and-file officers.13

*955If the overall educational effect of the exclusionary rule is considered, application of the rule to even those situations in which individual police officers have acted on the basis of a reasonable but mistaken belief that their conduct was authorized can still be expected to have a considerable long-term deterrent effect. If evidence is consistently excluded in these circumstances, police departments will surely be prompted to instruct their officers to devote greater care and attention to providing sufficient information to establish probable cause when applying for a warrant, and to review with some attention the form of the warrant that they have been issued, rather than automatically assuming that whatever document the magistrate has signed will necessarily comport with Fourth Amendment requirements.

After today’s decisions, however, that institutional incentive will be lost. Indeed, the Court’s “reasonable mistake” exception to the exclusionary rule will tend to put a premium on police ignorance of the law. Armed with the assurance provided by today’s decisions that evidence will always be admissible whenever an officer has “reasonably” relied upon a warrant, police departments will be encouraged to train officers that if a warrant has simply been signed, it is reasonable, without more, to rely on it. Since in close cases there will no longer be any incentive to err on the side of constitutional behavior, police would have every reason to adopt a “let’s-wait-until-it’s-decided” approach in situations in which there is a question about a warrant’s validity or the basis for its issuance. Cf. United States v. Johnson, 457 U. S. 537, 561 (1982).14

*956Although the Court brushes these concerns aside, a host of grave consequences can be expected to result from its decision to carve this new exception out of the exclusionary rule. A chief consequence of today’s decisions will be to convey a clear and unambiguous message to magistrates that their decisions to issue warrants are now insulated from subsequent judicial review. Creation of this new exception for good-faith reliance upon a warrant implicitly tells magistrates that they need not take much care in reviewing warrant applications, since their mistakes will from now on have virtually no consequence: If their decision to issue a warrant was correct, the evidence will be admitted; if their decision was incorrect but the police relied in good faith on the warrant, the evidence will also be admitted. Inevitably, the care and attention devoted to such an inconsequential chore will dwindle. Although the Court is correct to note that magistrates do not share the same stake in the outcome of a criminal case as the police, they nevertheless need to appreciate that their role is of some moment in order to continue performing the important task of carefully reviewing warrant applications. Today’s decisions effectively remove that incentive.15

*957Moreover, the good-faith exception will encourage police to provide only the bare minimum of information in future warrant applications. The police will now know that if they can secure a warrant, so long as the circumstances of its issuance are not “entirely unreasonable,” ante, at 923, all police conduct pursuant to that warrant will be protected from further judicial review.16 The clear incentive that operated in the past to establish probable cause adequately because reviewing courts would examine the magistrate’s judgment carefully, see, e. g., Franks v. Delaware, 438 U. S. 154, 169-170 (1978); Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257, 271-272 (1960); Giordenello v. United States, 357 U. S. 480, 483 (1958), has now been so completely vitiated that the police need only show that it was not “entirely unreasonable” under the cir*958cumstances of a particular case for them to believe that the warrant they were issued was valid. See ante, at 923. The long-run effect unquestionably will be to undermine the integrity of the warrant process.

Finally, even if one were to believe, as the Court apparently does, that police are hobbled by inflexible and hyper-technical warrant procedures, today’s decisions cannot be justified. This is because, given the relaxed standard for assessing probable cause established just last Term in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213 (1983), the Court’s newly fashioned good-faith exception, when applied in the warrant context, will rarely, if ever, offer any greater flexibility for police than the Gates standard already supplies. In Gates, the Court held that “[t]he task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, . . . there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Id., at 238. The task of a reviewing court is confined to determining whether “the magistrate had a ‘substantial basis for . . . concluding]’ that probable cause existed.” Ibid. Given such a relaxed standard, it is virtually inconceivable that a reviewing court, when faced with a defendant’s motion to suppress, could first find that a warrant was invalid under the new Gates standard, but then, at the same time, find that a police officer’s reliance on such an invalid warrant was nevertheless “objectively reasonable” under the test announced today.17 Because the two standards overlap so completely, it is unlikely that a warrant could be found invalid under Gates and yet the police reliance upon it could be seen as objectively reasonable; otherwise, we would have to entertain the mind-*959boggling concept of objectively reasonable reliance upon an objectively unreasonable warrant.

This paradox, as Justice Stevens suggests, see post, at 961-962, perhaps explains the Court’s unwillingness to remand No. 82-1771 for reconsideration in light of Gates, for it is quite likely that on remand the Court of Appeals would find no violation of the Fourth Amendment, thereby demonstrating that the supposed need for the good-faith exception in this context is more apparent than real. Therefore, although the Court’s decisions are clearly limited to the situation in which police officers reasonably rely upon an apparently valid warrant in conducting a search, I am not at all confident that the exception unleashed today will remain so confined. Indeed, the full impact of the Court’s regrettable decisions will not be felt until the Court attempts to extend this rule to situations in which the police have conducted a warrantless search solely on the basis of their own judgment about the existence of probable cause and exigent circumstances. When that question is finally posed, I for one will not be surprised if my colleagues decide once again that we simply cannot afford to protect Fourth Amendment rights.

IV

When the public, as it quite properly has done in the past as well as in the present, demands that those in government increase their efforts to combat crime, it is all too easy for those government officials to seek expedient solutions. In contrast to such costly and difficult measures as building more prisons, improving law enforcement methods, or hiring more prosecutors and judges to relieve the overburdened court systems in the country’s metropolitan areas, the relaxation of Fourth Amendment standards seems a tempting, costless means of meeting the public’s demand for better law enforcement. In the long run, however, we as a society pay a heavy price for such expediency, because as Justice Jackson observed, the rights guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment *960“are not mere second-class rights but belong in the catalog of indispensable freedoms.” Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 180 (1949) (dissenting opinion). Once lost, such rights are difficult to recover. There is hope, however, that in time this or some later Court will restore these precious freedoms to their rightful place as a primary protection for our citizens against overreaching officialdom.

I dissent.

Justice Stevens,

concurring in the judgment in No. 82-963, post, p. 981, and dissenting in No. 82-1771.

It is appropriate to begin with the plain language of the Fourth Amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The Court assumes that the searches in these cases violated the Fourth Amendment, yet refuses to apply the exclusionary rule because the Court concludes that it was “reasonable” for the police to conduct them. In my opinion an official search and seizure cannot be both “unreasonable” and “reasonable” at the same time. The doctrinal vice in the Court’s holding is its failure to consider the separate purposes of the two prohibitory Clauses in the Fourth Amendment.

The first Clause prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and the second prohibits the issuance of warrants that are not supported by probable cause or that do not particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. We have, of course, repeatedly held that warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable,1 *961and that there are only a few carefully delineated exceptions to that basic presumption.2 But when such an exception has been recognized, analytically we have necessarily concluded that the warrantless activity was not “unreasonable” within the meaning of the first Clause. Thus, any Fourth Amendment case may present two separate questions: whether the search was conducted pursuant to a warrant issued in accordance with the second Clause, and, if not, whether it was nevertheless “reasonable” within the meaning of the first. On these questions, the constitutional text requires that we speak with one voice. We cannot intelligibly assume, arguendo, that a search was constitutionally unreasonable but that the seized evidence is admissible because the same search was reasonable.

I

In No. 82-963, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts determined that a warrant which purported to authorize a search of respondent’s home had been issued in violation of the Warrant Clause. In its haste to make new law, this Court does not tarry to consider this holding. Yet, as I will demonstrate, this holding is clearly wrong; I would reverse the judgment on that ground alone.

In No. 82-1771, there is also a substantial question whether the warrant complied with the Fourth Amendment. There was a strong dissent on the probable-cause issue when Leon was before the Court of Appeals, and that dissent has been given added force by this Court’s intervening decision in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213 (1983), which constituted a significant development in the law. It is probable, though admittedly not certain, that the Court of Appeals would now conclude that the warrant in Leon satisfied the Fourth Amendment if it were given the opportunity to reconsider the issue in the light of Gates. Adherence to our normal *962practice following the announcement of a new rule would therefore postpone, and probably obviate, the need for the promulgation of the broad new rule the Court announces today.3

It is, of course, disturbing that the Court chooses one case in which there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment, and another in which there is grave doubt on the question, in order to promulgate a “good faith” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule. The Court’s explanation for its failure to decide the merits of the Fourth Amendment question in No. 82-963 is that it “is a factbound issue of little importance,” Massachusetts v. Sheppard, post, at 988, n. 5. In No. 82-1771, the Court acknowledges that the case could be remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Gates, yet does not bother to explain why it fails to do so except to note that it is “within our power” to decide the broader question in the case. United States v. Leon, ante, at 905. The Court seems determined to decide these cases on the broadest possible grounds; such determination is utterly at odds with the Court’s traditional practice as well as any principled notion of judicial restraint. Decisions made in this manner are unlikely to withstand the test of time.

Judges, more than most, should understand the value of adherence to settled procedures. By adopting a set of fair procedures, and then adhering to them, courts of law ensure that justice is administered with an even hand. “These are subtle matters, for they concern the ingredients of what constitutes justice. Therefore, justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.” Offutt v. United States, 348 U. S. 11, 14 (1954). Of course, this Court has a duty to face questions of constitutional law when necessary to the disposition of an actual case or controversy. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch *963137, 177(1803). But when the Court goes beyond what is necessary to decide the case before it, it can only encourage the perception that it is pursuing its own notions of wise so- cial policy, rather than adhering to its judicial role. I do not believe the Court should reach out to decide what is undoubt- edly a profound question concerning the administration of criminal justice before assuring itself that this question is ac- tually and of necessity presented by the concrete facts before the Court. Although it may appear that the Court’s broad holding will serve the public interest in enforcing obedience to the rule of law, for my part, I remain firmly convinced that “the preservation of order in our communities will be best ensured by adherence to established and respected proce- dures.” Groppi v. Leslie, 436 F. 2d 331, 336 (CA7 1971) (en banc) (Stevens, J., dissenting), rev’d, 404 U. S. 496 (1972). 496 (1972).

II

In No. 82-963, there is no contention that the police officers did not receive appropriate judicial authorization for their search of respondent’s residence. A neutral and detached judicial officer had correctly determined that there was probable cause to conduct a search. Nevertheless, the Supreme Judicial Court suppressed the fruits of the search because the warrant did not particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

The particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment has a manifest purpose&emdash;to prevent general searches. By limiting the authorization to search to the specific areas and things for which there is probable cause to search, the re- quirement ensures that the search is carefully tailored to its justification, and does not resemble the wide-ranging general searches that the Framers intended to prohibit.4 In this 4 See *964case the warrant did not come close to authorizing a general search.5

The affidavit supporting the application for the warrant correctly identified the things to be seized, and on its face the affidavit indicated that it had been presented to the judge who had issued the warrant.6 Both the police officers and the judge were fully aware of the contents of the affidavit, and therefore knew precisely what the officers were authorized to search for. Since the affidavit was available for after-the-fact review, the Massachusetts courts could readily ascertain the limits of the officers’ authority under the warrant. In short, the judge who issued the warrant, the police officers who executed it, and the reviewing courts all were able easily to ascertain the precise scope of the authorization provided by the warrant.

All that our cases require is that a warrant contain a description sufficient to enable the officers who execute it to ascertain with reasonable effort where they are to search and what they are to seize.7 The test is whether the executing officers’ discretion has been limited in a way that forbids a general search.8 Here there was no question that the *965executing officers’ discretion had been limited — they, as well as the reviewing courts, knew the precise limits of their authorization. There was simply no “occasion or opportunity for officers to rummage at large,” Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U. S. 547, 566 (1978).9

The only Fourth Amendment interest that is arguably implicated by the “defect” in the warrant is the citizen’s interest in being able to ascertain the limits of the officers’ authorization by examining the warrant.10 Respondent, however, was not home at the time the warrant was executed, and therefore had no occasion to see the warrant. The two persons who were present when the warrant was executed, respondent’s mother and sister, did not read the warrant or ask to have it read. “[T]he general rule [is] that Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights which, like some other constitutional rights, may not be vicariously asserted.” Alderman v. United States, 394 U. S. 165, 174 (1969). Thus, respondent, who has standing to assert only his own Fourth Amendment interests,11 cannot complain that his interest in ascertaining the limits of the officers’ authority under the search warrant was infringed.12 In short, our *966precedents construing the particularity requirement of the Warrant Clause unambiguously demonstrate that this warrant did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

III

Even if it be assumed that there was a technical violation of the particularity requirement in No. 82-963, it by no means follows that the “warrantless” search in that case was “unreasonable” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. For this search posed none of the dangers to which the Fourth Amendment is addressed. It was justified by a neutral magistrate’s determination of probable cause and created no risk of a general search. It was eminently “reasonable.”

In No. 82-1771, however, the Government now admits — at least for the tactical purpose of achieving what it regards as a greater benefit — that the substance, as well as the letter, of the Fourth Amendment was violated. The Court therefore assumes that the warrant in that case was not supported by probable cause, but refuses to suppress the evidence obtained thereby because it considers the police conduct to satisfy a “newfangled” nonconstitutional standard of reasonableness.13 Yet if the Court’s assumption is correct — if there was no probable cause — it must follow that it was “unreasonable” *967for the authorities to make unheralded entries into and searches of private dwellings and automobiles. The Court’s conclusion that such searches undertaken without probable cause can nevertheless be “reasonable” is totally without support in our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

Just last Term, the Court explained what probable cause to issue a warrant means:

“The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the ‘veracity’ and the ‘basis of knowledge’ of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S., at 238.

Moreover, in evaluating the existence of probable cause, reviewing courts must give substantial deference to the magistrate’s determination.14 In doubtful cases the warrant *968should be sustained.15 The judgment as to whether there is probable cause must be made in a practical and nontechnical manner.16 The probable-cause standard therefore gives law enforcement officers ample room to engage in any reasonable law enforcement activity. What is more, the standard has been familiar to the law enforcement profession for centuries.17 In an opinion written in 1949, and endorsed by the Court last Term in Gates, we explained:

“These long-prevailing standards seek to safeguard citizens from rash and unreasonable interferences with privacy and from unfounded charges of crime. They also seek to give fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community’s protection. Because many situations which confront officers in the course of executing their duties are more or less ambiguous, room must be allowed for some mistakes on their part. But the mistakes must be those of reasonable men, acting on facts leading sensibly to their conclusions of probability. The rule of probable cause is a practical, nontechnical conception affording the best compromise that has been found for accommodating these often opposing interests. Requiring more would unduly hamper law enforcement. To allow less would be to leave law-abiding citizens at the mercy of the officers’ whim or caprice.” Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 176.

Thus, if the majority’s assumption is correct, that even after paying heavy deference to the magistrate’s finding and resolving all doubt in its favor, there is no probable cause here, then by definition — as a matter of constitutional law— *969the officers’ conduct was unreasonable.18 The Court’s own hypothesis is that there was no fair likelihood that the officers would find evidence of a crime, and hence there was no reasonable law enforcement justification for their conduct.19

The majority’s contrary conclusion rests on the notion that it must be reasonable for a police officer to rely on a magistrate’s finding. Until today that has plainly not been the law; it has been well settled that even when a magistrate issues a warrant there is no guarantee that the ensuing search and seizure is constitutionally reasonable. Law enforcement officers have long been on notice that despite the magistrate’s decision a warrant will be invalidated if the officers did not provide sufficient facts to enable the magistrate to evaluate the existence of probable cause responsibly and independently.20 Reviewing courts have always inquired into whether the magistrate acted properly in issuing the warrant — not merely whether the officers acted properly in executing it. See Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257, 271-272 (1960).21 Indeed, just last Term, in Gates, after not*970ing that “ ‘the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a ‘substantial basis for concluding]’ that probable cause existed,’ ” 462 U. S., at 238-239 (quoting Jones, 362 U. S., at 271), the Court added:

“Sufficient information must be presented to the magistrate to allow that official to determine probable cause; his action cannot be a mere ratification of the bare conclusions of others. In order to ensure that such an abdication of the magistrate’s duty does not occur, courts must continue to conscientiously review the sufficiency of affidavits on which warrants are issued.” 462 U. S. at 239.22

Thus, under our cases it has never been “reasonable” for the police to rely on the mere fact that a warrant has issued; the police have always known that if they fail to supply the magistrate with sufficient information, the warrant will be held invalid and its fruits excluded.23

The notion that a police officer’s reliance on a magistrate’s warrant is automatically appropriate is one the Framers of *971the Fourth Amendment would have vehemently rejected. The precise problem that the Amendment was intended to address was the unreasonable issuance of warrants. As we have often observed, the Amendment was actually motivated by the practice of issuing general warrants — warrants which did not satisfy the particularity and probable-cause requirements.24 The resentments which led to the Amendment were directed at the issuance of warrants unjustified by particularized evidence of wrongdoing.25 Those who sought to amend the Constitution to include a Bill of Rights repeatedly voiced the view that the evil which had to be addressed was the issuance of warrants on insufficient evidence.26 As Professor Taylor has written:

*972“[O]ur constitutional fathers were not concerned about warrantless searches, but about overreaching warrants. It is perhaps too much to say that they feared the warrant more than the search, but it is plain enough that the warrant was the prime object of their concern. Far from looking at the warrant as a protection against unreasonable searches, they saw it as an authority for unreasonable and oppressive searches . . . .” T. Taylor, Two Studies in Constitutional Interpretation 41 (1969).

In short, the Framers of the Fourth Amendment were deeply suspicious of warrants; in their minds the paradigm of an abusive search was the execution of a warrant not based on probable cause. The fact that colonial officers had magisterial authorization for their conduct when they engaged in general searches surely did not make their conduct “reasonable.” The Court’s view that it is consistent with our Constitution to adopt a rule that it is presumptively reasonable to rely on a defective warrant is the product of constitutional amnesia.27

IV

In Brinegar, Justice Jackson, after observing that “[i]ndi-cations are not wanting that Fourth Amendment freedoms are tacitly marked as secondary rights, to be relegated to a deferred position,” 338 U. S., at 180 (dissenting opinion), continued:

“These, I protest, are not mere second-class rights but belong in the catalog of indispensable freedoms. Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart. Uncontrolled search and *973seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government. And one need only briefly to have dwelt and worked among a people possessed of many admirable qualities but deprived of these rights to know that the human personality deteriorates and dignity and self-reliance disappear where homes, persons and possessions are subject at any hour to unheralded search and seizure by the police.

“Only occasional and more flagrant abuses come to the attention of the courts, and then only those where the search and seizure yields incriminating evidence and the defendant is at least sufficiently compromised to be indicted. If the officers raid a home, an office, or stop and search an automobile but find nothing incriminating, this invasion of the personal liberty of the innocent too often finds no practical redress. There may be, and I am convinced that there are, many unlawful searches of homes and automobiles of innocent people which turn up nothing incriminating, in which no arrest is made, about which courts do nothing, and about which we never hear.

“Courts can protect the innocent against such invasions only indirectly and through the medium of excluding evidence obtained against those who frequently are guilty. ... So a search against Brinegar’s car must be regarded as a search of the car of Everyman.” Id., at 180-181.

Justice Jackson’s reference to his experience at Nuremberg should remind us of the importance of considering the consequences of today’s decision for “Everyman.”

The exclusionary rule is designed to prevent violations of the Fourth Amendment.28 “Its purpose is to deter — to com*974pel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way, by removing the incentive to disregard it.” Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, 217 (14960).29 If the police cannot use evidence obtained through warrants issued on less than probable cause, they have less incentive to seek those warrants, and magistrates have less incentive to issue them.

Today’s decisions do grave damage to that deterrent function. Under the majority’s new rule, even when the police know their warrant application is probably insufficient, they retain an incentive to submit it to a magistrate, on the chance that he may take the bait. No longer must they hesitate and seek additional evidence in doubtful cases. Thus, what we *975said two Terms ago about a rule that would prevent exclusion except in cases in which the authorities violate well-settled law applies fully to the rule the Court adopts today:

“If, as the Government argues, all rulings resolving unsettled Fourth Amendment questions should be non-retroactive, then, in close cases law enforcement officials would have little incentive to err on the side of constitutional behavior. Official awareness of the dubious constitutionality of a practice would be counterbalanced by official certainty that, so long as the Fourth Amendment law in the area remained unsettled, evidence obtained through the questionable practice would be excluded only in the one case definitively resolving the unsettled question. Failure to accord any retroactive effect to Fourth Amendment rulings would ‘encourage police or other courts to disregard the plain purport of our decisions and to adopt a let’s-wait-until-it’s-decided approach.’” United States v. Johnson, 457 U. S. 537, 561 (1982) (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted) (quoting Desist v. United States, 394 U. S. 244, 277 (1969) (Fortas, J., dissenting)).30

The Court is of course correct that the exclusionary rule cannot deter when the authorities have no reason to know that their conduct is unconstitutional. But when probable cause is lacking, then by definition a reasonable person under the circumstances would not believe there is a fair likelihood that a search will produce evidence of a crime. Under such circumstances well-trained professionals must know that they are violating the Constitution. The Court’s approach— *976which, in effect, encourages the police to seek a warrant even if they know the existence of probable cause is doubtful — can only lead to an increased number of constitutional violations.

Thus, the Court’s creation of a double standard of reasonableness inevitably must erode the deterrence rationale that still supports the exclusionary rule. But we should not ignore the way it tarnishes the role of the judiciary in enforcing the Constitution. For the original rationale for the exclusionary rule retains its force as well as its relevance:

“The tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to obtain conviction by means of unlawful seizures . . . should find no sanction in the judgments of the courts which are charged at all times with the support of the Constitution and to which people of all conditions have a right to appeal for the maintenance of such fundamental rights.” Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 392 (1914).31

Thus, “Courts which sit under our Constitution cannot and will not be made party to lawless invasions of the constitu*977tional rights of citizens by permitting unhindered governmental use of the fruits of such invasions. . . Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 13 (1968).32 As the Court correctly notes,33 we have refused to apply the exclusionary rule to collateral contexts in which its marginal efficacy is questionable; until today, however, every time the police have violated the applicable commands of the Fourth Amendment a court has been prepared to vindicate that Amendment by preventing the use of evidence so obtained in the prosecution’s case in chief against those whose rights have been violated.34 Today, for the first time, this Court holds that although the Constitution has been violated, no court should do anything about it at any time and in any proceeding.35 In my judg*978ment, the Constitution requires more. Courts simply cannot escape their responsibility for redressing constitutional violations if they admit evidence obtained through unreasonable searches and seizures, since the entire point of police conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment is to obtain evidence for use at trial. If such evidence is admitted, then the courts become not merely the final and necessary link in an unconstitutional chain of events, but its actual motivating force. “If the existing code does not permit district attorneys to have a hand in such dirty business it does not permit the judge to allow such iniquities to succeed.” Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 470 (1928) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Nor should we so easily concede the existence of a constitutional violation for which there is no remedy.36 To do so is to convert a Bill of Rights into an unenforced honor code that the police may follow in their discretion. The Constitution requires more; it requires a remedy. 37 If the Court’s new rule is to be followed, the Bill of Rights should be renamed.

*979It is of course true that the exclusionary rule exerts a high price — the loss of probative evidence of guilt. But that price is one courts have often been required to pay to serve important social goals.38 That price is also one the Fourth Amendment requires us to pay, assuming as we must that the Framers intended that its strictures “shall not be violated.” For in all such cases, as Justice Stewart has observed, “the same extremely relevant evidence would not have been obtained had the police officer complied with the commands of the fourth amendment in the first place.”39

“[T]he forefathers thought this was not too great a price to pay for that decent privacy of home, papers and effects which is indispensable to individual dignity and self-respect. They may have overvalued privacy, but I am not disposed to set their command at naught.” Harris v. United States, 331 U. S. 145, 198 (1947) (Jackson, J., dissenting).40

We could, of course, facilitate the process of administering justice to those who violate the criminal laws by ignoring the commands of the Fourth Amendment — indeed, by ignoring *980the entire Bill of Rights — but it is the very purpose of a Bill of Rights to identify values that may not be sacrificed to expediency. In a just society those who govern, as well as those who are governed, must obey the law.

While I concur in the Court’s judgment in No. 82-963, I would vacate the judgment in No. 82-1771 and remand the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in the light of Gates. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the disposition in No. 82-1771.

*535Justice Scalia

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In Segura v. United States, 468 U. S. 796 (1984), we held that police officers’ illegal entry upon' private’ premises did not require suppression of evidence subsequently discovered at those premises when executing a search warrant’obtained on the basis of information wholly unconnected with the initial entry. In these consolidated cases we are faced with the question whether, again assuming evidence obtained pursuant to an independently obtained search warrant, the portion of such evidence that had been observed in plain view at the time of a prior illegal entry must be suppressed.

I

Both cases arise out of the conviction of petitioner Michael F. Murray, petitioner James D. Carter, and others for conspiracy to possess and distribute illegal drugs. Insofar as relevant for our purposes, the facts are as follows: Based on information received from informants, federal law enforcement agents had been surveilling petitioner Murray and several of his co-conspirators. At about 1:45 p.m. on April 6, 1983, they observed Murray drive a truck and Carter drive a green camper, into a warehouse in South Boston. When the petitioners drove the vehicles out about 20 minutes later, the surveilling agents saw within the warehouse two individuals and a tractor-trailer rig bearing a long, dark container. Murray and Carter later turned over the truck and camper to other drivers, who were in .turn followed and ultimately arrested, and the vehicles lawfully seized. Both vehicles were found to contain marijuana.

After receiving this information, several of the agents converged on the South Boston warehouse and forced entry. They found the warehouse unoccupied, but observed in plain view numerous burlap-wrapped bales that were later found to contain marijuana. They left without disturbing the bales, kept the warehouse under surveillance, and did not reenter it until they had a search warrant. In applying for *536the warrant, the agents did not mention the prior entry, and did not rely on any observations made during that entry. When the warrant was issued — at 10:40 p.m., approximately eight hours after the initial entry — the agents immediately reentered the warehouse and seized 270 bales of marijuana and notebooks listing customers for whom the bales were destined.

Before trial, petitioners moved to suppress the evidence found in the warehouse. The District Court denied the motion, rejecting petitioners’ arguments that the warrant was invalid because the agents did not inform the Magistrate about their prior warrantless entry, and that the warrant was tainted by that entry. United States v. Carter, No. 83-102-S (Mass., Dec. 23, 1983), App. to Pet. for Cert. 44a-45a. The First Circuit affirmed, assuming for purposes of its-decision that the first entry into the warehouse was unlawful. United States v. Moscatiello, 771 F. 2d 589 (1985). Murray and Carter then separately filed petitions for certiorari, which we granted,1 480 U. S. 916 (1987), and have consolidated here.

II

The exclusionary rule prohibits introduction into evidence of tangible materials seized during an unlawful search, Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383 (1914), and of testimony concerning knowledge acquired during an unlawful search, Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505 (1961). Beyond that, the exclusionary rule also prohibits the introduction of derivative evidence, both tangible and testimonial, that is *537the product of the primary evidence, or that is otherwise acquired as an indirect result of the unlawful search, up to the point at which the connection with the unlawful search becomes “so attentuated as to dissipate the taint,” Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338, 341 (1939). See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, 484-485 (1963).

Almost simultaneously with our development of the exclusionary rule, in the first quarter of this century, we also announced what has come to be known as the “independent source” doctrine. See Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385, 392 (1920). That doctrine, which has been applied to evidence acquired not only through Fourth Amendment violations but also through Fifth and Sixth Amendment violations, has recently been described as follows:

“ET]he interest of society in deterring unlawful police conduct and the public interest in having juries receive all probative evidence of a crime are properly balanced by putting- the police in the same, not a worse, position that they would have been in if no police error or misconduct had occurred. . . . When the challenged evidence has an independent source, exclusion of such evidence would put the police in a worse position than they would have been in absent any error or violation.” Nix v. Williams, 467 U. S. 431, 443 (1984)

The dispute here is over the scope of this doctrine. Petitioners contend that it applies only to evidence obtained for the first time during an independent lawful search. The Government argues that it applies also to evidence initially discovered during, or as a consequence of, an unlawful search, but later obtained independently from activities untainted by the initial illegality. We think the Government’s view has better support in both precedent and policy.

Our cases have used the concept of “independent source” in a more general and a more specific sense. The more general sense identifies all evidence acquired in a fashion untainted *538by the illegal evidence-gathering activity. Thus, where an unlawful entry has given investigators knowledge of facts x and y, but fact z has been learned by other means, fact z can be said to be admissible because derived from an “independent source.” This is how we used the term in Segura v. United States, 468 U. S. 796 (1984). In that case, agents unlawfully entered the defendant’s apartment and remained there until a search warrant was obtained. The admissibility of what they discovered while waiting in the apartment was not before us, id., at 802-803, n. 4, but we held that the evidence found for the first time during the execution of the valid and untainted search warrant was admissible because it was discovered pursuant to an “independent source,” id., at 813-814. See also United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218, 240-242 (1967); Costello v. United States, 365 U. S. 265, 280 (1961); Nardone v. United States, supra, at 341.

The original use of the term, however, and its more important use for purposes of these cases, was more specific. It was originally applied in the exclusionary rule context, by Justice Holmes, with reference to that particular category of evidence acquired by an untainted search which is identical to the evidence unlawfully acquired — that is, in the example just given, to knowledge of facts x and y derived from an independent source:

“The essence of a provision forbidding the acquisition of evidence in a certain way is that not merely evidence so acquired shall not be used before the Court but that it shall not be used at all. Of course this does not mean that the facts thus obtained become sacred and inaccessible. If knowledge of them is gained from an independent source they may be proved like any others.” Silverthorne Lumber, supra, at 392.

As the First Circuit has observed, “[i]n the classic independent source situation, information which is received through an illegal source is considered to be cleanly obtained when *539it arrives through an independent source.” United States v. Silvestri, 787 F. 2d 736, 739 (1986). We recently assumed this application of the independent source doctrine (in the Sixth Amendment context) in Nix v. Williams, supra. There incriminating statements obtained in violation of the defendant’s right to counsel had led the police to the victim’s body. The. body had not in fact been found through an independent source as well, and so the independent source doctrine was not itself applicable. We held, however, that evidence concerning the body was nonetheless admissible because a search had been under way which would have discovered the body, had it not been called off because of the discovery produced by the unlawfully obtained statements. Id., at 448-460. This “inevitable discovery” doctrine obviously assumes the validity of the independent source doctrine as applied to evidence initially acquired unlawfully. It would make no sense to admit the evidence because the independent search, had it not been aborted, would have found the body, but to exclude the evidence if the search had continued and had in fact found the. body. The inevitable discovery doctrine, with its distinct requirements, is in reality an extrapolation from the independent source doctrine: Since the tainted evidence would be admissible if in fact discovered through an independent source, it should be admissible if it inevitably would have been discovered.

Petitioners’ asserted policy basis for excluding evidence which is initially discovered during an illegal search, but is subsequently acquired through an independent and lawful source, is that a contrary rule will remove all deterrence to, and indeed positively encourage, unlawful police searches. As petitioners, see the incentives, law enforcement officers will routinely enter without a warrant to make sure that what they expect to be on the premises is in fact there. If it is not, they will have spared themselves the time and trouble of getting a warrant; if it is, they, can get the warrant and use the evidence despite the unlawful entry. Brief for Peti*540tioners 42. We see the incentives differently. An officer with probable cause sufficient to obtain a search warrant would be foolish to enter the premises first in an unlawful manner. By doing so, he would risk suppression of all evidence on the premises, both seen and unseen, since his action would add to the normal burden of convincing a magistrate that there is probable cause the much more onerous burden of convincing a trial court that no information gained from the illegal entry affected either the law enforcement officers’ decision to seek a warrant or the magistrate’s decision to grant it. See Part III, infra. Nor would the officer without sufficient probable cause to obtain a search warrant have any added incentive to conduct an unlawful entry, since whatever he finds cannot be used to establish probable cause before a magistrate.2

It is possible to read petitioners’ briefs as asserting the more narrow position that the “independent source” doctrine does apply to independent acquisition of evidence previously *541derived indirectly from the unlawful search, but does not apply to what they call “primary evidence,” that is, evidence acquired during the course of the search itself. In addition to finding no support in our precedent, see Silverthorne Lumber, 251 U. S., at 392 (referring specifically to evidence seized during an unlawful search), this strange distinction would produce results bearing no relation to the policies of the exclusionary rule. It would mean, for example, that the government’s knowledge of the existence and condition of a dead body, knowledge lawfully acquired through independent sources, would have to be excluded if government agents had previously observed the body during an unlawful search of the defendant’s apartment; but not if they had observed a notation that the body was buried in a certain location, producing consequential discovery of the corpse.

III

To apply what we have said to the present cases: Knowledge that the marijuana was in the warehouse was assuredly acquired at the time of the unlawful entry. But it was also acquired at the time of entry pursuant to the warrant, and if that later acquisition was not the result of the -earlier entry there is no reason why the independent source doctrine should not apply. Invoking the exclusionary rule would put the police (and society) not in the same position they would have occupied if no violation occurred, but in a worse one. See Nix v. Williams, 467 U. S., at 443.

We think this is also true with respect to the tangible evidence, the bales of marijuana. It would make no more sense to exclude that than it would to exclude tangible evidence found upon the corpse in Nix, if the search in that case had not been abandoned and had in fact come upon the body. The First Circuit has discerned a difference between tangible and intangible evidence that has been tainted, in that objects “once seized cannot be cleanly reseized without returning the objects to private control.” United States v. Silvestri, 787 *542F. 2d, at 739. It seems to us, however, that reseizure of tangible evidence already seized is no more impossible than rediscovery of intangible evidence already discovered. The independent source doctrine does not rest upon such metaphysical analysis, but upon the policy that, while the government should not profit from its illegal activity, neither should it be placed in a worse position than it would otherwise have occupied. So long as a later, lawful seizure is genuinely independent of an earlier, tainted one (which may well be difficult to establish where the seized goods are kept in the police’s possession) there is no reason why the independent source doctrine should not apply.

The ultimate question, therefore, is whether the search pursuant to warrant was in fact a genuinely independent source of the information and tangible evidence at issue here. This would not have been the case if the agents’ decision to seek the warrant was prompted by what they had seen during the initial entry,3 or if information obtained during that entry was presented to the Magistrate and affected his decision to issue the warrant. On this point the Court of Appeals said the following:

“[W]e can be absolutely certain that the warrantless entry in no way contributed in the slightest either to the issuance of a warrant or to the discovery of the evidence *543during the iawful search that occurred pursuant to the warrant.

“This is as clear a case as can be imagined where the discovery of the contraband in plain view was totally irrelevant to the later securing of a warrant and the successful search that ensued. As there was ho causal link whatever between the illegal entry and the discovery of the challenged evidence, we find no error in the court’s refusal to suppress.” United States v. Moscatiello, 771 F. 2d, at 603, 604.

Although these statements Can be read to provide emphatic support for the Government’s position, it is the function of the District Court rather than the Court of Appeals to determine the facts, and we do not think the Court of Appeals’ conclusions are supported by adequate findings. The District Court found that the agents did not reveal their warrantless entry to the Magistrate, App. to Pet. for Cert. 43a, and that they did not include in their application for a warrant any recitation of their observations in the warehouse, id., at 44a-45a. It did not, however, explicitly find that the agents would have sought a warrant if they had not earlier entered the warehouse. The Government concedes this in its brief. Brief for United States 17, n. 5. To be sure, the District Court did determine that the purpose of the warrantless entry was in part “to guard against the destruction of possibly critical evidence,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 42a, and one could perhaps infer from this that the agents who made the entry already planned to obtain that “critical evidence” through a warrant-authorized search. That inference is not, however, clear enough to justify the conclusion that the District Court’s findings amounted to a determination of independent source.

Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand these cases to the Court of Appeals with instructions that it remand to the District Court for determination whether the *544warrant-authorized search of the warehouse was an independent source of the challenged evidence in the sense we have described.

It is so ordered.

Justice Brennan and Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.

Justice Marshall,

with whom Justice Stevens and Justice O’Connor join, dissenting.

The Court today holds that the “independent source” exception to the exclusionary rule may justify admitting evidence discovered during an illegal warrantless search that is later “rediscovered” by the same team of investigators during a search pursuant to a warrant obtained immediately after the illegal search. I believe the Court’s decision, by failing to provide sufficient guarantees that the subsequent search was, in fact, independent of the illegal search, emasculates the Warrant Clause and undermines the deterrence function of the exclusionary rule. I therefore dissent.

This Court has stated frequently that the exclusionary rule is principally designed to deter violations of the Fourth Amendment. See, e. g., United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 906 (1984); Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, 217 (1960). By excluding evidence discovered in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the rule “compel[s] respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way, by removing the incentive to disregard it.” Id., at 217. The Court has crafted exceptions to the exclusionary rule when the purposes of the rule are not furthered by the exclusion. As the Court today recognizes, the independent source exception to the exclusionary rule “allows admission of evidence that has been discovered by means wholly independent of any constitutional violation.” Nix v. Williams, 467 U. S. 431, 443 (1984); see Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385, 392 (1920). The independent source exception, like the inevitable discovery exception, is primarily *545based on a practical view that under certain circumstances the beneficial deterrent effect that exclusion will have on future constitutional violations is too slight to justify the social cost of excluding probative evidence from a criminal trial. See Nix v. Williams, supra, at 444-446; cf. United States v. Leon, supra, 906-909. When the seizure of the evidence at issue is “wholly independent of” the constitutional violation, then exclusion arguably will have no effect on a law enforcement officer’s incentive to commit an unlawful search.1

Given the underlying justification for the independent source exception, any inquiry into the exception’s application must keep sight of the practical effect admission will have on the incentives facing law enforcement officers to engage in unlawful conduct. The proper scope of the independent source exception, and guidelines for its application, cannot be divined in a factual vacuum; instead, they must be informed by the nature of the constitutional violation and the deterrent effect of exclusion in particular circumstances. In holding that the independent source exception may apply to the facts of these cases, I believe the Court loses sight of the practical moorings of the independent source exception and creates an affirmative incentive for unconstitutional searches. This holding can find no justification in the purposes underlying both the exclusionary rule and the independent source exception.

The factual setting of the instant case is straightforward. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) agents stopped two vehicles after they *546left a warehouse and discovered bales of marijuana. DEA Supervisor Garibotto and an assistant United States attorney then returned to the warehouse, which had been under surveillance for several hours. After demands that the warehouse door be opened went unanswered, Supervisor Gari-botto forced open the door with a tire iron. A number of agents entered the warehouse. No persons were found inside, but the agents saw numerous bales of marijuana in plain view. Supervisor Garibotto then ordered everyone out of the warehouse. Agents did not reenter the warehouse until a warrant was obtained some eight hours later. The warehouse was kept under surveillance during the interim.

It is undisputed that the agents made no effort to obtain a warrant prior to the initial entry. The agents had not begun to prepare a warrant affidavit, and according to FBI Agent Cleary, who supervised the FBI’s involvement, they had not even engaged in any discussions of obtaining a warrant. App. 52. The affidavit in support of the warrant obtained after the initial search was prepared by DEA Agent Keaney, who had tactical control over the DEA agents, and who had participated in the initial search of the warehouse. The affidavit did not mention the warrantless search of the warehouse, nor did it cite information obtained from that search. In determining that the challenged evidence was admissible, the Court of Appeals assumed that the initial warrantless entry was not justified by exigent circumstances and that the search therefore violated the Warrant Clause of the Fourth' Amendment.

Under the circumstances of these cases, the admission of the evidence “reseized” during the second search severely undermines the deterrence function of the exclusionary rule. Indeed, admission in these cases affirmatively encourages illegal searches. The incentives for such illegal conduct are clear. Obtaining a warrant is inconvenient and time consuming. Even when officers have probable cause to support a warrant application, therefore, they have an incentive first *547to determine whether it is worthwhile to obtain a warrant. Probable cause is much less than certainty, and many “confirmatory” searches will result in the discovery that no evidence is present, thus saving the police the time and trouble of getting a warrant. If contraband is discovered, however, the officers may later seek a warrant to shield the evidence from the taint of the illegal seareh. The police thus know in advance that they have little to lose and much to gain by forgoing the bother of obtaining a warrant and undertaking, an illegal search.

The Court, however, “see[s] the incentives differently.” Ante, at 540. Under the Court’s view, today’s decision does not provide an incentive for unlawful searches, because the officer undertaking the search would know that “his action would add to the normal burden of convincing a magistrate that there is probable cause the much more onerous burden of convincing a trial court that no information gained from the illegal entry affected either the law enforcement officers’ decision to seek a warrant or the magistrate’s decision to grant it.” Ibid. The Court, however, provides no hint of why this risk would actually seem significant to the officers. Under the circumstances of these cases,, the officers committing the illegal search have both knowledge and control of the factors central to the trial court’s determination. First,, it is a simple matter, as was done in these cases, to exclude from the warrant application any information gained from the initial entry so that the magistrate’s determination of probable cause is not influenced by the prior illegal search. Second, today’s decision makes the application of the independent source exception turn entirely on an evaluation of the officers’ intent. It normally will be difficult for the trial court to verify, or the defendant to rebut, an assertion by officers that they always intended to obtain a warrant, regardless of the results of the illegal search.2 The testimony of the officers *548conducting the illegal search is the only direct evidence of intent, and the defendant will be relegated simply to arguing that the officers should not be believed. Under these circumstances, the litigation risk described by the Court seems hardly a risk at all; it does not significantly dampen the incentive to conduct the initial illegal search.3

The strong Fourth Amendment interest in eliminating these incentives for illegal entry should cause this Court to scrutinize closely the application of the independent source exception to evidence obtained under the circumstances of the instant cases; respect for the constitutional guarantee requires a rule that does not undermine the deterrence function of the exclusionary rule. When, as here, the same team of investigators is involved in both the first and second search, there is a significant danger that the “independence” of the *549source will in fact be illusory, and that the initial search will have affected the decision to obtain a warrant notwithstanding the officers’ subsequent assertions to the contrary. It is therefore crucial that the factual premise of the exception— complete independence — be clearly established before the exception can justify admission of the evidence. I believe the Court’s reliance on the intent of the law enforcement officers who conducted the warrantless search provides insufficient guarantees that the subsequent legal search was unaffected by the prior illegal search.

To ensure that the source of the evidence is genuinely independent, the basis for a finding that a search was untainted by a prior illegal search must focus, as with the inevitable discovery doctrine, on “demonstrated historical facts capable of ready verification or impeachment.” Nix v. Williams, 467 U. S., at 445, n. 5. In the instant cases, there are no “demonstrated historical facts” capable of supporting a finding that the subsequent warrant search was wholly unaffected by the prior illegal search. The same team of investigators was involved in both searches. The warrant was obtained immediately after the illegal search, and no effort was made to obtain a warrant prior to the discovery of the marijuana during the illegal search. The only evidence available that the warrant search was wholly independent is the testimony of the agents who conducted the illegal search. Under these circumstances, the threat that the subsequent search was tainted by the illegal search is too great to allow for the application of the independent source exception.4 The Court’s *550contrary holding lends itself to easy abuse, and offers an incentive to bypass the constitutional requirement that probable cause be assessed by a neutral and detached magistrate before the police invade an individual’s privacy.5

The decision in Segura v. United States, 468 U. S. 796 (1984), is not to the contrary. In Segura, the Court expressly distinguished between evidence discovered during an initial warrantless entry and evidence that was not discovered until a subsequent legal search. The Court held that under those circumstances, when no information from an illegal search was used in a subsequent warrant application, the warrant provided an independent source for the evidence first uncovered in the second, lawful search.

Segura is readily distinguished from the present cases. The admission of evidence first discovered during a legal search does not significantly lessen the deterrence facing the law enforcement officers contemplating an illegal entry so long as the evidence that is seen is excluded. This was clearly the view of Chief Justice Burger, joined by Justice O’Connor, when he stated that the Court’s ruling would not significantly detract from the deterrent effects of the exclusionary rule because “officers who enter illegally will recognize that whatever evidence they discover as a direct result of the entry may be suppressed, as it was by the Court of Appeals in this case.” Id., at 812. As I argue above, extending Segura to cover evidence discovered during an initial illegal search will eradicate this remaining deterrence to illegal entry. Moreover, there is less reason to believe that *551an initial illegal entry was prompted by a desire to determine whether to bother to get a warrant in the first place, and thus was not wholly independent of the second search, if officers understand that evidence they discover during the illegal search will be excluded even if they subsequently return with a warrant.

In sum, under circumstances as are presented in these cases, when the very law enforcement officers who participate in an illegal search immediately thereafter obtain a warrant to search the same premises, I believe the evidence discovered during the initial illegal entry must be suppressed. Any other result emasculates the Warrant Clause and provides an intolerable incentive for warrantless searches. I respectfully dissent.

Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

While I join Justice Marshall’s opinion explaining why the majority’s extension of the Court’s holding in Segura v. United States, 468 U. S. 796 (1984), “emasculates the Warrant Clause and provides an intolerable incentive for war-rantless searches,” ante this page, I remain convinced that the Segura decision itself was unacceptable because, even then, it was obvious that it would “provide government agents with an affirmative incentive to engage in unconstitutional violations of the privacy of the home,” 468 U. S., at 817 (dissenting opinion). I fear that the Court has taken another unfortunate step down the path to a system of “law enforcement unfettered by process concerns.” Patterson v. Illinois, ante, at 305 (Stevens, J., dissenting). In due course, I trust it will pause long enough to remember that “the efforts of the courts and their officials to bring the guilty to punishment, praiseworthy as they are, are not to be aided by the sacrifice of those great principles established by years of endeavor and suffering which have resulted in their embodiment in the fundamental law of the land.” Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 393-394 (1914).

*434Chief Justice Burger

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We granted certiorari to consider whether, at respondent Williams’ second murder trial in state court, evidence pertaining to the discovery and condition of the victim’s body was properly admitted on the ground that it would ultimately or inevitably have been discovered even if no violation of any constitutional or statutory provision had taken place.

On December 24, 1968, 10-year-old Pamela Powers disappeared from a YMCA building in Des Moines, Iowa, where she had accompanied her parents to watch an athletic contest. Shortly after she disappeared, Williams was seen leaving the YMCA carrying a large bundle wrapped in a blanket; a 14-year-old boy who had helped Williams open his car door reported that he had seen “two legs in it and they were skinny and white.”

Williams’ car was found the next day 160 miles east of Des Moines in Davenport, Iowa. Later several items of clothing belonging to the child, some of Williams’ clothing, and an army blanket like the one used to wrap the bundle that Williams carried out of the YMCA were found at a rest stop on *435Interstate 80 near Grinnell, between Des Moines and Davenport. A warrant was issued for Williams’ arrest.

Police surmised that Williams had left Pamela Powers or her body somewhere between Des Moines and the Grinnell rest stop where some of the young girl’s clothing had been found. On December 26, the Iowa Bureau of Criminal Investigation initiated a large-scale search. Two hundred volunteers divided into teams began the search 21 miles east of Grinnell, covering an area several miles to the north and south of Interstate 80. They moved westward from Poweshiek County, in which Grinnell was located, into Jasper County. Searchers were instructed to check all roads, abandoned farm buildings, ditches, culverts, and any other place in which the body of a small child could be hidden.

Meanwhile, Williams surrendered to local police in Davenport, where he was promptly arraigned. Williams contacted a Des Moines attorney who arranged for an attorney in Davenport to meet Williams at the Davenport police station. Des Moines police informed counsel they would pick Williams up in Davenport and return him to Des Moines without questioning him. Two Des Moines detectives then drove to Davenport, took Williams into custody, and proceeded to drive him back to Des Moines.

During the return trip, one of the policemen, Detective Learning, began a conversation with Williams, saying:

“I want to give you something to think about while we’re traveling down the road. .. . They are predicting several inches of snow for tonight, and I feel that you yourself are the only person that knows where this little girl’s body is . . . and if you get a snow on top of it you yourself may be unable to find it. And since we will be going right past the area [where the body is] on the way into Des Moines, I feel that we could stop and locate the body, that the parents of this little girl should be entitled to a Christian burial for the little girl who was snatched away from them on Christmas [E]ve and murdered. . . . *436[A]fter a snow storm [we may not be] able to find it at all.”

Learning told Williams he knew the body was in the area of Mitchellville — a town they would be passing on the way to Des Moines. He concluded the conversation by saying: “I do not want you to answer me. . . . Just think about it . . . .”

Later, as the police car approached Grinnell, Williams asked Learning whether the police had found the young girl’s shoes. After Learning replied that he was unsure, Williams directed the police to a point near a service station where he said he had left the shoes; they were not found. As they continued the drive to Des Moines, Williams asked whether the blanket had been found and then directed the officers to a rest area in Grinnell where he said he had disposed of the blanket; they did not find the blanket. At this point Learning and his party were joined by the officers in charge of the search. As they approached Mitchellville, Williams, without any further conversation, agreed to direct the officers to the child’s body.

The officers directing the search had called off the search at 3 p. m., when they left the Grinnell Police Department to join Learning at the rest area. At that time, one search team near the Jasper County-Polk County line was only two and one-half miles from where Williams soon guided Learning and his party to the body. The child’s body was found next to a culvert in a ditch beside a gravel road in Polk County, about two miles south of Interstate 80, and essentially within the area to be searched.

B

First Trial

In February 1969 Williams was indicted for first-degree murder. Before trial in the Iowa court, his counsel moved to suppress evidence of the body and all related evidence including the condition of the body as shown by the autopsy. The ground for the motion was that such evidence was the “fruit” *437or product of Williams’ statements made during the automobile ride from Davenport to Des Moines and prompted by Learning’s statements. The motion to suppress was denied.

The jury found Williams guilty of first-degree murder; the judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Iowa Supreme Court. State v. Williams, 182 N. W. 2d 396 (1970). Williams then sought release on habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. That court concluded that the evidence in question had been wrongly admitted at Williams’ trial, Williams v. Brewer, 375 F. Supp. 170 (1974); a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit agreed. 509 F. 2d 227 (1974).

We granted certiorari, 423 U. S. 1031 (1975), and a divided Court affirmed, holding that Detective Learning had obtained incriminating statements from Williams by what was viewed as interrogation in violation of his right to counsel. Brewer v. Williams, 430 U. S. 387 (1977). This Court’s opinion noted, however, that although Williams’ incriminating statements could not be introduced into evidence at a second trial, evidence of the body’s location and condition “might well be admissible on the theory that the body would have been discovered in any event, even had incriminating statements not been elicited from Williams.” Id., at 407, n. 12.

C

Second Trial

At Williams’ second trial in 1977 in the Iowa court, the prosecution did not offer Williams’ statements into evidence, nor did it seek to show that Williams had directed the police to the child’s body. However, evidence of the condition of her body as it was found, articles and photographs of her clothing, and the results of post mortem medical and chemical tests on the body were admitted. The trial court concluded that the State had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that, if the search had not been suspended and Williams had not led the police to the victim, her body would have been *438discovered “within a short time” in essentially the same condition as it was actually found. The trial court also ruled that if the police had not located the body, “the search would clearly have been taken up again where it left off, given the extreme circumstances of this case and the body would [have] been found in short order” App. 86 (emphasis added).

In finding that the body would have been discovered in essentially the same condition as it was actually found, the court noted that freezing temperatures had prevailed and tissue deterioration would have been suspended. Id., at 87. The challenged evidence was admitted and the jury again found Williams guilty of first-degree murder; he was sentenced to life in prison.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Iowa again affirmed. 285 N. W. 2d 248 (1979). That court held that there was in fact a “hypothetical independent source” exception to the exclusionary rule:

“After the defendant has shown unlawful conduct on the part of the police, the State has the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the police did not act in bad faith for the purpose of hastening discovery of the evidence in question, and (2) that the evidence in question would have been discovered by lawful means.” Id., at 260.

As to the first element, the Iowa Supreme Court, having reviewed the relevant cases, stated:

“The issue of the propriety of the police conduct in this case, as noted earlier in this opinion, has caused the closest possible division of views in every appellate court which has considered the question. In light of the legitimate disagreement among individuals well versed in the law of criminal procedure who were given the opportunity for calm deliberation, it cannot be said that the actions of the police were taken in bad faith.” Id., at 260-261.

*439The Iowa court then reviewed the evidence de novo1 and concluded that the State had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that, even if Williams had not guided police to the child’s body, it would inevitably have been found by lawful activity of the search party before its condition had materially changed.

In 1980 Williams renewed his attack on the state-court conviction by seeking a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The District Court conducted its own independent review of the evidence and concluded, as had the state courts, that the body would inevitably have been found by the searchers in essentially the same condition it was in when Williams led police to its discovery. The District Court denied Williams’ petition. 528 F. Supp. 664 (1981).

The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed, 700 F. 2d 1164 (1983); an equally divided court denied rehearing en banc. Id., at 1175. That court assumed, without deciding, that there is an inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule and that the Iowa Supreme Court correctly stated that exception to require proof that the police did not act in bad faith and that the evidence would have been discovered absent any constitutional violation. In reversing the District Court’s denial of habeas relief, the Court of Appeals stated:

“We hold that the State has not met the first requirement. It is therefore unnecessary to decide whether the state courts’ finding that the body would have been discovered anyway is fairly supported by the record. It is also unnecessary to decide whether the State must prove the two elements of the exception by clear and *440convincing evidence, as defendant argues, or by a preponderance of the evidence, as the state courts held.

“The state trial court, in denying the motion to suppress, made no finding one way or the other on the question of bad faith. Its opinion does not even mention the issue and seems to proceed on the assumption — contrary to the rule of law later laid down by the Supreme Court of Iowa — that the State needed to show only that the body would have been discovered in any event. The Iowa Supreme Court did expressly address the issue . . . and a finding by an appellate court of a state is entitled to the same presumption of correctness that attaches to trial-court findings under 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d). . . . We conclude, however, that the state Supreme Court’s finding that the police did not act in bad faith is not entitled to the shield of §2254(d) . . . .” Id., at 1169-1170 (footnotes omitted).

We granted the State’s petition for certiorari, 461 U. S. 956 (1983), and we reverse.

a

>

The Iowa Supreme Court correctly stated that the “vast majority” of all courts, both state and federal, recognize an inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule.2 We *441are now urged to adopt and apply the so-called ultimate or inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule.

Williams contends that evidence of the body’s location and condition is “fruit of the poisonous tree,” i. e., the “fruit” or product of Detective Learning’s plea to help the child’s parents give her “a Christian burial,” which this Court had already held equated to interrogation. He contends that admitting the challenged evidence violated the Sixth Amendment whether it would have been inevitably discovered or not. Williams also contends that, if the inevitable discovery doctrine is constitutionally permissible, it must include a threshold showing of police good faith.

B

The doctrine requiring courts to suppress evidence as the tainted “fruit” of unlawful governmental conduct had its genesis in Silverthome Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385 (1920); there, the Court held that the exclusionary rule applies not only to the illegally obtained evidence itself, but also to other incriminating evidence derived from the primary evidence. The holding of Silverthome was carefully limited, however, for the Court emphasized that such information does not automatically become “sacred and inaccessible.” Id., at 392.

“If knowledge of [such facts] is gained from an independent source, they may be proved like any others . . . .” Ibid, (emphasis added).

Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963), extended the exclusionary rule to evidence that was the indirect product or “fruit” of unlawful police conduct, but there again the Court emphasized that evidence that has been illegally obtained need not always be suppressed, stating:

*442“We need not hold that all evidence is ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ simply because it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police. Rather, the more apt question in such a case is ‘whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint. Id., at 487-488 (emphasis added) (quoting J. Maguire, Evidence of Guilt 221 (1959)).

The Court thus pointedly negated the kind of good-faith requirement advanced by the Court of Appeals in reversing the District Court.

Although Silverthorne and Wong Sun involved violations of the Fourth Amendment, the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine has not been limited to cases in which there has been a Fourth Amendment violation. The Court has applied the doctrine where the violations were of the Sixth Amendment, see United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218 (1967), as well as of the Fifth Amendment.3

The core rationale consistently advanced by this Court for extending the exclusionary rule to evidence that is the fruit of unlawful police conduct has been that this admittedly drastic and socially costly course is needed to deter police from *443violations of constitutional and statutory protections. This Court has accepted the argument that the way to ensure such protections is to exclude evidence seized as a result of such violations notwithstanding the high social cost of letting persons obviously guilty go unpunished for their crimes. On this rationale, the prosecution is not to be put in a better position than it would have been in if no illegality had transpired.

By contrast, the derivative evidence analysis ensures that the prosecution is not put in a worse position simply because of some earlier police error or misconduct. The independent source doctrine allows admission of evidence that has been discovered by means wholly independent of any constitutional violation. That doctrine, although closely related to the inevitable discovery doctrine, does not apply here; Williams’ statements to Learning indeed led police to the child’s body, but that is not the whole story. The independent source doctrine teaches us that the interest of society in deterring unlawful police conduct and the public interest in having juries receive all probative evidence of a crime are properly balanced by putting the police in the same, not a worse, position that they would have been in if no police error or misconduct had occurred.4 See Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n of New York Harbor, 378 U. S. 52, 79 (1964); Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441, 457, 458-459 (1972). When the challenged evidence has an independent source, exclusion of such evidence would put the police in a worse position than they would have been in absent any error or violation. There *444is a functional similarity between these two doctrines in that exclusion of evidence that would inevitably have been discovered would also put the government in a worse position, because the police would have obtained that evidence if no misconduct had taken place. Thus, while the independent source exception would not justify admission of evidence in this case, its rationale is wholly consistent with and justifies our adoption of the ultimate or inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule.

It is clear that the cases implementing the exclusionary rule “begin with the premise that the challenged evidence is in some sense the product of illegal governmental activity.” United States v. Crews, 445 U. S. 463, 471 (1980) (emphasis added). Of course, this does not end the inquiry. If the prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means — here the volunteers’ search— then the deterrence rationale has so little basis that the evidence should be received.5 Anything less would reject logic, experience, and common sense.

*445The requirement that the prosecution must prove the absence of bad faith, imposed here by the Court of Appeals, would place courts in the position of withholding from juries relevant and undoubted truth that would have been available to police absent any unlawful police activity. Of course, that view would put the police in a worse position than they would have been in if no unlawful conduct had transpired. And, of equal importance, it wholly fails to take into account the enormous societal cost of excluding truth in the search for truth in the administration of justice. Nothing in this Court’s prior holdings supports any such formalistic, pointless, and punitive approach.

The Court of Appeals concluded, without analysis, that if an absence-of-bad-faith requirement were not imposed, “the temptation to risk deliberate violations of the Sixth Amendment would be too great, and the deterrent effect of the Exclusionary Rule reduced too far.” 700 F. 2d, at 1169, n. 5. We reject that view. A police officer who is faced with the opportunity to obtain evidence illegally will rarely, if ever, be in a position to calculate whether the evidence sought would inevitably be discovered. Cf. United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U. S. 268, 283 (1978):

“[T]he concept of effective deterrence assumes that the police officer consciously realizes the probable consequences of a presumably impermissible course of conduct” (opinion concurring in judgment).

On the other hand, when an officer is aware that the evidence will inevitably be discovered, he will try to avoid engaging in *446any questionable practice. In that situation, there will be little to gain from taking any dubious “shortcuts” to obtain the evidence. Significant disincentives to obtaining evidence illegally — including the possibility of departmental discipline and civil liability — also lessen the likelihood that the ultimate or inevitable discovery exception will promote police misconduct. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, 397 (1971). In these circumstances, the societal costs of the exclusionary rule far outweigh any possible benefits to deterrence that a good-faith requirement might produce.

Williams contends that because he did not waive his right to the assistance of counsel, the Court may not balance competing values in deciding whether the challenged evidence was properly admitted. He argues that, unlike the exclusionary rule in the Fourth Amendment context, the essential purpose of which is to deter police misconduct, the Sixth Amendment exclusionary rule is designed to protect the right to a fair trial and the integrity of the factfinding process. Williams contends that, when those interests are at stake, the societal costs of excluding evidence obtained from responses presumed involuntary are irrelevant in determining whether such evidence should be excluded. We disagree.

Exclusion of physical evidence that would inevitably have been discovered adds nothing to either the integrity or fairness of a criminal trial. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel protects against unfairness by preserving the adversary process in which the reliability of proffered evidence may be tested in cross-examination. See United States v. Ash, 413 U. S. 300, 314 (1973); Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218, 241 (1973). Here, however, Detective Learning’s conduct did nothing to impugn the reliability of the evidence in question — the body of the child and its condition as it was found, articles of clothing found on the body, and the autopsy. No one would seriously contend that the presence of counsel in the police car when Learning appealed to Wil*447liams’ decent human instincts would have had any bearing on the reliability of the body as evidence. Suppression, in these circumstances, would do nothing whatever to promote the integrity of the trial process, but would inflict a wholly unacceptable burden on the administration of criminal justice.

Nor would suppression ensure fairness on the theory that it tends to safeguard the adversary system of justice. To assure the fairness of trial proceedings, this Court has held that assistance of counsel must be available at pretrial confrontations where “the subsequent trial [cannot] cure a[n otherwise] one-sided confrontation between prosecuting authorities and the uncounseled defendant.” United States v. Ash, supra, at 315. Fairness can be assured by placing the State and the accused in the same positions they would have been in had the impermissible conduct not taken place. However, if the government can prove that the evidence would have been obtained inevitably and, therefore, would have been admitted regardless of any overreaching by the police, there is no rational basis to keep that evidence from the jury in order to ensure the fairness of the trial proceedings. In that situation, the State has gained no advantage at trial and the defendant has suffered no prejudice. Indeed, suppression of the evidence would operate to undermine the adversary system by putting the State in a worse position than it would have occupied without any police misconduct. Williams’ argument that inevitable discovery constitutes impermissible balancing of values is without merit.

More than a half century ago, Judge, later Justice, Cardozo made his seminal observation that under the exclusionary rule “[t]he criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered.” People v. Defore, 242 N. Y. 13, 21, 150 N. E. 585, 587 (1926). Prophetically, he went on to consider “how far-reaching in its effect upon society” the exclusionary rule would be when

“[t]he pettiest peace officer would have it in his power through overzeal or indiscretion to confer immunity upon *448an offender for crimes the most flagitious.” Id., at 23, 150 N. E., at 588.

Some day, Cardozo speculated, some court might press the exclusionary rule to the outer limits of its logic — or beyond— and suppress evidence relating to the “body of a murdered” victim because of the means by which it was found. Id., at 23-24, 150 N. E., at 588. Cardozo’s prophecy was fulfilled in Killough v. United States, 114 U. S. App. D. C. 305, 309, 315 F. 2d 241, 245 (1962) (en banc). But when, as here, the evidence in question would inevitably have been discovered without reference to the police error or misconduct, there is no nexus sufficient to provide a taint and the evidence is admissible.

C

The Court of Appeals did not find it necessary to consider whether the record fairly supported the finding that the volunteer search party would ultimately or inevitably have discovered the victim’s body. However, three courts independently reviewing the evidence have found that the body of the child inevitably would have been found by the searchers. Williams challenges these findings, asserting that the record contains only the “post hoc rationalization” that the search efforts would have proceeded two and one-half miles into Polk County where Williams had led police to the body.

When that challenge was made at the suppression hearing preceding Williams’ second trial, the prosecution offered the testimony of Agent Ruxlow of the Iowa Bureau of Criminal Investigation. Ruxlow had organized and directed some 200 volunteers who were searching for the child’s body. Tr. of Hearings on Motion to Suppress in State v. Williams, No. CR 55805, p. 34 (May 31, 1977). The searchers were instructed “to check all the roads, the ditches, any culverts .... If they came upon any abandoned farm buildings, they were instructed to go onto the property and search those abandoned farm buildings or any other places where a *449small child could be secreted.” Id., at 35. Ruxlow testified that he marked off highway maps of Poweshiek and Jasper Counties in grid fashion, divided the volunteers into teams of four to six persons, and assigned each team to search specific grid areas. Id., at 34. Ruxlow also testified that, if the search had not been suspended because of Williams’ promised cooperation, it would have continued into Polk County, using the same grid system. Id., at 36, 39-40. Although he had previously marked off into grids only the highway maps of Poweshiek and Jasper Counties, Ruxlow had obtained a map of Polk County, which he said he would have marked off in the same manner had it been necessary for the search to continue. Id., at 39.

The search had commenced at approximately 10 a. m. and moved westward through Poweshiek County into Jasper County. At approximately 3 p. m., after Williams had volunteered to cooperate with the police, Detective Learning, who was in the police car with Williams, sent word to Ruxlow and the other Special Agent directing the search to meet him at the Grinnell truck stop and the search was suspended at that time. Id., at 51-52. Ruxlow also stated that he was “under the impression that there was a possibility” that Williams would lead them to the child’s body at that time. Id., at 61. The search was not resumed once it was learned that Williams had led the police to the body, id., at 57, which was found two and one-half miles from where the search had stopped in what would have been the easternmost grid to be searched in Polk County, id., at 39. There was testimony that it would have taken an additional three to five hours to discover the body if the search had continued, id., at 41; the body was found near a culvert, one of the kinds of places the teams had been specifically directed to search.

On this record it is clear that the search parties were approaching the actual location of the body, and we are satisfied, along with three courts earlier, that the volunteer search teams would have resumed the search had Williams *450not earlier led the police to the body and the body inevitably would have been found. The evidence asserted by Williams as newly discovered, i. e., certain photographs of the body and deposition testimony of Agent Ruxlow made in connection with the federal habeas proceeding, does not demonstrate that the material facts were inadequately developed in the suppression hearing in state court or that Williams was denied a full, fair, and adequate opportunity to present all relevant facts at the suppression hearing.6

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.7

It is so ordered.

Justice White,

concurring.

I join fully in the opinion of the Court. I write separately only to point out that many of Justice Stevens’ remarks are beside the point when it is recalled that Brewer v. Williams, 430 U. S. 387 (1977), was a 5-4 decision and that four Members of the Court, including myself, were of the view that Detective Learning had done nothing wrong at all, let alone anything unconstitutional. Three of us observed: “To anyone not lost in the intricacies of the prophylactic *451rules of Miranda v. Arizona, the result in this case seems utterly senseless . . . .” Id., at 438. It is thus an unjustified reflection on Detective Learning to say that he “decide[d] to dispense with the requirements of law,” post, this page, or that he decided “to take procedural shortcuts instead of complying with the law,” post, at 457. He was no doubt acting as many competent police officers would have acted under similar circumstances and in light of the then-existing law. That five Justices later thought he was mistaken does not call for making him out to be a villain or for a lecture on deliberate police misconduct and its resulting costs to society.

Justice Stevens,

concurring in the judgment.

This litigation is exceptional for at least three reasons. The facts are unusually tragic; it involves an unusually clear violation of constitutional rights; and it graphically illustrates the societal costs that may be incurred when police officers decide to dispense with the requirements of law. Because the Court does not adequately discuss any of these aspects of the case, I am unable to join its opinion.

1-H

In holding that respondent’s first conviction had been unconstitutionally obtained, Justice Stewart, writing for the Court, correctly observed:

“The pressures on state executive and judicial officers charged with the administration of the criminal law are great, especially when the crime is murder and the victim a small child. But it is precisely the predictability of those pressures that makes imperative a resolute loyalty to the guarantees that the Constitution extends to us all.” Brewer v. Williams, 430 U. S. 387, 406 (1977) (Williams I).

There can be no denying that the character of the crime may have an impact on the decisional process. As the Court *452was required to hold, however, that does not permit any court to condone a violation of constitutional rights.1 Today’s decision is no more an ad hoc response to the pressures engendered by the special facts of the case than was Williams I. It was the majority in Williams I that recognized that “evidence of where the body was found and of its condition might well be admissible on the theory that the body would have been discovered in any event, even had incriminating statements not been elicited from Williams.” Id., at 407, n. 12. It was the author of today’s opinion of the Court who characterized this rule of law as a “remarkable” and “unlikely theory.” Id., at 416-417, n. 1 (Burger, C. J., dissenting). The rule of law that the Court adopts today has an integrity of its own and is not merely the product of the hydraulic pressures associated with hard cases or strong words.

II

The constitutional violation that gave rise to the decision in Williams I is neither acknowledged nor fairly explained in the Court’s opinion. Yet the propriety of admitting evidence relating to the victim’s body can only be evaluated if that constitutional violation is properly identified.

Before he was taken into custody, Williams, as a recent escapee from a mental hospital who had just abducted and murdered a small child, posed a special threat to public safety. Acting on his lawyer’s advice, Williams surrendered to the Davenport police. The lawyer notified the Des Moines police of Williams’ imminent surrender, and police officials, *453in the presence of Detective Learning, agreed that Williams would not be questioned while being brought back from Davenport. Williams was advised of this agreement by his attorney. After he was arraigned in Davenport, Williams conferred with another lawyer who was acting as local counsel. This lawyer reminded Williams that he would not be questioned. When Detective Learning arrived in Davenport, local counsel stressed that the agreement was to be carried out and that Williams was not to be questioned. Detective Learning then took custody of respondent, and denied counsel’s request to ride to Des Moines in the police car with Williams. The “Christian burial speech” occurred during the ensuing trip.2 As Justice Powell succinctly observed, this was a case “in which the police deliberately took advantage of an inherently coercive setting in the absence of counsel, contrary to their express agreement.” Id., at 414, n. 2 (concurring opinion).

The Sixth Amendment guarantees that the conviction of the accused will be the product of an adversarial process, rather than the ex parte investigation and determination by the prosecutor.3 Williams I grew out of a line of cases in which this Court made it clear that the adversarial process protected by the Sixth Amendment may not be undermined by the strategems of the police.

Spano v. New York, 360 U. S. 315 (1959), dealt with the confession of an uncounseled defendant after prolonged interrogation subsequent to his indictment for first-degree *454murder. Four Justices indicated that this questioning violated the Sixth Amendment, noting that to hold otherwise would totally undermine the adversarial process of proof:

“Our Constitution guarantees the assistance of counsel to a man on trial for his life in an orderly courtroom, presided over by a judge, open to the public, and protected by all the procedural safeguards of the law. Surely a Constitution which promises that much can vouchsafe no less to the same man under midnight inquisition in the squad room of a police station.” Id., at 327 (Stewart, J., concurring, joined by Douglas and Brennan, JJ.).

As Justice Douglas asked: “[W]hat use is a defendant’s right to effective counsel at every stage of a criminal case if, while he is held awaiting trial, he can be questioned in the absence of counsel until he confesses? In that event the secret trial in the police precincts effectively supplants the public trial guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.” Id., at 326 (Douglas, J., concurring, joined by Black and Brennan, JJ.).

This view ripened into a holding in Massiah v. United States, 377 U. S. 201 (1964): “We hold that the petitioner was denied the basic protections of [the Sixth Amendment] when there was used against him at his trial evidence of his own incriminating words, which federal agents had deliberately elicited from him after he had been indicted and in the absence of his counsel.” Id., at 206. Williams I held that Detective Learning had violated “the clear rule of Massiah” by deliberately eliciting incriminating statements from respondent during the pendency of the adversarial process and outside of that process. See 430 U. S., at 399-401. The violation was aggravated by the fact that Detective Learning had breached a promise to counsel, an act which can only undermine the role of counsel in the adversarial process.4 The *455“Christian burial speech” was nothing less than an attempt to substitute an ex parte, inquisitorial process for the clash of adversaries commanded by the Constitution.5 Thus the now-familiar plaint that “ ‘[t]he criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered,’ ” ante, at 447 (quoting People v. Defore, 242 N. Y. 13, 21, 150 N. E. 585, 587 (1926)), is entirely beside the point. More pertinent is what The Chief Justice wrote for the Court on another occasion: “This is not a case where, in Justice Cardozo’s words, ‘the constable . . . blundered,’ rather, it is one where the ‘constable’ planned an impermissible interference with the right to the assistance of counsel.” United States v. Henry, 447 U. S. 264, 274-275 (1980) (footnote and citation omitted).6

*456III

Once the constitutional violation is properly identified, the answers to the questions presented in this case follow readily. Admission of the victim’s body, if it would have been discovered anyway, means that the trial in this case was not the product of an inquisitorial process; that process was untainted by illegality. The good or bad faith of Detective Learning is therefore simply irrelevant. If the trial process was not tainted as a result of his conduct, this defendant received the type of trial that the Sixth Amendment envisions. See United States v. Morrison, 449 U. S. 361 (1981); Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U. S. 545 (1977); United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218, 240-243 (1967). Generalizations about the exclusionary rule employed by the majority, see ante, at 443-448, simply do not address the primary question in the case.

The majority is correct to insist that any rule of exclusion not provide the authorities with an incentive to commit violations of the Constitution. Ante, at 445-446. If the inevitable discovery rule provided such an incentive by permitting the prosecution to avoid the uncertainties inherent in its search for evidence, it would undermine the constitutional guarantee itself, and therefore be inconsistent with the deterrent purposes of the exclusionary rule.7 But when the burden of proof on the inevitable discovery question is placed on the prosecution, ante, at 444, it must bear the risk of error in the determination made necessary by its constitutional violation. The uncertainty as to whether the body would *457have been discovered can be resolved in its favor here only because, as the Court explains ante, at 448-450, petitioner adduced evidence demonstrating that at the time of the constitutional violation an investigation was already under way which, in the natural and probable course of events, would have soon discovered the body. This is not a case in which the prosecution can escape responsibility for a constitutional violation through speculation; to the extent uncertainty was created by the constitutional violation the prosecution was required to resolve that uncertainty through proof.8 Even if Detective Learning acted in bad faith in the sense that he deliberately violated the Constitution in order to avoid the possibility that the body would not be discovered, the prosecution ultimately does not avoid that risk; its burden of proof forces it to assume the risk. The need to adduce proof sufficient to discharge its burden, and the difficulty in predicting whether such proof will be available or sufficient, means that the inevitable discovery rule does not permit state officials to avoid the uncertainty they would have faced but for the constitutional violation.

The majority refers to the “societal cost” of excluding probative evidence. Ante, at 445. In my view, the more relevant cost is that imposed on society by police officers who decide to take procedural shortcuts instead of complying with the law. What is the consequence of the shortcut that Detective Learning took when he decided to question Williams in this case and not to wait an hour or so until he arrived in *458Des Moines?9 The answer is years and years of unnecessary but costly litigation. Instead of having a 1969 conviction affirmed in routine fashion, the case is still alive 15 years later. Thanks to Detective Learning, the State of Iowa has expended vast sums of money and countless hours of professional labor in his defense. That expenditure surely provides an adequate deterrent to similar violations; the responsibility for that expenditure lies not with the Constitution, but rather with the constable.

Accordingly, I concur in the Court’s judgment.

Justice Brennan,

with whom Justice Marshall joins,

dissenting.

In Brewer v. Williams, 430 U. S. 387 (1977), we held that the respondent’s state conviction for first-degree murder had to be set aside because it was based in part on statements obtained from the respondent in violation of his right to the assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. At the same time, we noted that, “[wjhile neither Williams’ incriminating statements themselves nor any testimony describing his having led the police to the victim’s body can constitutionally be admitted into evidence, evidence of where the body was found and of its condition might well be admissible on the theory that the body would have been discovered in any event.” Id., at 407, n. 12.

To the extent that today’s decision adopts this “inevitable discovery” exception to the exclusionary rule, it simply acknowledges a doctrine that is akin to the “independent source” exception first recognized by the Court in Silver-thorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385, 392 (1920). See United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218, 242 (1967); *459 Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, 487 (1963). In particular, the Court concludes that unconstitutionally obtained evidence may be admitted, at trial if it inevitably would have been discovered in the same condition by an independent line of investigation that was already being pursued when the constitutional violation occurred. As has every Federal Court of Appeals previously addressing this issue, see ante, at 440-441, n. 2, I agree that in these circumstances the “inevitable discovery” exception to the exclusionary rule is consistent with the requirements of the Constitution.

In its zealous efforts to emasculate the exclusionary rule, however, the Court loses sight of the crucial difference between the “inevitable discovery” doctrine and the “independent source” exception from which it is derived. When properly applied, the “independent source” exception allows the prosecution to use evidence only if it was, in fact, obtained by fully lawful means. It therefore does no violence to the constitutional protections that the exclusionary rule is meant to enforce. The “inevitable discovery” exception is likewise compatible with the Constitution, though it differs in one key respect from its next of kin: specifically, the evidence sought to be introduced at trial has not actually been obtained from an independent source, but rather would have been discovered as a matter of course if independent investigations were allowed to proceed.

In my view, this distinction should require that the government satisfy a heightened burden of proof before it is allowed to use such evidence. The inevitable discovery exception necessarily implicates a hypothetical finding that differs in kind from the factual finding that precedes application of the independent source rule. To ensure that this hypothetical finding is narrowly confined to circumstances that are functionally equivalent to an independent source, and to protect fully the fundamental rights served by the exclusionary rule, I would require clear and convincing evidence before concluding that the government had met its burden of proof on this issue. See Wade, supra, at 240. Increasing the burden of *460proof serves to impress the factfinder with the importance of the decision and thereby reduces the risk that illegally obtained evidence will be admitted. Cf. Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S. 418, 427 (1979); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U. S. 745, 764 (1982) (“Raising the standard of proof would have both practical and symbolic consequences"). Because the lower courts did not impose such a requirement, I would remand this case for application of this heightened burden of proof by the lower courts in the first instance. I am therefore unable to join either the Court’s opinion or its judgment.

Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case requires us to decide whether an initial failure of law enforcement officers to administer the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), without more, “taints” subsequent admissions made after a suspect has been fully advised of and has waived his Miranda rights. Respondent, Michael James Elstad, was convicted of burglary by an Oregon trial court. The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed, holding that respondent’s signed confession, although voluntary, was rendered inadmissible by a prior remark made in response to questioning without benefit of Miranda warnings. We granted certiorari, 465 U. S. 1078 (1984), and we now reverse.

I

In December 1981, the home of Mr. and Mrs. Gilbert Gross, in the town of Salem, Polk County, Ore., was burglarized. Missing were art objects and furnishings valued at $150,000. A witness to the burglary contacted the Polk County Sheriff’s Office, implicating respondent Michael El-stad, an 18-year-old neighbor and friend of the Grosses’ teenage son. Thereupon, Officers Burke and McAllister went to the home of respondent Elstad, with a warrant for his arrest. Elstad’s mother answered the door. She led the officers to her son’s room where he lay on his bed, clad in shorts and listening to his stereo. The officers asked him to get dressed and to accompany them into the living room. Officer McAllister asked respondent’s mother to step into the kitchen, where he explained that they had a warrant for her *301son’s arrest for the burglary of a neighbor’s residence. Officer Burke remained with Elstad in the living room. He later testified:

“I sat down with Mr. Elstad and I asked him if he was aware of why Detective McAllister and myself were there to talk with him. He stated no, he had no idea why we were there. I then asked him if he knew a person by the name of Gross, and he said yes, he did, and also added that he heard that there was a robbery at the Gross house. And at that point I told Mr. Elstad that I felt he was involved in that, and he looked at me and stated, ‘Yes, I was there.’” App. 19-20.

The officers then escorted Elstad to the back of the patrol car. As they were about to leave for the Polk County Sheriff’s office, Elstad’s father arrived home and came to the rear of the patrol car. The officers advised him that his son was a suspect in the burglary. Officer Burke testified that Mr. Elstad became quite agitated, opened the rear door of the car and admonished his son: “I told you that you were going to get into trouble. You wouldn’t listen to me. You never learn.” Id., at 21.

Elstad was transported to the Sheriff’s headquarters and approximately one hour later, Officers Burke and McAllister joined him in McAllister’s office. McAllister then advised respondent for the first time of his Miranda rights, reading from a standard card. Respondent indicated he understood his rights, and, having these rights in mind, wished to speak with the officers. Elstad gave a full statement, explaining that he had known that the Gross family was out of town and had been paid to lead several acquaintances to the Gross residence and show them how to gain entry through a defective sliding glass door. The statement was typed, reviewed by respondent, read back to him for correction, initialed and signed by Elstad and both officers. As an afterthought, Elstad added and initialed the sentence, “After leaving the house Robby & I went back to [the] van & Robby handed *302me a small bag of grass.” App. 42. Respondent concedes that the officers made no threats or promises either at his residence or at the Sheriff’s office.

Respondent was charged with first-degree burglary. He was represented at trial by retained counsel. Elstad waived his right to a jury, and his case was tried by a Circuit Court Judge. Respondent moved at once to suppress his oral statement and signed confession. He contended that the statement he made in response to questioning at his house “let the cat out of the bag,” citing United States v. Bayer, 331 U. S. 532 (1947), and tainted the subsequent confession as “fruit of the poisonous tree,” citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963). The judge ruled that the statement, “I was there,” had to be excluded because the defendant had not been advised of his Miranda rights. The written confession taken after Elstad’s arrival at the Sheriff’s office, however, was admitted in evidence. The court found:

“[H]is written statement was given freely, voluntarily and knowingly by the defendant after he had waived his right to remain silent and have counsel present which waiver was evidenced by the card which the defendant had signed. [It] was not tainted in any way by the previous brief statement between the defendant and the Sheriff’s Deputies that had arrested him.” App. 45.

Elstad was found guilty of burglary in the first degree. He received a 5-year sentence and was ordered to pay $18,000 in restitution.

Following his conviction, respondent appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals, relying on Wong Sun and Bayer. The State conceded that Elstad had been in custody when he made his statement, “I was there,” and accordingly agreed that this statement was inadmissible as having been given without the prescribed Miranda warnings. But the State maintained that any conceivable “taint” had been dissipated prior to the respondent’s written confession by McAllister’s careful administration of the requisite warnings. The Court *303of Appeals reversed respondent’s conviction, identifying the crucial constitutional inquiry as “whether there was a sufficient break in the stream of events between [the] inadmissible statement and the written confession to insulate the latter statement from the effect of what went before.” 61 Ore. App. 673, 676, 658 P. 2d 552, 554 (1983). The Oregon court concluded:

“Regardless of the absence of actual compulsion, the coercive impact of the unconstitutionally obtained statement remains, because in a defendant’s mind it has sealed his fate. It is this impact that must be dissipated in order to make a subsequent confession admissible. In determining whether it has been dissipated, lapse of time, and change of place from the original surroundings are the most important considerations.” Id., at 677, 658 P. 2d, at 554.

Because of the brief period separating the two incidents, the “cat was sufficiently out of the bag to exert a coercive impact on [respondent’s] later admissions.” Id., at 678, 658 P. 2d, at 555.

The State of Oregon petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court for review, and review was declined. This Court granted certiorari to consider the question whether the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires the suppression of a confession, made after proper Miranda warnings and a valid waiver of rights, solely because the police had obtained an earlier voluntary but unwarned admission from the defendant.

II

The arguments advanced in favor of; suppression of respondent’s written confession rely heavily on metaphor. One metaphor, familiar from the Fourth Amendment context, would require that respondent’s confession, regardless of its integrity, voluntariness, and probative value, be suppressed as the “tainted fruit of the poisonous tree” of the Miranda, violation. A second metaphor questions whether a *304confession can be truly voluntary once the “cat is out of the bag.” Taken out of context, each of these metaphors can be misleading. They should not be used to obscure fundamental differences between the role of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule and the function of Miranda in guarding against the prosecutorial use of compelled statements as prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. The Oregon court assumed and respondent here contends that a failure to administer Miranda warnings necessarily breeds the same consequences as police infringement of a constitutional right, so that evidence uncovered following an unwarned statement must be suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” We believe this view misconstrues the nature of the protections afforded by Miranda warnings and therefore misreads the consequences of police failure to supply them.

A

Prior to Miranda, the admissibility of an accused’s in-custody statements was judged solely by whether they were “voluntary” within the meaning of the Due Process Clause. See, e. g., Haynes v. Washington, 373 U. S. 503 (1963); Chambers v. Florida, 309 U. S. 227 (1940). If a suspect’s statements had been obtained by “techniques and methods offensive to due process,” Haynes v. Washington, 373 U. S., at 515, or under circumstances in which the suspect clearly had no opportunity to exercise “a free and unconstrained will,” id., at 514, the statements would not be admitted. The Court in Miranda required suppression of many statements that would have been admissible under traditional due process analysis by presuming that statements made while in custody and without adequate warnings were protected by the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment, of course, is not concerned with nontestimonial evidence. See Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, 764 (1966) (defendant may be compelled to supply blood samples). Nor is it concerned *305with moral and psychological pressures to confess emanating from sources other than official coercion. See, e. g., California v. Beheler, 463 U. S. 1121, 1125, and n. 3 (1983) (per curiam); Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U. S. 291, 303, and n. 10 (1980); Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U. S. 492, 495-496 (1977). Voluntary statements “remain a proper element in law enforcement.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S., at 478. “Indeed, far from being prohibited by the Constitution, admissions of guilt by wrongdoers, if not coerced, are inherently desirable. . . . Absent some officially coerced self-accusation, the Fifth Amendment privilege is not violated by even the most damning admissions.” United States v. Washington, 431 U. S. 181, 187 (1977). As the Court noted last Term in New York v. Quarles, 467 U. S. 649, 654 (1984) (footnote omitted):

“The Miranda Court, however, presumed that interrogation in certain custodial circumstances is inherently coercive and . . . that statements made under those circumstances are inadmissible unless the suspect is specifically informed of his Miranda rights and freely decides to forgo those rights. The prophylactic Miranda warnings therefore are ‘not themselves rights protected by the Constitution but [are] instead measures to insure that the right against compulsory self-incrimination [is] protected.’ Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433, 444 (1974); see Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U. S. 477, 492 (1981) (Powell, J., concurring). Requiring Miranda warnings before custodial interrogation provides ‘practical reinforcement’ for the Fifth Amendment right.”

Respondent’s contention that his confession was tainted by the earlier failure of the police to provide Miranda warnings and must be excluded as “fruit of the poisonous tree” assumes the existence of a constitutional violation. This figure of speech is drawn from Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963), in which the Court held that evidence and wit*306nesses discovered as a result of a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be excluded from evidence. The Wong Sun doctrine applies as well when the fruit of the Fourth Amendment violation is a confession. It is settled law that “a confession obtained through custodial interrogation after an illegal arrest should be excluded unless intervening events break the causal connection between the illegal arrest and the confession so that the confession is ‘sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint.’” Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U. S. 687, 690 (1982) (quoting Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590, 602 (1975)).

But as we explained in Quarles and Tucker, a procedural Miranda violation differs in significant respects from violations of the Fourth Amendment, which have traditionally mandated a broad application of the “fruits” doctrine. The purpose of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule is to deter unreasonable searches, no matter how probative their fruits. Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200, 216-217 (1979); Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S., at 600-602. “The exclusionary rule, . . . when utilized to effectuate the Fourth Amendment, serves interests and policies that are distinct from those it serves under the Fifth.” Id., at 601. Where a Fourth Amendment violation “taints” the confession, a finding of voluntariness for the purposes of the Fifth Amendment is merely a threshold requirement in determining whether the confession may be admitted in evidence. Taylor v. Alabama, supra, at 690. Beyond this, the prosecution must show a sufficient break in events to undermine the inference that the confession was caused by the Fourth Amendment violation.

The Miranda exclusionary rule, however, serves the Fifth Amendment and sweeps more broadly than the Fifth Amendment itself. It may be triggered even in the absence of a Fif th Amendment violation.1 The Fif th Amendment prohib*307its use by the prosecution in its case in chief only of compelled testimony. Failure to administer Miranda warnings creates a presumption of compulsion. Consequently, unwarned statements that are otherwise voluntary within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment must nevertheless be excluded from evidence under Miranda. Thus, in the individual case, Miranda’s preventive medicine provides a remedy even to the defendant who has suffered no identifiable constitutional harm. See New York v. Quarles, supra, at 654; Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433, 444 (1974).

But the Miranda presumption, though irrebuttable for purposes of the prosecution’s case in chief, does not require that the statements and their fruits be discarded as inherently tainted. Despite the fact that patently voluntary statements taken in violation of Miranda must be excluded from the prosecution’s case, the presumption of coercion does not bar their use for impeachment purposes on cross-examination. Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222 (1971). The Court in Harris rejected as an “extravagant extension of the Constitution,” the theory that a defendant who had confessed under circumstances that made the confession inadmissible, could thereby enjoy the freedom to “deny every fact disclosed or discovered as a ‘fruit’ of his confession, free from confrontation with his prior statements” and that the voluntariness of his confession would be totally irrelevant. Id., at 225, and n. 2. Where an unwarned statement is preserved for use in situations that fall outside the sweep of the Miranda presumption, “the primary criterion of admissibility *308[remains] the ‘old’ due process voluntariness test.” Schul-hofer, Confessions and the Court, 79 Mich. L. Rev. 865, 877 (1981).

In Michigan v. Tucker, supra, the Court was asked to extend the Wong Sun fruits doctrine to suppress the testimony of a witness for the prosecution whose identity was discovered as the result of a statement taken from the accused without benefit of full Miranda warnings. As in respondent’s case, the breach of the Miranda procedures in Tucker involved no actual compulsion. The Court concluded that the unwarned questioning “did not abridge respondent’s constitutional privilege . . . but departed only from the prophylactic standards later laid down by this Court in Miranda to safeguard that privilege.” 417 U. S., at 446. Since there was no actual infringement of the suspect’s constitutional rights, the case was not controlled by the doctrine expressed in Wong Sun that fruits of a constitutional violation must be suppressed. In deciding “how sweeping the judicially imposed consequences” of a failure to administer Miranda warnings should be, 417 U. S., at 445, the Tucker Court noted that neither the general goal of deterring improper police conduct nor the Fifth Amendment goal of assuring trustworthy evidence would be served by suppression of the witness’ testimony. The unwarned confession must, of course, be suppressed, but the Court ruled that introduction of the third-party witness’ testimony did not violate Tucker’s Fifth Amendment rights.

We believe that this reasoning applies with equal force when the alleged “fruit” of a noncoercive Miranda violation is neither a witness nor an article of evidence but the accused’s own voluntary testimony. As in Tucker, the absence of any coercion or improper tactics undercuts the twin rationales— trustworthiness and deterrence — for a broader rule. Once warned, the suspect is free to exercise his own volition in deciding whether or not to make a statement to the authorities. The Court has often noted: “‘[A] living witness is not to be *309mechanically equated with the proffer of inanimate eviden-tiary objects illegally seized. . . . [T]he living "witness is an individual human personality whose attributes of will, perception, memory and volition interact to determine what testimony he wall give.”’ United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U. S. 268, 277 (1978) (emphasis added) (quoting from Smith v. United States, 117 U. S. App. D. C. 1, 3-4, 324 F. 2d 879, 881-882 (1963) (Burger, J.) (footnotes omitted), cert. denied, 377 U. S. 954 (1964)).

Because Miranda warnings may inhibit persons from giving information, this Court has determined that they need be administered only after the person is taken into “custody” or his freedom has otherwise been significantly restrained. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S., at 478. Unfortunately, the task of defining “custody” is a slippery one, and “policemen investigating serious crimes [cannot realistically be expected to] make no errors whatsoever.” Michigan v. Tucker, supra, at 446. If errors are made by law enforcement officers in administering the prophylactic Miranda procedures, they should not breed the same irremediable consequences as police infringement of the Fifth Amendment itself. It is an unwarranted extension of Miranda to hold that a simple failure to administer the warnings, unaccompanied by any actual coercion or other circumstances calculated to undermine the suspect’s ability to exercise his free will, so taints the investigatory process that a subsequent voluntary and informed waiver is ineffective for some indeterminate period. Though Miranda requires that the unwarned admission must be suppressed, the admissibility of any subsequent statement should turn in these circumstances solely on whether it is knowingly and voluntarily made.

B

The Oregon court, however, believed that the unwarned remark compromised the voluntariness of respondent’s later confession. It was the court’s view that the prior answer *310and not the unwarned questioning impaired respondent’s ability to give a valid waiver and that only lapse of time and change of place could dissipate what it termed the “coercive impact” of the inadmissible statement. When a prior statement is actually coerced, the time that passes between confessions, the change in place of interrogations, and the change in identity of the interrogators all bear on whether that coercion has carried over into the second confession. See Westover v. United States, decided together with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S., at 494; Clewis v. Texas, 386 U. S. 707 (1967). The failure of police to administer Miranda warnings does not mean that the statements received have actually been coerced, but only that courts will presume the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination has not been intelligently exercised. See New York v. Quarles, 467 U. S., at 654, and n. 5; Miranda v. Arizona, supra, at 457. Of the courts that have considered whether a properly warned confession must be suppressed because it was preceded by an unwarned but clearly voluntary admission, the majority have explicitly or implicitly recognized that Westover's requirement of a break in the stream of events is inapposite.2 In these circumstances, a careful and thorough *311administration of Miranda warnings serves to cure the condition that rendered the unwarned statement inadmissible. The warning conveys the relevant information and thereafter the suspect’s choice whether to exercise his privilege to remain silent should ordinarily be viewed as an “act of free will.” Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S., at 486.

The Oregon court nevertheless identified a subtle form of lingering compulsion, the psychological impact of the suspect’s conviction that he has let the cat out of the bag and, in so doing, has sealed his own fate. But endowing the psychological effects of voluntary unwarned admissions with constitutional implications would, practically speaking, disable the police from obtaining the suspect’s informed cooperation even when the official coercion proscribed by the Fifth Amendment played no part in either his warned or unwarned confessions. As the Court remarked in Bayer:

“[AJfter an accused has once let the cat out of the bag by confessing, no matter what the inducement, he is never thereafter free of the psychological and practical disadvantages of having confessed. He can never get the cat back in the bag. The secret is out for good. In such a sense, a later confession may always be looked upon as fruit of the first. But this Court has never gone so far as to hold that making a confession under circumstances which preclude its use, perpetually disables the confessor from making a usable one after those conditions have been removed.” 331 U. S., at 540-541.

Even in such extreme cases as Lyons v. Oklahoma, 322 U. S. 596 (1944), in which police forced a full confession from the accused through unconscionable methods of interrogation, the Court has assumed that the coercive effect of the confes*312sion could, with time, be dissipated. See also Westover v. United States, supra, at 496.

This Court has never held that the psychological impact of voluntary disclosure of a guilty secret qualifies as state compulsion or compromises the voluntariness of a subsequent informed waiver. The Oregon court, by adopting this expansive view of Fifth Amendment compulsion, effectively immunizes a suspect who responds to pre-Miranda warning questions from the consequences of his subsequent informed waiver of the privilege of remaining silent. See 61 Ore. App., at 679, 658 P. 2d, at 555 (Gillette, P. J., concurring). This immunity comes at a high cost to legitimate law enforcement activity, while adding little desirable protection to. the individual’s interest in not being compelled to testify against himself. Cf. Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U. S. 96, 107-111 (1975) (White, J., concurring in result). When neither the initial nor the subsequent admission is coerced, little, justification exists for permitting the highly probative evidence of a voluntary confession to be irretrievably lost to the factfinder.

There is a vast difference between the direct consequences flowing from coercion of a confession by physical violence or other deliberate means calculated to break the suspect’s will and the uncertain consequences of disclosure of a “guilty secret” freely given in response to an unwarned but non-coercive question, as in this case. Justice Brennan’s contention that it is impossible to perceive any causal distinction between this case and one involving a confession that is coerced by torture is wholly unpersuasive.3 Certainly, in *313respondent’s case, the causal connection between any psychological disadvantage created by his admission and his ultimate decision to cooperate is speculative and attenuated at

*314Though belated, the reading of respondent’s rights was undeniably complete. McAllister testified that he read the Miranda warnings aloud from a printed card and recorded best. It is difficult to tell with certainty what motivates a suspect to speak. A suspect’s confession may be traced to factors as disparate as “a prearrest event such as a visit with a minister,” Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S., at 220 (Stevens, J., concurring), or an intervening event such as the exchange of words respondent had with his father. We must conclude that, absent deliberately coercive or improper tactics in obtaining the initial statement, the mere fact that a suspect has made an unwarned admission does not warrant a presumption of compulsion. A subsequent administration of Miranda warnings to a suspect who has given a voluntary but unwarned statement ordinarily should suffice to remove the conditions that precluded admission of the earlier statement. In such circumstances, the finder of fact may reasonably conclude that the suspect made a rational and intelligent choice whether to waive or invoke his rights.

I — I *315Elstad’s responses.4 There is no question that respondent knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to remain silent before he described his participation in the burglary. It is also beyond dispute that respondent’s earlier remark was voluntary, within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. Neither the environment nor the manner of either “interrogation” was coercive. The initial conversation took place at midday, in the living room area of respondent’s own home, with his mother in the kitchen area, a few steps away. Although in retrospect the officers testified that respondent was then in custody, at the time he made his statement he had not been informed that he was under arrest. The arresting officers’ testimony indicates that the brief stop in the living room before proceeding to the station house was not to interrogate the suspect but to notify his mother of the reason for his arrest. App. 9-10.

The State has conceded the issue of custody and thus we must assume that Burke breached Miranda procedures in failing to administer Miranda warnings before initiating the discussion in the living room. This breach may have been the result of confusion as to whether the brief exchange qualified as “custodial interrogation” or it may simply have reflected Burke’s reluctance to initiate an alarming police *316procedure before McAllister had spoken with respondent’s mother. Whatever the reason for Burke’s oversight, the incident had none of the earmarks of coercion. See Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U. S. 98, 109-110 (1980). Nor did the officers exploit the unwarned admission to pressure respondent into waiving his right to remain silent.

Respondent, however, has argued that he was unable to give a fully informed waiver of his rights because he was unaware that his prior statement could not be used against him. Respondent suggests that Officer McAllister, to cure this deficiency, should have added an additional warning to those given him at the Sheriff’s office. Such a requirement is neither practicable nor constitutionally necessary. In many cases, a breach of Miranda procedures may not be identified as such until long after full Miranda warnings are administered and a valid confession obtained. See, e. g., United States v. Bowler, 561 F. 2d 1323, 1324-1325 (CA9 1977) (certain statements ruled inadmissible by trial court); United States v. Toral, 536 F. 2d 893, 896 (CA9 1976); United States v. Knight, 395 F. 2d 971, 974-975 (CA2 1968) (custody unclear). The standard Miranda warnings explicitly inform the suspect of his right to consult a lawyer before speaking. Police officers are ill-equipped to pinch-hit for counsel, construing the murky and difficult questions of when “custody” begins or whether a given unwarned statement will ultimately be held admissible. See Tanner v. Vincent, 541 F. 2d 932, 936 (CA2 1976), cert. denied, 429 U. S. 1065 (1977).

This Court has never embraced the theory that a defendant’s ignorance of the full consequences of his decisions vitiates their voluntariness. See California v. Beheler, 463 U. S., at 1125-1126, n. 3; McMann v. Richardson, 397 U. S. 759, 769 (1970). If the prosecution has actually violated the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights by introducing an inadmissible confession at trial, compelling the defendant to testify in rebuttal, the rule announced in Harrison v. United States, 392 U. S. 219 (1968), precludes use of that testimony *317on retrial. “Having ‘released the spring’ by using the petitioner’s unlawfully obtained confessions against him, the Government must show that its illegal action did not induce his testimony.” Id., at 224-225. But the Court has refused to find that a defendant who confesses, after being falsely told that his codefendant has turned State’s evidence, does so involuntarily. Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U. S. 731, 739 (1969). The Court has also rejected the argument that a defendant’s ignorance that a prior coerced confession could not be admitted in evidence compromised the voluntariness of his guilty plea. McMann v. Richardson, supra, at 769. Likewise, in California v. Beheler, supra, the Court declined to accept defendant’s contention that, because he was unaware of the potential adverse consequences of statements he made to the police, his participation in the interview was involuntary. Thus we have not held that the sine qua non for a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to remain silent is a full and complete appreciation of all of the consequences flowing from the nature and the quality of the evidence in the case.

J — I <1

When police ask questions of a suspect in custody without administering the required warnings, Miranda dictates that the answers received be presumed compelled and that they be excluded from evidence at trial in the State’s case in chief. The Court has carefully adhered to this principle, permitting a narrow exception only where pressing public safety concerns demanded. See New York v. Quarles, 467 U. S., at 655-656. The Court today in no way retreats from the bright-line rule of Miranda. We do not imply that good faith excuses, a failure to administer Miranda warnings; nor do we condone inherently coercive police tactics or methods offensive to due process that render the initial admission involuntary and undermine the suspect’s will to invoke his rights once they are read to him. A handful of courts have, however, applied our precedents relating to confessions ob*318tained under coercive circumstances to situations involving wholly voluntary admissions, requiring a passage of time or break in events before a second, fully warned statement can be deemed voluntary. Far from establishing a rigid rule, we direct courts to avoid one; there is no warrant for presuming coercive effect where the suspect’s initial inculpatory statement, though technically in violation of Miranda, was voluntary.5 The relevant inquiry is whether, in fact, the second statement was also voluntarily made. As in any such inquiry, the finder of fact must examine the surrounding circumstances and the entire course of police conduct with respect to the suspect in evaluating the voluntariness of his statements. The fact that a suspect chooses to speak after being informed of his rights is, of course, highly probative. We find that the dictates of Miranda and the goals of the Fifth Amendment proscription against use of compelled testimony are fully satisfied in the circumstances of this case by barring use of the unwarned statement in the case in chief. No further purpose is served by imputing “taint” to subsequent statements obtained pursuant to a voluntary and knowing waiver. We hold today that a suspect who has once responded to unwarned yet uncoercive questioning is not thereby disabled from waiving his rights and confessing after he has been given the requisite Miranda warnings.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals of Oregon is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Brennan,

with whom Justice Marshall joins,

dissenting.

The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees every individual that, if taken into official cus*319tody, he shall be informed of important constitutional rights and be given the opportunity knowingly and voluntarily to waive those rights before being interrogated about suspected wrongdoing. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966).1 This guarantee embodies our society’s conviction that “no system of criminal justice can, or should, survive if it comes to depend for its continued effectiveness on the citizens’ abdication through unawareness of their constitutional rights.” Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478, 490 (1964).

Even while purporting to reaffirm these constitutional guarantees, the Court has engaged of late in a studied campaign to strip the Miranda decision piecemeal and to undermine the rights Miranda sought to secure. Today’s decision not only extends this effort a further step, but delivers a potentially crippling blow to Miranda and the ability of courts to safeguard the rights of persons accused of crime. For at least with respect to successive confessions, the Court today appears to strip remedies for Miranda violations of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine prohibiting the use of evidence presumptively derived from official illegality.2

Two major premises undergird the Court’s decision. The Court rejects as nothing more than “speculative” the long-recognized presumption that an illegally extracted confession causes the accused to confess again out of the mistaken belief that he already has sealed his fate, and it condemns as “ ‘extravagant’ ” the requirement that the prosecution affirmatively rebut the presumption before the subsequent confes*320sion may be admitted. Ante, at 307, 313. The Court instead adopts a new rule that, so long as the accused is given the usual Miranda warnings before further interrogation, the taint of a previous confession obtained in violation oí Miranda “ordinarily” must be viewed as automatically dissipated. Ante, at 311.

In the alternative, the Court asserts that neither the Fifth Amendment itself nor the judicial policy of deterring illegal police conduct requires the suppression of the “fruits” of a confession obtained in violation of Miranda, reasoning that to do otherwise would interfere with “legitimate law enforcement activity.” Ante, at 312. As the Court surely understands, however, “[t]o forbid the direct use of methods . . . but to put no curb on their full indirect use would only invite the very methods deemed ‘inconsistent with ethical standards and destructive of personal liberty/” Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338, 340 (1939). If violations of constitutional rights may not be remedied through the well-established rules respecting derivative evidence, as the Court has held today, there is a critical danger that the rights will be rendered nothing more than a mere “form of words.” Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385, 392 (1920).

The Court’s decision says much about the way the Court currently goes about implementing its agenda. In imposing its new rule, for example, the Court mischaracterizes our precedents, obfuscates the central issues, and altogether ignores the practical realities of custodial interrogation that have led nearly every lower court to reject its simplistic reasoning. Moreover, the Court adopts startling and unprecedented methods of construing constitutional guarantees. Finally, the Court reaches out once again to address issues not before us. For example, although the State of Oregon has conceded that the arresting officers broke the law in this case, the Court goes out of its way to suggest that they may have been objectively justified in doing so.

*321Today’s decision, in short, threatens disastrous consequences far beyond the outcome in this case. As the Court has not seen fit to provide a full explanation for this result, I believe it essential to consider in detail the premises, reasoning, and implications of the Court’s opinion.

J — H

The threshold question is this: What effect should an admission or confession of guilt obtained in violation of an accused’s Miranda rights be presumed to have upon the vol-untariness of subsequent confessions that are preceded by Miranda warnings? Relying on the “cat out of the bag” analysis of United States v. Bayer, 331 U. S. 532, 540-541 (1947), the Oregon Court of Appeals held that the first confession presumptively taints subsequent confessions in such circumstances. 61 Ore. App. 673, 676, 658 P. 2d 552, 554 (1983). On the specific facts of this case, the court below found that the prosecution had not rebutted this presumption. Rather, given the temporal proximity of Elstad’s second confession to his first and the absence of any significant intervening circumstances, the court correctly concluded that there had not been “a sufficient break in the stream of events between [the] inadmissible statement and the written confession to insulate the latter statement from the effect of what went before.” Ibid.

If this Court’s reversal of the judgment below reflected mere disagreement with the Oregon court’s application of the “cat out of the bag” presumption to the particular facts of this case, the outcome, while clearly erroneous, would be of little lasting consequence. But the Court rejects the “cat out of the bag” presumption entirely and instead adopts a new rule presuming that “ordinarily” there is no causal connection between a confession extracted in violation of Miranda and a subsequent confession preceded by the usual Miranda warnings. Ante, at 311, 314. The Court suggests that it is merely following settled lower-court practice in adopting this *322rule and that the analysis followed by the Oregon Court of Appeals was aberrant. This is simply not so. Most federal courts have rejected the Court’s approach and instead held that (1) there is a rebuttable presumption that a confession obtained in violation of Miranda taints subsequent confessions, and (2) the taint cannot be dissipated solely by giving Miranda warnings.3 Moreover, those few federal courts that have suggested approaches similar to the Court’s have subsequently qualified their positions.4 Even more significant is the case among state courts. Although a handful have adopted the Court’s approach,5 the overwhelming ma*323jority of state courts that have considered the issue have concluded that subsequent confessions are presumptively tainted by a first confession taken in violation of Miranda and that Miranda warnings alone cannot dissipate the taint.6

*324The Court today sweeps aside this common-sense approach as “speculative” reasoning, adopting instead a rule that “the psychological impact of voluntary disclosure of a guilty secret” neither “qualifies as state compulsion” nor “compromises the voluntariness” of subsequent confessions. Ante, at 312, 313 (emphasis added). So long as a suspect receives the usual Miranda warnings before further interrogation, the Court reasons, the fact that he “is free to exercise his own volition in deciding whether or not to make” further confessions “ordinarily” is a sufficient “cure” and serves to break any causal connection between the illegal confession and subsequent statements. Ante, at 308, 311.

The Court’s marble-palace psychoanalysis is tidy, but it flies in the face of our own precedents, demonstrates a startling unawareness of the realities of police interrogation, and is completely out of tune with the experience of state and federal courts over the last 20 years. Perhaps the Court has grasped some psychological truth that has eluded persons far more experienced in these matters; if so, the Court owes an explanation of how so many could have been so wrong for so many years.

A

(1)

This Court has had long experience with the problem of confessions obtained after an earlier confession has been *325illegally secured. Subsequent confessions in these circumstances are not per se inadmissible, but the prosecution must demonstrate facts “sufficient to insulate the [subsequent] statement from the effect of all that went before.” Clewis v. Texas, 386 U. S. 707, 710 (1967). If the accused’s subsequent confession was merely the culmination of “one continuous process,” or if the first confession was merely “filled in and perfected by additional statements given in rapid succession,” the subsequent confession is inadmissible even though it was not obtained through the same illegal means as the first. Leyra v. Denno, 347 U. S. 556, 561 (1954); see also Westover v. United States, decided together with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 494-496 (1966). The question in each case is whether the accused’s will was “overborne at the time he confessed,” and the prosecution must demonstrate that the second confession “was an act independent of the [earlier] confession.” Reck v. Pate, 367 U. S. 433, 440, 444 (1961).

One of the factors that can vitiate the voluntariness of a subsequent confession is the hopeless feeling of an accused that he has nothing to lose by repeating his confession, even where the circumstances that rendered his first confession illegal have been removed. As the Court observed in United States v. Bayer, 331 U. S., at 540:

“[A]fter an accused has once let the cat out of the bag by confessing, no matter what the inducement, he is never thereafter free of the psychological and practical disadvantages of having confessed. He can never get the cat back in the bag. The secret is out for good. In such a sense, a later confession always may be looked upon as a fruit of the first.”

The Court today decries the “irremediable consequences” of this reasoning, ante, at 309, but it has always been clear that even after “let[ting] the cat out of the bag” the accused is not “perpetually disable[d]” from giving an admissible subsequent confession. United States v. Bayer, supra, at 541. *326Rather, we have held that subsequent confessions in such circumstances may be admitted if the prosecution demonstrates that, “[cjonsidering the ‘totality of the circumstances,’ ” there was a “‘break in the stream of events . . . sufficient to insulate’ ” the subsequent confession from the damning impact of the first. Darwin v. Connecticut, 391 U. S. 346, 349 (1968) (citations omitted). Although we have thus rejected a 'per se rule forbidding the introduction of subsequent statements in these circumstances, we have emphasized that the psychological impact of admissions and confessions of criminal guilt nevertheless can have a decisive impact in undermining the voluntariness of a suspect’s responses to continued police interrogation and must be accounted for in determining their admissibility. As Justice Harlan explained in his separate Darwin opinion:

“A principal reason why a suspect might make a second or third confession is simply that, having already confessed once or twice, he might think he has little to lose by repetition. If a first confession is not shown to be voluntary, I do not think a later confession that is merely a direct product of the earlier one should be held to be voluntary. It would be neither conducive to good police work, nor fair to a suspect, to allow the erroneous impression that he has nothing to lose to play the major role in a defendant’s decision to speak a second or third time.

“In consequence, when the prosecution seeks to use a confession uttered after an earlier one not found to be voluntary, it has . . . the burden of proving not only that the later confession was not itself the product of improper threats or promises or coercive conditions, but also that it was not directly produced by the existence of the earlier confession.” Id., at 350-351 (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

See also Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590, 605, n. 12 (1975) (“The fact that Brown had made one statement, believed by *327him to be admissible, . . . bolstered the pressures for him to give the second, or at least vitiated any incentive on his part to avoid self-incrimination”); Beecher v. Alabama, 389 U. S. 35, 36, n. 2 (1967) (per curiam) (existence of earlier illegal confession “is of course vitally relevant to the voluntariness of petitioner’s later statements”).7

*328(2)

Our precedents did not develop in a vacuum. They reflect an understanding of the realities of police interrogation and the everyday experience of lower courts. Expert interrogators, far from dismissing a first admission or confession as creating merely a “speculative and attenuated” disadvantage for a suspect, ante, at 313, understand that such revelations frequently lead directly to a full confession. Standard interrogation manuals advise that “[t]he securing of the first admission is the biggest stumbling block . . . .” A. Aubry & R. Caputo, Criminal Interrogation 290 (3d ed. 1980). If this first admission can be obtained, “there is every reason to expect that the first admission will lead to others, and eventually to the full confession.” Ibid.

“For some psychological reason which does not have to concern us at this point ‘the dam finally breaks as a result of the first leak’ with regards to the tough subject. . . . Any structure is only as strong as its weakest component, and total collapse can be anticipated when the weakest part first begins to sag.” Id., at 291.

Interrogators describe the point of the first admission as the “breakthrough” and the “beachhead,” R. Royal & S. Schutt, The Gentle Art of Interviewing and Interrogation: A Professional Manual and Guide 143 (1976), which once obtained will give them enormous “tactical advantages,” F. Inbau & J. Reid, Criminal Interrogation and Confessions 82 (2d ed. 1967). See also W. Dienstein, Technics for the Crime Investigator 117 (2d ed. 1974). Thus “[t]he securing of incriminating admissions might well be considered as the beginning of the final stages in crumbling the defenses of the suspect,” and the process of obtaining such admissions is described as “the spadework required to motivate the subject into making the full confession.” Aubry & Caputo, supra, at 31, 203.

*329“Once the initial admission has been made, further inducement in the form of skillfully applied interrogation techniques will motivate the suspect into making the confession.” Id., at 26; see also id., at 33 (initial admissions are “capitalized upon by the interrogator in securing the eventual confession”). Some of these “skillfully applied” techniques involve direct confrontation of the suspect with the earlier admission, but many of the techniques are more discreet and create leverage without the need of expressly discussing the earlier admission. These techniques are all aimed at reinforcing in the suspect’s mind that, as one manual describes it, “ ‘you’re wasting your own time, and you’re wasting my time, you’re guilty and you know it, I know it, what’s more, you know that I know it.’” Id., at 234.8

The practical experience of state and federal courts confirms the experts’ understanding. From this experience, lower courts have concluded that a first confession obtained without proper Miranda warnings, far from creating merely some “speculative and attenuated” disadvantage for the accused, ante, at 313, frequently enables the authorities to obtain subsequent confessions on a “silver platter.” Cagle v. State, 45 Ala. App. 3, 4, 221 So. 2d 119,120, cert. denied, 284 Ala. 727, 221 So. 2d 121 (1969).

One police practice that courts have frequently encountered involves the withholding of Miranda warnings until the end of an interrogation session. Specifically, the police *330escort a suspect into a room, sit him down and, without explaining his Fifth Amendment rights or obtaining a knowing and voluntary waiver of those rights, interrogate him about his suspected criminal activity. If the police obtain a confession, it is then typed up, the police hand the suspect a pen for his signature, and — -just before he signs — the police advise him of his Miranda rights and ask him to proceed. Alternatively, the police may call a stenographer in after they have obtained the confession, advise the suspect for the first time of his Miranda rights, and ask him to repeat what he has just told them. In such circumstances, the process of giving Miranda warnings and obtaining the final confession is “ ‘merely a formalizing, a setting down almost as a scrivener does, [of] what ha[s] already taken [place].’ ” People v. Raddatz, 91 Ill. App. 2d 425, 430, 235 N. E. 2d 353, 356 (1968) (quoting trial court). In such situations, where “it was all over except for reading aloud and explaining the written waiver of the Miranda safeguards,” courts have time and again concluded that “[t]he giving of the Miranda warnings before reducing the product of the day’s work to written form could not undo what had been done or make legal what was illegal.” People v. Bodner, 75 App. Div. 2d 440, 448, 430 N. Y. S. 2d 433, 438 (1980).9

There are numerous variations on this theme. Police may obtain a confession in violation of Miranda and then take a break for lunch or go home for the evening. When questioning is resumed, this time preceded by Miranda warnings, the suspect is asked to “clarify” the earlier illegal confession and to provide additional information.10 Or he is led by one of *331the interrogators into another room, introduced to another official, and asked to repeat his story. The new officer then gives the Miranda warnings and asks the suspect to proceed.11 Alternatively, the suspect might be questioned by arresting officers “in the field” and without Miranda warnings, as was young Elstad in the instant case. After making incriminating admissions or a confession, the suspect is then brought into the station house and either questioned by the same officers again or asked to repeat his earlier statements to another officer.12

The variations of this practice are numerous, but the underlying problem is always the same: after hearing the witness testimony and considering the practical realities, courts have confirmed the time-honored wisdom of presuming that a first illegal confession “taints” subsequent confessions, and permitting such subsequent confessions to be admitted at trial only if the prosecution convincingly rebuts the presumption. They have discovered that frequently, “[h]aving once confessed [the accused] was ready to confess some more.” State v. Lekas, 201 Kan. 579, 587-588, 442 P. 2d 11, 19 (1968). For all practical purposes, the prewaming and postwarning questioning are often but stages of one overall interrogation. Whether or not the authorities explicitly confront the suspect with his earlier illegal admissions makes no significant difference, of course, because the suspect knows that the authorities know of his earlier statements and most frequently will believe that those statements already have sealed his fate. Thus a suspect in such circumstances is likely to conclude that “he might as well answer the questions *332put to him, since the [authorities are] already aware of the earlier answers,” United States v. Pierce, 397 F. 2d 128, 131 (CA4 1968); he will probably tell himself that “it’s O. K., I have already told them,” State v. Lekas, supra, at 582, 442 P. 2d, at 15. See also Cagle v. State, 45 Ala. App., at 4, 221 So. 2d, at 120 (“I have already give[n] the Chief... a statement, and I might as well give one to you, too”). In such circumstances, courts have found, a suspect almost invariably asks himself, “What use is a lawyer? What good is a lawyer now? What benefit can a lawyer tell me? [sic] I have already told the police everything.” People v. Raddatz, 91 Ill. App. 2d, at 430, 235 N. E. 2d, at 356.13

I would have thought that the Court, instead of dismissing the “cat out of the bag” presumption out of hand, would have accounted for these practical realities. Compare Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S., at 342 (derivative-evidence rules should be grounded on the “learning, good sense, fairness and courage” of lower-court judges). Expert interrogators and experienced lower-court judges will be startled, to say the least, to learn that the connection between multiple confessions is “speculative” and that a subsequent rendition of Miranda warnings “ordinarily” enables the accused in these circumstances to exercise his “free will” and to make “a rational and intelligent choice whether to waive or invoke his rights.” Ante, at 311, 314.

(3)

The Court’s new view about the “psychological impact” of prior illegalities also is at odds with our Fourth Amendment *333precedents. For example, it is well established that a confession secured as a proximate result of an illegal arrest must be suppressed. See, e. g., Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U. S. 687 (1982); Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590 (1975); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963). We have emphasized in this context that “verbal evidence which derives so immediately from an unlawful entry and an unauthorized arrest ... is no less the ‘fruit’ of official illegality than the more common tangible fruits of the unwarranted intrusion.” Wong Sun v. United States, supra, at 485.

The Court seeks to distinguish these precedents on the ground that Fourth Amendment violations require a broader exclusionary rule than do Fifth Amendment violations. Ante, at 306. I address this reasoning in Part II-B, infra. But the question immediately at issue — whether there should be a presumptive rule against finding a causal connection between successive confessions — would surely seem to be controlled by the logic of these Fourth Amendment cases. In part because of the inherent psychological pressures attendant upon an arrest, we have refused to presume that a confession following an illegal arrest is “sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint of the unlawful invasion.” Wong Sun v. United States, supra, at 486. See also Brown v. Illinois, supra, at 601-603. If the Court so quickly dismisses the notion of a multiple-confession taint as nothing more than a “speculative and attenuated” disadvantage, ante, at 313, what is to prevent it in the future from deciding that, contrary to the settled understanding, the fact of a proximate illegal arrest is presumptively nothing but a “speculative and attenuated” disadvantage to a defendant who is asked to confess?

Similarly, a confession obtained as a proximate result of confronting the accused with illegally seized evidence is inadmissible as the fruit of the illegal seizure. See, e. g., Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U. S. 85, 90-91 (1963) (remanding for determination whether admission was so induced); see generally 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure §11.4, pp. 638-642 *334(1978) (collecting cases). As commentators have noted, courts in finding such confessions to be tainted by the Fourth Amendment violation have emphasized that “ ‘the realization that the “cat is out of the bag” plays a significant role in encouraging the suspect to speak.’” Id., § 11.4, p. 689 (footnote omitted). By discarding the accepted “cat out of the bag” presumption in the successive-confession context, however, the Court now appears to have opened the door to applying this same simplistic reasoning to Fourth Amendment violations.14

*335B

The correct approach, administered for almost 20 years by most courts with no untoward results, is to presume that an admission or confession obtained in violation of Miranda taints a subsequent confession unless the prosecution can show that the taint is so attenuated as to justify admission of the subsequent confession. See cases cited in nn. 3, 6, swpra. Although the Court warns against the “irremediable consequences” of this presumption, ante, at 309, it is obvious that a subsequent confession, just like any other evidence that follows upon illegal police action, does not become “sacred and inaccessible.” Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S., at 392. As with any other evidence, the inquiry is whether the subsequent confession “‘has been come at by exploitation of [the] illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.’” Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S., at 488 (citation omitted).

Until today the Court has recognized that the dissipation inquiry requires the prosecution to demonstrate that the official illegality did not taint the challenged confession, and we have rejected the simplistic view that abstract notions of “free will” are alone sufficient to dissipate the challenged taint.

“The question whether a confession is the product of a free will under Wong Sun must be answered on the facts of each case. No single fact is dispositive. The work*336ings of the human mind are too complex, and the possibilities of misconduct too diverse, to permit protection of [constitutional rights] to turn on... a talismanic test.” Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S., at 603.

Instead, we have instructed courts to consider carefully such factors as the strength of the causal connection between the illegal action and the challenged evidence, their proximity in time and place, the presence of intervening factors, and the “purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.” Id., at 603-604.

The Court today shatters this sensitive inquiry and decides instead that, since individuals possess “‘will, perception, memory and volition/” a suspect’s “exercise [of] his own volition in deciding whether or not to make a [subsequent] statement to the authorities” must “ordinarily” be viewed as sufficient to dissipate the coercive influence of a prior confession obtained in violation of Miranda. Ante, at 308, 309, 311 (citation omitted). But “[w]ill, perception, memory and volition are only relevant as they provide meaningful alternatives in the causal chain, not as mystical qualities which in themselves invoke the doctrine of attenuation.” Hirtle, Inadmissible Confessions and Their Fruits: A Comment on Harrison v. United States, 60 J. Grim. L., C., & P. S. 58, 62 (1969). Thus we have always rejected, until today, the notion that “individual will” alone presumptively serves to insulate a person’s actions from the taint of earlier official illegality. See, e. g., United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U. S. 268, 274-275 (1978) (rejecting Government’s request for a rule “that the testimony of a live witness should not be excluded at trial no matter how close and proximate the connection between it” and an illegal search); Wong Sun v. United States, swpra, at 486 (confession obtained as a proximate result of an illegal arrest is not presumptively admissible as an “intervening independent act of a free will”).

Nor have we ever allowed Miranda warnings alone to serve talismanically to purge the taint of prior illegalities. In Brown v. Illinois, for example, we emphasized that *337 “Miranda warnings, alone and per se, cannot always make [a confession] sufficiently a product of free will to break . . . the causal connection between [an illegal arrest] and the confession.” 422 U. S., at 603 (emphasis in original).15 See also Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U. S., at 690-691. The reason we rejected this rule is manifest: “The Miranda warnings in no way inform a person of his Fourth Amendment rights, including his right to be released from unlawful custody following an arrest made without a warrant or without probable cause.” Brown v. Illinois, supra, at 601, n. 6.

This logic applies with even greater force to the Fifth Amendment problem of successive confessions. Where an accused believes that it is futile to resist because the authorities already have elicited an admission of guilt, the mere rendition of Miranda warnings does not convey the information most critical at that point to ensuring his informed and voluntary decision to speak again: that the earlier confession may not be admissible and thus that he need not speak out of any feeling that he already has sealed his fate. The Court therefore is flatly wrong in arguing, as it does repeatedly, that the mere provision of Miranda warnings prior to subsequent interrogation supplies the accused with “the relevant information” and ensures that a subsequent confession “ordinarily” will be the product of “a rational and intelligent choice” and “‘an act of free will.’” Ante, at 311, 314.16

*338The Court’s new approach is therefore completely at odds with established dissipation analysis. A comparison of the Court’s analysis with the factors most frequently relied on by lower courts in considering the admissibility of subsequent confessions demonstrates the practical and legal flaws of the new rule.

Advice that earlier confession may be inadmissible. The most effective means to ensure the voluntariness of an accused’s subsequent confession is to advise the accused that his earlier admissions may not be admissible and therefore that he need not speak solely out of a belief that “the cat is out of the bag.” Many courts have required such warnings in the absence of other dissipating factors,17 and this Court has not uncovered anything to suggest that this approach has not succeeded in the real world. The Court, however, believes that law enforcement authorities could never possibly understand “the murky and difficult questio[n]” of when *339 Miranda warnings must be given, and therefore that they are “ill-equipped” to make the decision whether supplementary warnings might be required. Ante, at 316.

This reasoning is unpersuasive for two reasons. First, the whole point of Miranda and its progeny has been to prescribe “bright line” rules for the authorities to follow.18 Although borderline cases will of course occasionally arise, thus militating against a per se rule requiring supplementary warnings, the experience of the lower courts demonstrates that the vast majority of confrontations implicating this question involve obvious Miranda violations. The occasional “murky and difficult” case should not preclude consideration of supplementary warnings in situations where the authorities could not possibly have acted in an objectively reasonable manner in their earlier interrogation of the accused. Second, even where the authorities are not certain that an earlier confession has been illegally obtained, courts and commentators have recognized that a supplementary warning merely advising the accused that his earlier confession may be inadmissible can dispel his belief that he has nothing to lose by repetition.19

Proximity in time and place. Courts have frequently concluded that a subsequent confession was so removed in time and place from the first that the accused most likely was able fully to exercise his independent judgment in deciding whether to speak again.20 As in the instant case, however, a *340second confession frequently follows immediately on the heels of the first and is obtained by the same officials in the same or similar coercive surroundings. In such situations, it is wholly unreasonable to assume that the mere rendition of Miranda warnings will safeguard the accused’s freedom of action.

The Court today asserts, however, that the traditional requirement that there be a “break in the stream of events” is “inapposite” in this context. Ante, at 310. Yet most lower courts that have considered the question have recognized that our decision in Westover v. United States, 384 U. S., at 494, compels the contrary conclusion.21 There the accused was questioned by local authorities for several hours and then turned over to federal officials, who only then advised him of his constitutional rights and obtained a confession. We concluded that Westover’s waiver was invalid because, from Westover’s perspective, the separate questioning amounted to but one continuous period of interrogation, “the warnings came at the end of the interrogation process,” and the giving of warnings could not dissipate the effect of *341the earlier, illegal questioning. Id., at 496.22 Thus it is clear that Miranda warnings given at the end of the interrogation process cannot dispel the illegality of what has gone before. If this is so in a situation like Westover, where the accused had not yet given a confession, how can the Court possibly conclude otherwise where the accused already has confessed and therefore feels that he has nothing to lose by “confess[ing] some more?” State v. Lekas, 201 Kan., at 588, 442 P. 2d, at 19.

Intervening factors. Some lower courts have found that because of intervening factors — such as consultation with a lawyer or family members, or an independent decision to speak — an accused’s subsequent confession could not fairly be attributed to the earlier statement taken in violation of Miranda. 23 On the other hand, where as here an accused has continuously been in custody and there is no legitimate suggestion of an intervening event sufficient to break the impact of the first confession, subsequent confessions are inadmissible.24 The Court reasons, however, that because “[a] suspect’s confession may be traced to ... an intervening event,” it “must [be] conclude[d]” that subsequent Miranda warnings presumptively enable the suspect to make “a rational and intelligent choice” whether to repeat his confession. Ante, at 314 (emphasis added). In applying the intervening-events inquiry, however, “courts must use a surgeon’s scalpel and not a meat axe.” Cf. 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 11.4, p. 624 (1978). The only proper inquiry is whether a meaningful intervening event actually occurred, not whether *342a court simply chooses to shut its eyes to human nature and the realities of custodial interrogation.

Purpose and flagrancy of the illegality. Courts have frequently taken the “purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct” into account in considering whether the taint of illegal action was sufficiently dissipated to render a confession admissible. Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S., at 604. In part, this inquiry has reflected conviction that particularly egregious misconduct must be deterred through particularly stern action. This factor is also important, however, because it is fair to presume that if the authorities acted flagrantly in violating the law they probably did so for ulterior motives. Thus if the authorities blatantly failed to advise an accused of his constitutional rights while interrogating him and gave him the Miranda warnings only as they handed him a typed confession for his signature, it is fair to presume that they pursued their strategy precisely to weaken his ability knowingly and voluntarily to exercise his constitutional rights.

C

Perhaps because the Court is discomfited by the radical implications of its failure to apply the settled derivative-evidence presumption to violations of Miranda, it grudgingly qualifies its sweeping pronouncements with the acknowledgment that its new presumption about so-called “ordinary” Miranda violations can be overcome by the accused. Ante, at 311, 314. Explicitly eschewing “a per se rule,” ante, at 317, the Court suggests that its approach should not be followed where the police have employed “improper tactics” or “inherently coercive methods” that are “calculated to undermine the suspect’s ability to exercise his free will.” Ante, at 308, 309, 312, n. 3; see also ante, at 312, 314, 317. The Court thus concedes that lower courts must continue to be free to “examine the surrounding circumstances and the *343entire course of police conduct with respect to the suspect in evaluating the voluntariness of his statements.” Ante, at 318.

The Court’s concessions are potentially significant, but its analysis is wholly at odds with established dissipation analysis. To begin with, the Court repeatedly suggests that a confession may be suppressed only if the police have used “improper tactics,” ante, at 308; this obscure reasoning overlooks the fact that a violation of Miranda is obviously itself an “improper tactic,” one frequently used precisely to undermine the voluntariness of subsequent confessions. See supra, at 329-332. The Court’s negative implication that Miranda violations are not “improper tactics” is, to say the least, disquieting. Second, the Court reasons that the fact that the accused gave a subsequent confession is itself “highly probative” evidence that he was able to exercise his free will. Ante, at 318. This inaccurate premise follows from the Court’s erroneous rejection of the “cat out of the bag” presumption in these circumstances and its inexplicable assertion that the previous extraction of a “guilty secret” neither constitutes compulsion nor compromises the volun-tariness of later confessions. Ante, at 312.25 Finally, the *344foundation of the derivative-evidence doctrine has always been that, where the authorities have acted illegally, they must bear the “ultimate burden” of proving that their misconduct did not “taint” subsequently obtained evidence. Alderman v. United States, 394 U. S. 165, 183 (1969); see also Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S., at 341. That is precisely the point of the derivative-evidence presumption. By rejecting this presumption in Miranda cases, the Court today appears to adopt a “go ahead and try to prove it” posture toward citizens whose Fifth Amendment Miranda rights have been violated, an attitude that marks a sharp break from the Court’s traditional approach to official lawlessness.

Nevertheless, prudent law enforcement officials must not now believe that they are wholly at liberty to refuse to give timely warnings and obtain effective waivers, confident that evidence derived from Miranda violations will be entirely immune from judicial scrutiny. I believe that most state and federal courts will continue to exercise the “learning, good sense, fairness and courage” they have displayed in administering the derivative-evidence rules prior to today’s decision. Nardone v. United States, supra, at 342. Lower courts are free to interpret the Court’s qualifications, grudging though they may be, as providing sufficient latitude to scrutinize confessions obtained in the wake of Miranda violations to determine whether, in light of all “the surrounding circumstances and the entire course of police conduct,” the initial Miranda violation compromised the voluntariness of the accused’s subsequent confession. Ante, at 318. Any overt *345use of the illegally secured statement by the police in obtaining the subsequent confession must of course be viewed as powerful evidence of a tainted connection; the Court itself asserts that the officers in this case did not “exploit the unwarned admission to pressure respondent” into giving his subsequent confession. Ante, at 316.26 In such circumstances, “[h]aving ‘released the spring’ by using the petitioner’s unlawfully obtained confessions against him, the Government must show that its illegal action did not induce his [subsequent statements].” Harrison v. United States, 392 U. S. 219, 224-225 (1968).

Moreover, courts must scrutinize the totality of the circumstances even where the authorities have not explicitly exploited the earlier confession. Many of the police practices discussed above do not rely on overt use of the earlier confession at all, but instead are implicit strategies that create leverage on the accused to believe he already has sealed his fate. See swpra, at 328-332. These strategies are just as pernicious as overt exploitation of the illegal confession, because they just as surely are “calculated to undermine the suspect’s ability to exercise his free will.” Ante, at 309.27 In evaluating the likely effects of such tactics, courts should continue to employ many of the same, elements traditionally used in dissipation analysis. Thus, although the Court discounts the importance of a “break in the stream of events” in *346the context of the derivative-evidence presumption, the proximity in time and place of the first and second confessions surely remains a critical factor. See supra, at 339-341. So too does the inquiry into possible intervening events. Supra, at 341-342. And if the official violation of Miranda was flagrant, courts may fairly conclude that the violation was calculated and employed precisely so as to “undermine the suspect’s ability to exercise his free will.” Ante, at 309. See also ante, at 314 (“deliberately . . . improper tactics” warrant a presumption of compulsion).28

In sum, today’s opinion marks an evisceration of the established fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, but its reasoning is sufficiently obscure and qualified as to leave state and federal courts with continued authority to combat obvious flouting by the authorities of the privilege against self-incrimination. I am confident that lower courts will exercise this authority responsibly, as they have for the most part prior to this Court’s intervention.

II

Not content merely to ignore the practical realities of police interrogation and the likely effects of its abolition of the derivative-evidence presumption, the Court goes on to assert that nothing in the Fifth Amendment or the general, judicial policy of deterring illegal police conduct “ordinarily” requires the suppression of evidence derived proximately from a confession obtained in violation of Miranda. The Court does not limit its analysis to successive confessions, but recurrently refers generally to the “fruits” of the illegal confession. Ante, at 306, 307, 308. Thus the potential impact of the Court’s reasoning might extend far beyond the *347“cat out of the bag” context to include the discovery of physical evidence and other derivative fruits of Miranda violations as well.29

A

The Fifth Amendment requires that an accused in custody be informed of important constitutional rights before the authorities interrogate him. Miranda v. Arizona. This requirement serves to combat the “inherently compelling pressures” of custodial questioning “which work to undermine the individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely,” and is a prerequisite to securing the accused’s informed and voluntary waiver of his *348rights. 384 U. S., at 467. Far from serving merely as a prophylactic safeguard, “[t]he requirement of warnings and waiver of rights is a fundamental with respect to the Fifth Amendment privilege . . . .” Id., at 476. It is precisely because this requirement embraces rights that are deemed to serve a “central role in the preservation of basic liberties,” Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1, 5 (1964), that it is binding on the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S., at 467.

Twice in the last 10 years, however, the Court has suggested that the Miranda safeguards are not themselves rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. In Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433 (1974), the Court stated that Miranda had only prescribed “recommended” procedural safeguards “to provide practical reinforcement for the right against compulsory self-incrimination,” the violation of which may not necessarily violate the Fifth Amendment itself. 417 U. S., at 443-444. And in New York v. Quarles, 467 U. S. 649 (1984), the Court last Term disturbingly rejected "the argument that a confession “must be presumed compelled because of . . . failure to read [the accused] his Miranda warnings.” Id., at 655, n. 5 (emphasis in original).

These assertions are erroneous. Miranda’s requirement of warnings and an effective waiver was not merely an exercise of supervisory authority over interrogation practices. As Justice Douglas noted in his Tucker dissent:

“Miranda’s purpose was not promulgation of judicially preferred standards for police interrogation, a function we are quite powerless to perform; the decision enunciated ‘constitutional standards for protection of the privilege’ against self-incrimination. 384 U. S., at 491.” 417 U. S., at 465-466 (emphasis in original).

Miranda clearly emphasized that warnings and an informed waiver are essential to the Fifth Amendment privilege itself. See supra, at 347 and this page. As noted in Tucker, Miranda did state that the Constitution does not require *349“‘adherence to any particular solution’” for providing the required knowledge and obtaining an informed waiver. 417 U. S., at 444 (quoting Miranda, supra, at 467). But to rely solely on this language in concluding that the Miranda warnings are not constitutional rights, as did the Court in Tucker, ignores the central issue. The Court in Tucker omitted to mention that in Miranda, after concluding that no “particular solution” is required, we went on to emphasize that “unless we are shown other procedures which are at least as effective in apprising accused persons of their right of silence and in assuring a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the [prescribed] safeguards must be observed.” Miranda, supra, at 467. Thus “the use of [any] admissions obtained in the absence of the required warnings [is] a flat violation of the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment . . . .” Orozco v. Texas, 394 U. S. 324, 326 (1969).

The Court today finally recognizes these flaws in the logic of Tucker and Quarles. 30 Although disastrous in so many other respects, today’s opinion at least has the virtue of rejecting the inaccurate assertion in Quarles that confessions extracted in violation of Miranda are not presumptively coerced for Fifth Amendment purposes. Cf. Quarles, supra, at 655, n. 5. Instead, the Court holds squarely that there is an “irrebuttable” presumption that such confessions are indeed coerced and are therefore inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment except in narrow circumstances. Ante, at 307. 31

Unfortunately, the Court takes away with one hand far more than what it has given with the other. Although the *350Court concedes, as it must, that a confession obtained in violation of Miranda is irrebuttably presumed to be coerced and that the Self-Incrimination Clause therefore prevents its use in the prosecution’s case in chief, ante, at 306-307, the Court goes on to hold that nothing in the Fifth Amendment prevents the introduction at trial of evidence proximately derived from the illegal confession. It contends, for example, that the Fifth Amendment prohibits introduction “only” of the “compelled testimony,” and that this constitutional guarantee “is not concerned with nontestimonial evidence.” Ante, at 304, 307.

This narrow compass of the protection against compelled self-incrimination does not accord with our historic understanding of the Fifth Amendment. Although the Self-Incrimination Clause “protects an accused only from being compelled to testify against himself, or otherwise provide the State with evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature,” Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, 761 (1966), it prohibits the use of such communications “against” the accused in any way. The Fifth Amendment therefore contains a self-executing rule commanding the exclusion of evidence derived from such communications.32 It bars “the use of compelled testimony, as well as evidence derived directly and indirectly therefrom,” and “prohibits the prosecutorial authorities from using the compelled testimony in any respect.” Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441, 453 (1972) (emphasis in original). If a coerced statement leads to “sources of information which may supply other means of convicting” the accused, those sources must also be suppressed. Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547, 586 (1892). Under this constitutional exclusionary rule, the authorities are thus *351“prohibited from making any . . . use of compelled testimony and its fruits” “in connection with a criminal prosecution against” the accused. Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U. S. 52, 79 (1964) (emphasis added).33

In short, the Fifth Amendment’s rule excluding “the use of compelled testimony and evidence derived therefrom is coextensive with the scope of the privilege” against self-incrimination itself. Kastigar v. United States, supra, at 452-453. “The essence of a provision forbidding the acquisition of evidence in a certain way is that not merely evidence so acquired shall not be used before the Court but that it shall not be used at all.” Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S., at 392 (emphasis added). If the authorities were permitted to use an accused’s illegal confession to extract additional confessions or to uncover physical evidence against him, the use of these fruits at trial would violate the Self-Incrimination Clause just as surely as if the original confession itself were introduced. Yet that is precisely what today’s decision threatens to encourage.

What possible justification does the Court advance for its evisceration of the Fifth Amendment’s exclusionary rule in this context? Two rationales appear to be at work here. First, while acknowledging that a confession obtained in the absence of warnings and an informed waiver is irrebuttably presumed to be coerced in violation of the Self-Incrimination Clause, ante, at 307, the Court recurrently asserts elsewhere that the extraction of such a confession is not really “a Fifth Amendment violation,” ante, at 306. Thus the Court suggests that a Miranda violation does not constitute “police *352infringement of a constitutional right,” that it is not “a constitutional violation,” that a suspect in such circumstances “suffer[s] no identifiable constitutional harm,” and that his “Fifth Amendment rights” have not “actually [been] violated.” Ante, at 304, 305, 307, 316. Similarly, the Court persists in reasoning that a confession obtained in violation of Miranda “ordinarily” should be viewed as “voluntary,” a “voluntary disclosure of a guilty secret,” “freely given,” “non-coerc[ed],” and “wholly voluntary.” Ante, at 311, 312, 318. I have already demonstrated the fallacy of this reasoning. See Part II-A, supra. Suffice it to say that the public will have understandable difficulty in comprehending how a confession obtained in violation of Miranda can at once be (1) “irrebuttabl[y]” presumed to be the product of official compulsion, and therefore suppressible as a matter of federal constitutional law, ante, at 307, 317, and (2) “noncoerc[ed]” and “wholly voluntary,” ante, at 312, 318.

Second, while not discussed in today’s opinion, Justice O’Connor has recently argued that the Fifth Amendment’s exclusion of derivative evidence extends only to confessions obtained when the accused is compelled “to appear before a court, grand jury, or other such formal tribunal,” and not merely when he is “subject to informal custodial police interrogation.” New York v. Quarles, 467 U. S., at 670 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part in judgment and dissenting in part). An accused in this situation, it is argued, “has a much less sympathetic case for obtaining the benefit of a broad suppression ruling.” Ibid.

Such an analysis overlooks that, by the time we decided Miranda, it was settled that the privilege against self-incrimination applies with full force outside the chambers of “formal” proceedings. “Today, then, there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S., at 467. See also *353 Ziang Sung Wan v. United States, 266 U. S. 1, 14-15 (1924) (“[A] confession obtained by compulsion must be excluded whatever may have been the character of the compulsion, and whether the compulsion was applied in a judicial proceeding or otherwise”) (emphasis added); Bram v. United States, 168 U. S. 532 (1897). Thus there is no question that “all the principles embodied in the privilege apply to informal compulsion exerted by law-enforcement officers during in-custody questioning.” Miranda v. Arizona, supra, at 461.

The application of the privilege to custodial interrogation simply reflects the realities and purposes of 20th-century police investigations, matters which the Court chooses to ignore. “[PJolice interrogation has in recent times performed the function once accomplished by interrogation of the defendant by the committing magistrate, a practice brought to an end by establishment of the rule against self-incrimination.”34 Moreover, “[a]s a practical matter, the compulsion to speak in the [police interrogation setting] may well be greater than in courts or other official investigations, where there are often impartial observers to guard against intimidation or trickery.” 384 U. S., at 461 (emphasis added).35 In addition, there can be no legitimate dispute that *354an incriminating statement obtained through custodial interrogation “is as revealing of leads” and other derivative evidence as a statement compelled before a judicial tribunal. Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U. S., at 103 (White, J., concurring). Accordingly, Miranda itself emphasized that, under the Fifth Amendment exclusionary rule, “no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against” the defendant unless he was warned of his rights and gave an effective waiver. 384 U. S., at 479 (emphasis added).36

For these reasons, the Fifth Amendment itself requires the exclusion of evidence proximately derived from a confession obtained in violation of Miranda. The Court today has altogether evaded this constitutional command, the application of which should not turn simply on whether one is “sympathetic” to suspects undergoing custodial interrogation.

C

Even if I accepted the Court’s conclusion that the Fifth Amendment does not command the suppression of evidence proximately derived from a Miranda violation, I would nevertheless dissent from the Court’s refusal to recognize the importance of deterring Miranda violations in appropriate circumstances. Just last Term, in United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897 (1984), the Court held that while the Fourth Amendment does not per se require the suppression of evidence derived from an unconstitutional search, the exclusionary rule must nevertheless be invoked where the search was objectively unreasonable. Id., at 919-920, n. 20. Although *355I do not share the Court’s view of the Fourth Amendment,37 Leon at least had the virtue of recognizing that exclusion of derivative evidence is essential to the effective deterrence of objectively unreasonable failures by the authorities to obey the law. Ibid.

The Court today refuses to apply the derivative-evidence rule even to the extent necessary to deter objectively unreasonable failures by the authorities to honor a suspect’s Miranda rights. Incredibly, faced with an obvious violation of Miranda, the Court asserts that it will not countenance suppression of a subsequent confession in such circumstances where the authorities have acted “legitimately]” and have not used “improper tactics.” Ante, at 312, 314. One can only respond: whither went Miranda?

The Court contends, however, that Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433 (1974), already decided that the failure of the authorities to obey Miranda should not be deterred by application of the derivative-evidence rule. Ante, at 308-309. Tucker did not so decide. After criticizing the Fifth Amendment basis for exclusion, the Court in Tucker went on to note another “ ‘prime purpose’ ” for the exclusion of evidence — “ ‘to deter future unlawful police conduct and thereby effectuate the guarantee^]’” of the Constitution. 417 U. S., at 446 (citation omitted). The Court emphasized that “[i]n a proper case this rationale would seem applicable to the Fifth Amendment context as well.” Id., at 447. Anticipating Leon, however, the Court asserted that the “deterrent purpose” was applicable only where “the police have engaged in willful, or at the very least negligent, conduct . . . .” 417 U. S, at 447. Because the questioning in Tucker occurred before Miranda was announced and was otherwise conducted in an objectively reasonable manner, the exclusion of the derivative evidence solely for failure to comply with the then-*356nonexistent Miranda requirement would not significantly deter future Miranda violations. As the Court noted, the “deterrence rationale loses much of its force” when there is nothing to deter. 417 U. S, at 447.

Far from rejecting the derivative-evidence rule, Tucker thus expressly invited its application in “a proper case” when the authorities have acted unreasonably. Ibid. Nearly every court and commentator considering the issue have correctly recognized that Tuckers logic and its reliance on the Fourth Amendment “good faith” analysis compel the exclusion of derivative evidence where the police have deliberately, recklessly, or negligently violated the Fifth Amendment requirement of warnings and an effective waiver.38

Thus the Court’s assertion today that Tucker's “reasoning applies with equal force” to preclude application of the derivative-evidence rule in this case is a gross mis-characterization. Ante, at 308. If the police acted in an objectively unreasonable manner, see Part II-D, infra, Tucker’s “reasoning” instead requires suppression of Elstad’s subsequent statement.

The Court clearly errs in suggesting that suppression of the “unwarned admission” alone will provide meaningful deterrence. Ante, at 309. The experience of lower courts demonstrates that the police frequently have refused to comply with Miranda precisely in order to obtain incriminating statements that will undermine the voluntariness of the accused’s decision to speak again once he has received the usual warnings; in such circumstances, subsequent confes*357sions often follow on a “silver platter.” Cagle v. State, 45 Ala. App., at 4, 221 So. 2d, at 120. See generally supra, at 329-332. Expert interrogators themselves recognize the direct connection between such statements. Supra, at 328-329. And the Court’s suggestion that its analysis might apply generally to “fruits” of illegal interrogations, but see n. 29, supra, blinks reality even further. For example, expert interrogators acknowledge that confessions are “‘the prime source of other evidence.’ ”39 If the police through illegal interrogation could discover contraband and be confident that the contraband “ordinarily” would not be suppressed, what possible incentive would they have to obey Miranda?

The Court simply has not confronted the basic premise of the derivative-evidence rule: that “[t]o forbid the direct use of methods . . . but to put no curb on their full indirect use would only invite the very methods deemed ‘inconsistent with ethical standards and destructive of personal liberty.’” Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S., at 340.

“[I]t is clear that if the police were permitted to utilize illegally obtained confessions for links and leads rather than being required to gather evidence independently, then the Miranda warnings would be of no value in protecting the privilege against self-incrimination. The requirement of a warning would be meaningless, for the police would be permitted to accomplish indirectly what they could not accomplish directly, and there would exist no incentive to warn.” Pitler, 56 Calif. L. Rev., supra n. 16, at 620.

*358As the Executive Director of the National District Attorneys Association Foundation emphasized shortly after Miranda, merely to exclude the statement itself while putting no curbs on the admission of derivative evidence “would destroy the whole basis for the rule in the first instance.” Nedrud, The New Fifth Amendment Concept: Self-Incrimination Redefined, 2 J. Nat. Dist. Att. Assn. Found. 112,114 (1966).40 Yet that is precisely the result that today’s disastrous opinion threatens to encourage. How can the Court possibly expect the authorities to obey Miranda when they have every incentive now to interrogate suspects without warnings or an effective waiver, knowing that the fruits of such interrogations “ordinarily” will be admitted, that an admissible subsequent confession “ordinarily” can be obtained simply by reciting the Miranda warnings shortly after the first has been procured and asking the accused to repeat himself, and that unless the accused can demonstrate otherwise his confession will be viewed as an “act of free will” in response to “legitimate law *359enforcement activity”? Ante, at 311, 312. By condoning such a result, the Court today encourages practices that threaten to reduce Miranda to a mere “form of words,” Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S., at 392, and it is shocking that the Court nevertheless disingenuously purports that it “in no way retreats” from the Miranda safeguards, ante, at 317.

D

Not content with its handiwork discussed above, the Court goes on and devotes considerable effort to suggesting that, “[u]nfortunately,” Miranda is such an inherently “slippery,” “murky,” and “difficult” concept that the authorities in general, and the police officer conducting the interrogation in this case in particular, cannot be faulted for failing to advise a suspect of his rights and to obtain an informed waiver. Ante, at 309, 316. Miranda will become “murky,” however, only because the Court’s opinion today threatens to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Although borderline cases occasionally have arisen respecting the concepts of “custody” and “interrogation,” until today there has been nothing “slippery,” “murky,” or “difficult” about Miranda in the overwhelming majority of cases. The whole point of the Court’s work in this area has been to prescribe “bright line” rules to give clear guidance to the authorities.41

Rather than acknowledge that the police in this case clearly broke the law, the Court bends over backwards to suggest why the officers may have been justified in failing to obey Miranda.

*360 First. The Court asserts that “[njeither the environment nor the manner of either ‘interrogation’ was coercive,” noting that the initial interrogation took place in Elstad’s “own home.” Ante, at 315. The Court also believes that, “[a]l-though in retrospect the officers testified that respondent was then in custody, at the time he made his statement he had not been informed that he was under arrest.” Ibid. There is no question, however, that Michael Elstad was in custody and “deprived of his freedom of action in [a] significant way” at the time he was interrogated. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S., at 444. Two police officers had entered his bedroom, ordered him to get out of bed and come with them, stood over him while he dressed, taken him downstairs, and separated him from his mother. Tr. 64-65, 74-75, 80-84. The officers themselves acknowledged that Elstad was then under arrest. Id., at 81-82. Moreover, we have made clear that police interrogation of an accused in custody triggers the Miranda safeguard even if he is in the “familiar surroundings” of his own home, precisely because he is no less “ ‘deprived of his freedom of action’ ” there than if he were at a police station. Orozco v. Texas, 394 U. S., at 326-327 (citation omitted).

Thus because Elstad was in custody, the circumstances of his interrogation were inherently coercive, and the Court once again flouts settled law in suggesting otherwise. “[WJithout proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S., at 467. The Fifth Amendment’s requirement of warnings and an informed waiver is “an absolute prerequisite in overcoming the inherent pressures of the interrogation atmosphere.” Id., at 468.

Second. Without anything in the record to support its speculation, the Court suggests that Officer Burke’s violation *361of Miranda “may have been the result of confusion as to whether the brief exchange qualified as ‘custodial interrogation’ . . . Ante, at 315. There was no confusion on this point until today. Burke made Elstad sit down and, standing over him, said “[y]ou know why we’re here,” asked if he knew the Gross family, and “asked what he knew about the burglary.” Tr. 83-84. This questioning obviously constituted interrogation because it was “reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response” from Elstad, as it did. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U. S. 291, 301 (1980).

Third. The Court contends that the interrogation might be excusable because “the brief stop in the living room before proceeding to the station house was not to interrogate the suspect but to notify his mother of the reason for his arrest.” Ante, at 315. Officer Burke’s partner did take Elstad’s mother into the kitchen to inform her of the charges, but Burke took Elstad into another room, sat him down, and interrogated him concerning “what he knew about the burglary.” Tr. 84. How can the Court possibly describe this interrogation as merely informing Elstad’s mother of his arrest?

Finally. The Court suggests that Burke’s violation of Elstad’s Fifth Amendment rights “may simply have reflected Burke’s reluctance to initiate an alarming police procedure before McAllister had spoken with respondent’s mother.” Ante, at 315-316. As the officers themselves acknowledged, however, the fact that they “[took] the young fellow out of bed” had “[ojbviously” already created “tension and stress” for the mother, Tr. 64, which surely was not lessened when she learned that her son was under arrest. And if Elstad’s mother was in earshot, as the Court assumes, it is difficult to perceive how listening to the Miranda warnings would be any more “alarming” to her than what she actually heard— actual interrogation of her son, including Burke’s direct accusation that the boy had committed a felony. Most importantly, an individual’s constitutional rights should not turn on *362whether his relatives might be upset. Surely there is no “tender feelings” exception to the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.42

I — I hH I — I

The Court’s decision today vividly reflects its impatience with the constitutional rights that the authorities attack as standing in the way of combating crime. But the States that adopted the Bill of Rights struck that balance and it is not for this Court to balance the Bill of Rights away on a cost/benefit scale “where the ‘costs’ of excluding illegally obtained evidence loom to exaggerated heights and where the ‘benefits’ of such exclusion are made to disappear with a mere wave of the hand.” United States v. Leon, 468 U. S., at 929 (Brennan, J., dissenting). It is precisely in that vein, however, that the Court emphasizes that the subsequent confession in this case was “voluntary” and “highly probative evidence,” that application of the derivative-evidence presumption would cause the confession to be “irretrievably lost,” and that such a result would come at an impermissibly “high cost to legitimate law enforcement activity.” Ante, at 312.

Failure of government to obey the law cannot ever constitute “legitimate law enforcement activity.” In any event, application of the derivative-evidence presumption does not *363“irretrievably” lead to suppression. If a subsequent confession is truly independent of earlier, illegally obtained confessions, nothing prevents its full use to secure the accused’s conviction. If the subsequent confession did result from the earlier illegalities, however, there is nothing “voluntary” about it. And even if a tainted subsequent confession is “highly probative,” we have never until today permitted probity to override the fact that the confession was “the product of constitutionally impermissible methods in [its] inducement.” Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U. S. 534, 541 (1961). In such circumstances, the Fifth Amendment makes clear that the prosecutor has no entitlement to use the confession in attempting to obtain the accused’s conviction.43

The lesson of today’s decision is that, at least for now, what the Court decrees are “legitimate” violations by authorities of the rights embodied in Miranda shall “ordinarily” go undeterred. It is but the latest of the escalating number of decisions that are making this tribunal increasingly irrelevant in the protection of individual rights, and that are requiring other tribunals to shoulder the burden.44 “There is hope, however, that in time this or some later Court will restore *364these precious freedoms to their rightful place as a primary protection for our citizens against overreaching officialdom.” United States v. Leon, supra, at 960 (Brennan, J., dissenting).

I dissent.

Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

The Court concludes its opinion with a carefully phrased statement of its holding:

“We hold today that a suspect who has once responded to unwarned yet uncoercive questioning is not thereby disabled from waiving his rights and confessing after he has been given the requisite Miranda warnings.” Ante, at 318.

I find nothing objectionable in such a holding. Moreover, because the Court expressly endorses the “bright-line rule of Miranda,” which conclusively presumes that incriminating statements obtained from a suspect in custody without administering the required warnings are the product of compulsion,1 and because the Court places so much emphasis on the special facts of this case, I am persuaded that the Court intends its holding to apply only to a narrow category of cases in which the initial questioning of the suspect was made in a totally uncoercive setting and in which the first confession obviously had no influence on the second.2 I nevertheless *365dissent because even such a narrowly confined exception is inconsistent with the Court’s prior cases, because the attempt to identify its boundaries in future cases will breed confusion and uncertainty in the administration of criminal justice, and because it denigrates the importance of one of the core constitutional rights that protects every American citizen from the kind of tyranny that has flourished in other societies.

I

The desire to achieve a just result in this particular case has produced an opinion that is somewhat opaque and internally inconsistent. If I read it correctly, its conclusion rests on two untenable premises: (1) that the respondent’s first confession was not the product of coercion;3 and (2) that no constitutional right was violated when respondent was questioned in a tranquil, domestic setting.4

*366Even before the decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), it had been recognized that police interrogation of a suspect who has been taken into custody is presumptively coercive. That presumption had its greatest force when the questioning occurred in a police station, when it was prolonged, and when there was evidence that the prisoner had suffered physical injury. To rebut the presumption, the prosecutor had the burden of proving the absence of any actual coercion.5 Because police officers are generally more credible witnesses than prisoners and because it is always difficult for triers of fact to disregard evidence of guilt when addressing a procedural question, more often than not the presumption of coercion afforded only slight protection to the accused.

The decision in Miranda v. Arizona clarified the law in three important respects. First, it provided the prosecutor with a simple method of overcoming the presumption of coercion.6 If the police interrogation is preceded by the warning specified in that opinion, the usual presumption does not attach. Second, it provided an important protection to the accused by making the presumption of coercion irrebuttable if the prescribed warnings are not given.7 Third, the decision *367made it clear that a self-incriminatory statement made in response to custodial interrogation was always to be considered “compelled” within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution if the interrogation had not been preceded by appropriate warnings.8 Thus the irrebuttable presumption of coercion that applies to such a self-incriminatory statement, like a finding of actual coercion, renders the resulting confession inadmissible as a matter of federal constitutional law.9

*368In my opinion, the Court’s attempt to fashion a distinction between actual coercion “by physical violence or other deliberate means calculated to break the suspect’s will,” ante, at 312, and irrebuttably presumed coercion cannot succeed. The presumption is only legitimate if it is assumed that there is always a coercive aspect to custodial interrogation that is not preceded by adequate advice of the constitutional right to remain silent. Although I would not support it, I could understand a rule that refused to apply the presumption unless the interrogation took place in an especially coercive setting — perhaps only in the police station itself — but if the presumption arises whenever the accused has been taken into custody or his freedom has been restrained in any significant way, it will surely be futile to try to develop subcategories of custodial interrogation.10 Indeed, a major purpose of treat-' ing the presumption of coercion as irrebuttable is to avoid the kind of fact-bound inquiry that today’s decision will surely engender.11

As I read the Court’s opinion, it expressly accepts the proposition that routine Miranda warnings will not be sufficient to overcome the presumption of coercion and thereby make a second confession admissible when an earlier confession is tainted by coercion “by physical violence or other *369deliberate means calculated to break the suspect’s will.”12 Even in such a case, however, it is not necessary to assume that the earlier confession will always “effectively immunize” a later voluntary confession. But surely the fact that an earlier confession was obtained by unlawful methods should add force to the presumption of coercion that attaches to subsequent custodial interrogation and should require the prosecutor to shoulder a heavier burder of rebuttal than in a routine case. Simple logic, as well as the interest in not providing an affirmative incentive to police misconduct, requires that result. I see no reason why the violation of a rule that is as well recognized and easily administered as the duty to give Miranda warnings should not also impose an additional burden on the prosecutor.13 If we are faithful to the holding in *370 Miranda itself, when we are considering the admissibility of evidence in the prosecutor’s case in chief, we should not try to fashion a distinction between police misconduct that warrants a finding of actual coercion and police misconduct that establishes an irrebuttable presumption of coercion.

H-I HH

For me, the most disturbing aspect of the Court’s opinion is its somewhat opaque characterization of the police misconduct in this case. The Court appears ambivalent on the question whether there was any constitutional violation.14 This ambivalence is either disingenuous or completely lawless. This Court’s power to require state courts to exclude probative self-incriminatory statements rests entirely on the premise that the use of such evidence violates the Federal Constitution.15 The same constitutional analysis applies *371whether the custodial interrogation is actually coercive or irrebuttably presumed to be coercive. If the Court does not accept that premise, it must regard the holding in the Miranda case itself, as well as all of the federal jurisprudence that has evolved from that decision, as nothing more than an illegitimate exercise of raw judicial power.16 , If the Court accepts the proposition that respondent’s self-incriminatory statement was inadmissible, it must also acknowledge that the Federal Constitution protected him from custodial police interrogation without first being advised of his right to remain silent.

The source of respondent’s constitutional protection is the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against compelled self-incrimination that is secured against state invasion by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Like many other provisions of the Bill of Rights, that provision is merely a procedural safeguard. It is, however, the specific provision that protects all citizens from the kind of custodial interrogation that was once employed by the Star Chamber,17 by “the Germans of the 1930’s and early 1940’s,” 18 and by some of our own police departments only a few decades ago.19 *372Custodial interrogation that violates that provision of the Bill of Rights is a classic example of a violation of a constitutional right.

I respectfully dissent.

Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

To enforce the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against "unreasonable searches and seizures," this Court has at times required courts to exclude evidence obtained by unconstitutional police conduct. But the Court has also held that, even when there is a Fourth Amendment violation, this exclusionary rule does not apply when the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent benefits. In some cases, for example, the link between the unconstitutional conduct and the discovery of the evidence is too attenuated to justify suppression. The question in this case is whether this attenuation doctrine applies when an officer makes an unconstitutional investigatory stop; learns during that stop that the suspect is subject to a valid arrest warrant; and proceeds to arrest the suspect and seize incriminating evidence during a search incident to that arrest. We hold that the evidence the officer seized as part of the search incident to arrest is admissible because the officer's discovery of the arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized incident to arrest.

I

This case began with an anonymous tip. In December 2006, someone called the South Salt Lake City police's drug-tip line to report "narcotics activity" at a particular residence. App. 15. Narcotics detective Douglas Fackrell investigated the tip. Over the course of about a week, Officer Fackrell conducted intermittent surveillance of the home. He observed visitors who left a few minutes after arriving at the house. These visits were sufficiently frequent to raise his suspicion that the occupants were dealing drugs.

*2060One of those visitors was respondent Edward Strieff. Officer Fackrell observed Strieff exit the house and walk toward a nearby convenience store. In the store's parking lot, Officer Fackrell detained Strieff, identified himself, and asked Strieff what he was doing at the residence.

As part of the stop, Officer Fackrell requested Strieff's identification, and Strieff produced his Utah identification card. Officer Fackrell relayed Strieff's information to a police dispatcher, who reported that Strieff had an outstanding arrest warrant for a traffic violation. Officer Fackrell then arrested Strieff pursuant to that warrant. When Officer Fackrell searched Strieff incident to the arrest, he discovered a baggie of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia.

The State charged Strieff with unlawful possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. Strieff moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the evidence was inadmissible because it was derived from an unlawful investigatory stop. At the suppression hearing, the prosecutor conceded that Officer Fackrell lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop but argued that the evidence should not be suppressed because the existence of a valid arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the discovery of the contraband.

The trial court agreed with the State and admitted the evidence. The court found that the short time between the illegal stop and the search weighed in favor of suppressing the evidence, but that two countervailing considerations made it admissible. First, the court considered the presence of a valid arrest warrant to be an " 'extraordinary intervening circumstance.' " App. to Pet. for Cert. 102 (quoting United States v. Simpson, 439 F.3d 490, 496 (C.A.8 2006) ). Second, the court stressed the absence of flagrant misconduct by Officer Fackrell, who was conducting a legitimate investigation of a suspected drug house.

Strieff conditionally pleaded guilty to reduced charges of attempted possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia, but reserved his right to appeal the trial court's denial of the suppression motion. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed. 2012 UT App ¶ 245, 286 P.3d 317.

The Utah Supreme Court reversed. 2015 UT ¶ 2, 357 P.3d 532. It held that the evidence was inadmissible because only "a voluntary act of a defendant's free will (as in a confession or consent to search)" sufficiently breaks the connection between an illegal search and the discovery of evidence. Id., at 536. Because Officer Fackrell's discovery of a valid arrest warrant did not fit this description, the court ordered the evidence suppressed. Ibid .

We granted certiorari to resolve disagreement about how the attenuation doctrine applies where an unconstitutional detention leads to the discovery of a valid arrest warrant. 576 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 27, 192 L.Ed.2d 997 (2015). Compare, e.g., United States v. Green, 111 F.3d 515, 522-523 (C.A.7 1997) (holding that discovery of the warrant is a dispositive intervening circumstance where police misconduct was not flagrant), with, e.g., State v. Moralez, 297 Kan. 397, 415, 300 P.3d 1090, 1102 (2013) (assigning little significance to the discovery of the warrant). We now reverse.

II

A

The Fourth Amendment protects "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." Because officers who violated the *2061Fourth Amendment were traditionally considered trespassers, individuals subject to unconstitutional searches or seizures historically enforced their rights through tort suits or self-help. Davies, Recovering the Original Fourth Amendment, 98 Mich. L. Rev. 547, 625 (1999). In the 20th century, however, the exclusionary rule-the rule that often requires trial courts to exclude unlawfully seized evidence in a criminal trial-became the principal judicial remedy to deter Fourth Amendment violations. See, e.g., Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961).

Under the Court's precedents, the exclusionary rule encompasses both the "primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure" and, relevant here, "evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality," the so-called " 'fruit of the poisonous tree.' " Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 804, 104 S.Ct. 3380, 82 L.Ed.2d 599 (1984). But the significant costs of this rule have led us to deem it "applicable only ... where its deterrence benefits outweigh its substantial social costs." Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 591, 126 S.Ct. 2159, 165 L.Ed.2d 56 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Suppression of evidence ... has always been our last resort, not our first impulse." Ibid.

We have accordingly recognized several exceptions to the rule. Three of these exceptions involve the causal relationship between the unconstitutional act and the discovery of evidence. First, the independent source doctrine allows trial courts to admit evidence obtained in an unlawful search if officers independently acquired it from a separate, independent source. See Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 537, 108 S.Ct. 2529, 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988). Second, the inevitable discovery doctrine allows for the admission of evidence that would have been discovered even without the unconstitutional source. See Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 443-444, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984). Third, and at issue here, is the attenuation doctrine: Evidence is admissible when the connection between unconstitutional police conduct and the evidence is remote or has been interrupted by some intervening circumstance, so that "the interest protected by the constitutional guarantee that has been violated would not be served by suppression of the evidence obtained." Hudson, supra, at 593, 126 S.Ct. 2159.

B

Turning to the application of the attenuation doctrine to this case, we first address a threshold question: whether this doctrine applies at all to a case like this, where the intervening circumstance that the State relies on is the discovery of a valid, pre-existing, and untainted arrest warrant. The Utah Supreme Court declined to apply the attenuation doctrine because it read our precedents as applying the doctrine only "to circumstances involving an independent act of a defendant's 'free will' in confessing to a crime or consenting to a search." 357 P.3d, at 544. In this Court, Strieff has not defended this argument, and we disagree with it, as well. The attenuation doctrine evaluates the causal link between the government's unlawful act and the discovery of evidence, which often has nothing to do with a defendant's actions. And the logic of our prior attenuation cases is not limited to independent acts by the defendant.

It remains for us to address whether the discovery of a valid arrest warrant was a sufficient intervening event to break the causal chain between the unlawful stop and the discovery of drug-related evidence on Strieff's person. The three factors articulated in *2062Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975), guide our analysis. First, we look to the "temporal proximity" between the unconstitutional conduct and the discovery of evidence to determine how closely the discovery of evidence followed the unconstitutional search. Id., at 603, 95 S.Ct. 2254. Second, we consider "the presence of intervening circumstances." Id., at 603-604, 95 S.Ct. 2254. Third, and "particularly" significant, we examine "the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct." Id., at 604, 95 S.Ct. 2254. In evaluating these factors, we assume without deciding (because the State conceded the point) that Officer Fackrell lacked reasonable suspicion to initially stop Strieff. And, because we ultimately conclude that the warrant breaks the causal chain, we also have no need to decide whether the warrant's existence alone would make the initial stop constitutional even if Officer Fackrell was unaware of its existence.

1

The first factor, temporal proximity between the initially unlawful stop and the search, favors suppressing the evidence. Our precedents have declined to find that this factor favors attenuation unless "substantial time" elapses between an unlawful act and when the evidence is obtained. Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626, 633, 123 S.Ct. 1843, 155 L.Ed.2d 814 (2003) (per curiam ). Here, however, Officer Fackrell discovered drug contraband on Strieff's person only minutes after the illegal stop. See App. 18-19. As the Court explained in Brown, such a short time interval counsels in favor of suppression; there, we found that the confession should be suppressed, relying in part on the "less than two hours" that separated the unconstitutional arrest and the confession. 422 U.S., at 604, 95 S.Ct. 2254.

In contrast, the second factor, the presence of intervening circumstances, strongly favors the State. In Segura, 468 U.S. 796, 104 S.Ct. 3380, 82 L.Ed.2d 599, the Court addressed similar facts to those here and found sufficient intervening circumstances to allow the admission of evidence. There, agents had probable cause to believe that apartment occupants were dealing cocaine. Id., at 799-800, 104 S.Ct. 3380. They sought a warrant. In the meantime, they entered the apartment, arrested an occupant, and discovered evidence of drug activity during a limited search for security reasons. Id., at 800-801, 104 S.Ct. 3380. The next evening, the Magistrate Judge issued the search warrant. Ibid. This Court deemed the evidence admissible notwithstanding the illegal search because the information supporting the warrant was "wholly unconnected with the [arguably illegal] entry and was known to the agents well before the initial entry." Id., at 814, 104 S.Ct. 3380.

Segura, of course, applied the independent source doctrine because the unlawful entry "did not contribute in any way to discovery of the evidence seized under the warrant." Id., at 815, 104 S.Ct. 3380. But the Segura Court suggested that the existence of a valid warrant favors finding that the connection between unlawful conduct and the discovery of evidence is "sufficiently attenuated to dissipate the taint." Ibid. That principle applies here.

In this case, the warrant was valid, it predated Officer Fackrell's investigation, and it was entirely unconnected with the stop. And once Officer Fackrell discovered the warrant, he had an obligation to arrest Strieff. "A warrant is a judicial mandate to an officer to conduct a search or make an arrest, and the officer has a sworn duty to carry out its provisions." United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 920, n. 21, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (internal quotation marks omitted). Officer *2063Fackrell's arrest of Strieff thus was a ministerial act that was independently compelled by the pre-existing warrant. And once Officer Fackrell was authorized to arrest Strieff, it was undisputedly lawful to search Strieff as an incident of his arrest to protect Officer Fackrell's safety. See Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 339, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009) (explaining the permissible scope of searches incident to arrest).

Finally, the third factor, "the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct," Brown, supra, at 604, 95 S.Ct. 2254, also strongly favors the State. The exclusionary rule exists to deter police misconduct. Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 236-237, 131 S.Ct. 2419, 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011). The third factor of the attenuation doctrine reflects that rationale by favoring exclusion only when the police misconduct is most in need of deterrence-that is, when it is purposeful or flagrant.

Officer Fackrell was at most negligent. In stopping Strieff, Officer Fackrell made two good-faith mistakes. First, he had not observed what time Strieff entered the suspected drug house, so he did not know how long Strieff had been there. Officer Fackrell thus lacked a sufficient basis to conclude that Strieff was a short-term visitor who may have been consummating a drug transaction. Second, because he lacked confirmation that Strieff was a short-term visitor, Officer Fackrell should have asked Strieff whether he would speak with him, instead of demanding that Strieff do so. Officer Fackrell's stated purpose was to "find out what was going on [in] the house." App. 17. Nothing prevented him from approaching Strieff simply to ask. See Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991) ("[A] seizure does not occur simply because a police officer approaches an individual and asks a few questions"). But these errors in judgment hardly rise to a purposeful or flagrant violation of Strieff's Fourth Amendment rights.

While Officer Fackrell's decision to initiate the stop was mistaken, his conduct thereafter was lawful. The officer's decision to run the warrant check was a "negligibly burdensome precautio[n]" for officer safety. Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. ----, ----, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 1616, 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015). And Officer Fackrell's actual search of Strieff was a lawful search incident to arrest. See Gant, supra, at 339, 129 S.Ct. 1710.

Moreover, there is no indication that this unlawful stop was part of any systemic or recurrent police misconduct. To the contrary, all the evidence suggests that the stop was an isolated instance of negligence that occurred in connection with a bona fide investigation of a suspected drug house. Officer Fackrell saw Strieff leave a suspected drug house. And his suspicion about the house was based on an anonymous tip and his personal observations.

Applying these factors, we hold that the evidence discovered on Strieff's person was admissible because the unlawful stop was sufficiently attenuated by the pre-existing arrest warrant. Although the illegal stop was close in time to Strieff's arrest, that consideration is outweighed by two factors supporting the State. The outstanding arrest warrant for Strieff's arrest is a critical intervening circumstance that is wholly independent of the illegal stop. The discovery of that warrant broke the causal chain between the unconstitutional stop and the discovery of evidence by compelling Officer Fackrell to arrest Strieff. And, it is especially significant that there is no evidence that Officer Fackrell's illegal stop reflected flagrantly unlawful police misconduct.

*20642

We find Strieff's counterarguments unpersuasive.

First, he argues that the attenuation doctrine should not apply because the officer's stop was purposeful and flagrant. He asserts that Officer Fackrell stopped him solely to fish for evidence of suspected wrongdoing. But Officer Fackrell sought information from Strieff to find out what was happening inside a house whose occupants were legitimately suspected of dealing drugs. This was not a suspicionless fishing expedition "in the hope that something would turn up." Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U.S. 687, 691, 102 S.Ct. 2664, 73 L.Ed.2d 314 (1982).

Strieff argues, moreover, that Officer Fackrell's conduct was flagrant because he detained Strieff without the necessary level of cause (here, reasonable suspicion). But that conflates the standard for an illegal stop with the standard for flagrancy. For the violation to be flagrant, more severe police misconduct is required than the mere absence of proper cause for the seizure. See, e.g., Kaupp, 538 U.S., at 628, 633, 123 S.Ct. 1843 (finding flagrant violation where a warrantless arrest was made in the arrestee's home after police were denied a warrant and at least some officers knew they lacked probable cause). Neither the officer's alleged purpose nor the flagrancy of the violation rise to a level of misconduct to warrant suppression.

Second, Strieff argues that, because of the prevalence of outstanding arrest warrants in many jurisdictions, police will engage in dragnet searches if the exclusionary rule is not applied. We think that this outcome is unlikely. Such wanton conduct would expose police to civil liability. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ; Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) ; see also Segura, 468 U.S., at 812, 104 S.Ct. 3380. And in any event, the Brown factors take account of the purpose and flagrancy of police misconduct. Were evidence of a dragnet search presented here, the application of the Brown factors could be different. But there is no evidence that the concerns that Strieff raises with the criminal justice system are present in South Salt Lake City, Utah.

* * *

We hold that the evidence Officer Fackrell seized as part of his search incident to arrest is admissible because his discovery of the arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized from Strieff incident to arrest. The judgment of the Utah Supreme Court, accordingly, is reversed.

It is so ordered.

Justice SOTOMAYOR, with whom Justice GINSBURG joins as to Parts I, II, and III, dissenting.

The Court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer's violation of your Fourth Amendment rights. Do not be soothed by the opinion's technical language: This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants-even if you are doing nothing wrong. If the officer discovers a warrant for a fine you forgot to pay, courts will now excuse his illegal stop and will admit into evidence anything he happens to find by searching you after arresting you on the warrant. Because the Fourth Amendment should prohibit, not permit, such misconduct, I dissent.

I

Minutes after Edward Strieff walked out of a South Salt Lake City home, an officer stopped him, questioned him, and took his *2065identification to run it through a police database. The officer did not suspect that Strieff had done anything wrong. Strieff just happened to be the first person to leave a house that the officer thought might contain "drug activity." App. 16-19.

As the State of Utah concedes, this stop was illegal. App. 24. The Fourth Amendment protects people from "unreasonable searches and seizures." An officer breaches that protection when he detains a pedestrian to check his license without any evidence that the person is engaged in a crime. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 663, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979) ; Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). The officer deepens the breach when he prolongs the detention just to fish further for evidence of wrongdoing. Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 1615-1616, 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015). In his search for lawbreaking, the officer in this case himself broke the law.

The officer learned that Strieff had a "small traffic warrant." App. 19. Pursuant to that warrant, he arrested Strieff and, conducting a search incident to the arrest, discovered methamphetamine in Strieff's pockets.

Utah charged Strieff with illegal drug possession. Before trial, Strieff argued that admitting the drugs into evidence would condone the officer's misbehavior. The methamphetamine, he reasoned, was the product of the officer's illegal stop. Admitting it would tell officers that unlawfully discovering even a "small traffic warrant" would give them license to search for evidence of unrelated offenses. The Utah Supreme Court unanimously agreed with Strieff. A majority of this Court now reverses.

II

It is tempting in a case like this, where illegal conduct by an officer uncovers illegal conduct by a civilian, to forgive the officer. After all, his instincts, although unconstitutional, were correct. But a basic principle lies at the heart of the Fourth Amendment: Two wrongs don't make a right. See Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 392, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914). When "lawless police conduct" uncovers evidence of lawless civilian conduct, this Court has long required later criminal trials to exclude the illegally obtained evidence. Terry, 392 U.S., at 12, 88 S.Ct. 1868 ; Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961). For example, if an officer breaks into a home and finds a forged check lying around, that check may not be used to prosecute the homeowner for bank fraud. We would describe the check as " 'fruit of the poisonous tree.' " Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). Fruit that must be cast aside includes not only evidence directly found by an illegal search but also evidence "come at by exploitation of that illegality." Ibid .

This "exclusionary rule" removes an incentive for officers to search us without proper justification. Terry, 392 U.S., at 12, 88 S.Ct. 1868. It also keeps courts from being "made party to lawless invasions of the constitutional rights of citizens by permitting unhindered governmental use of the fruits of such invasions." Id., at 13, 88 S.Ct. 1868. When courts admit only lawfully obtained evidence, they encourage "those who formulate law enforcement polices, and the officers who implement them, to incorporate Fourth Amendment ideals into their value system." Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 492, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976). But when courts admit illegally obtained evidence as well, they reward "manifest neglect if not an open defiance of the prohibitions of the *2066Constitution." Weeks, 232 U.S., at 394, 34 S.Ct. 341.

Applying the exclusionary rule, the Utah Supreme Court correctly decided that Strieff's drugs must be excluded because the officer exploited his illegal stop to discover them. The officer found the drugs only after learning of Strieff's traffic violation; and he learned of Strieff's traffic violation only because he unlawfully stopped Strieff to check his driver's license.

The court also correctly rejected the State's argument that the officer's discovery of a traffic warrant unspoiled the poisonous fruit. The State analogizes finding the warrant to one of our earlier decisions, Wong Sun v. United States . There, an officer illegally arrested a person who, days later, voluntarily returned to the station to confess to committing a crime. 371 U.S., at 491, 83 S.Ct. 407. Even though the person would not have confessed "but for the illegal actions of the police," id., at 488, 83 S.Ct. 407 we noted that the police did not exploit their illegal arrest to obtain the confession, id., at 491, 83 S.Ct. 407. Because the confession was obtained by "means sufficiently distinguishable" from the constitutional violation, we held that it could be admitted into evidence. Id., at 488, 491, 83 S.Ct. 407. The State contends that the search incident to the warrant-arrest here is similarly distinguishable from the illegal stop.

But Wong Sun explains why Strieff's drugs must be excluded. We reasoned that a Fourth Amendment violation may not color every investigation that follows but it certainly stains the actions of officers who exploit the infraction. We distinguished evidence obtained by innocuous means from evidence obtained by exploiting misconduct after considering a variety of factors: whether a long time passed, whether there were "intervening circumstances," and whether the purpose or flagrancy of the misconduct was "calculated" to procure the evidence. Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 603-604, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975).

These factors confirm that the officer in this case discovered Strieff's drugs by exploiting his own illegal conduct. The officer did not ask Strieff to volunteer his name only to find out, days later, that Strieff had a warrant against him. The officer illegally stopped Strieff and immediately ran a warrant check. The officer's discovery of a warrant was not some intervening surprise that he could not have anticipated. Utah lists over 180,000 misdemeanor warrants in its database, and at the time of the arrest, Salt Lake County had a "backlog of outstanding warrants" so large that it faced the "potential for civil liability." See Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014 (2015) (Systems Survey) (Table 5a), online at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/249799.pdf (all Internet materials as last visited June 16, 2016); Inst. for Law and Policy Planning, Salt Lake County Criminal Justice System Assessment 6.7 (2004), online at http://www.slco.org/cjac/resources/SaltLakeCJSAfinal.pdf. The officer's violation was also calculated to procure evidence. His sole reason for stopping Strieff, he acknowledged, was investigative-he wanted to discover whether drug activity was going on in the house Strieff had just exited. App. 17.

The warrant check, in other words, was not an "intervening circumstance" separating the stop from the search for drugs. It was part and parcel of the officer's illegal "expedition for evidence in the hope that something might turn up." Brown, 422 U.S., at 605, 95 S.Ct. 2254. Under our precedents, because the officer found Strieff's drugs by exploiting his own constitutional *2067violation, the drugs should be excluded.

III

A

The Court sees things differently. To the Court, the fact that a warrant gives an officer cause to arrest a person severs the connection between illegal policing and the resulting discovery of evidence. Ante, at 2062-2063. This is a remarkable proposition: The mere existence of a warrant not only gives an officer legal cause to arrest and search a person, it also forgives an officer who, with no knowledge of the warrant at all, unlawfully stops that person on a whim or hunch.

To explain its reasoning, the Court relies on Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 104 S.Ct. 3380, 82 L.Ed.2d 599 (1984). There, federal agents applied for a warrant to search an apartment but illegally entered the apartment to secure it before the judge issued the warrant. Id., at 800-801, 104 S.Ct. 3380. After receiving the warrant, the agents then searched the apartment for drugs. Id., at 801, 104 S.Ct. 3380. The question before us was what to do with the evidence the agents then discovered. We declined to suppress it because "[t]he illegal entry into petitioners' apartment did not contribute in any way to discovery of the evidence seized under the warrant." Id., at 815, 104 S.Ct. 3380.

According to the majority, Segura involves facts "similar" to this case and "suggest[s]" that a valid warrant will clean up whatever illegal conduct uncovered it. Ante, at 2062 - 2063. It is difficult to understand this interpretation. In Segura, the agents' illegal conduct in entering the apartment had nothing to do with their procurement of a search warrant. Here, the officer's illegal conduct in stopping Strieff was essential to his discovery of an arrest warrant. Segura would be similar only if the agents used information they illegally obtained from the apartment to procure a search warrant or discover an arrest warrant. Precisely because that was not the case, the Court admitted the untainted evidence. 468 U.S., at 814, 104 S.Ct. 3380.

The majority likewise misses the point when it calls the warrant check here a " 'negligibly burdensome precautio[n]' " taken for the officer's "safety." Ante, at 2063 (quoting Rodriguez, 575 U.S., at ----, 135 S.Ct., at 1615 ). Remember, the officer stopped Strieff without suspecting him of committing any crime. By his own account, the officer did not fear Strieff. Moreover, the safety rationale we discussed in Rodriguez, an opinion about highway patrols, is conspicuously absent here. A warrant check on a highway "ensur[es] that vehicles on the road are operated safely and responsibly." Id., at ----, 135 S.Ct., at 1615. We allow such checks during legal traffic stops because the legitimacy of a person's driver's license has a "close connection to roadway safety." Id., at ----, 135 S.Ct., at 1615. A warrant check of a pedestrian on a sidewalk, "by contrast, is a measure aimed at 'detect[ing] evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing.' " Ibid. (quoting Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 40-41, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000) ). Surely we would not allow officers to warrant-check random joggers, dog walkers, and lemonade vendors just to ensure they pose no threat to anyone else.

The majority also posits that the officer could not have exploited his illegal conduct because he did not violate the Fourth Amendment on purpose. Rather, he made "good-faith mistakes." Ante, at 2063. Never mind that the officer's sole purpose was to fish for evidence. The majority casts his unconstitutional actions as "negligent"

*2068and therefore incapable of being deterred by the exclusionary rule. Ibid.

But the Fourth Amendment does not tolerate an officer's unreasonable searches and seizures just because he did not know any better. Even officers prone to negligence can learn from courts that exclude illegally obtained evidence. Stone, 428 U.S., at 492, 96 S.Ct. 3037. Indeed, they are perhaps the most in need of the education, whether by the judge's opinion, the prosecutor's future guidance, or an updated manual on criminal procedure. If the officers are in doubt about what the law requires, exclusion gives them an "incentive to err on the side of constitutional behavior." United States v. Johnson, 457 U.S. 537, 561, 102 S.Ct. 2579, 73 L.Ed.2d 202 (1982).

B

Most striking about the Court's opinion is its insistence that the event here was "isolated," with "no indication that this unlawful stop was part of any systemic or recurrent police misconduct." Ante, at 2063. Respectfully, nothing about this case is isolated.

Outstanding warrants are surprisingly common. When a person with a traffic ticket misses a fine payment or court appearance, a court will issue a warrant. See, e.g., Brennan Center for Justice, Criminal Justice Debt 23 (2010), online at https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Fees% 20and% 20Fines% 20FINAL.pdf. When a person on probation drinks alcohol or breaks curfew, a court will issue a warrant. See, e.g., Human Rights Watch, Profiting from Probation 1, 51 (2014), online at https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/02/05/profiting-probation/americas-offender-funded-probation-industry. The States and Federal Government maintain databases with over 7.8 million outstanding warrants, the vast majority of which appear to be for minor offenses. See Systems Survey (Table 5a). Even these sources may not track the "staggering" numbers of warrants, " 'drawers and drawers' " full, that many cities issue for traffic violations and ordinance infractions. Dept. of Justice, Civil Rights Div., Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department 47, 55 (2015) (Ferguson Report), online at https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf. The county in this case has had a "backlog" of such warrants. See supra, at 2066. The Department of Justice recently reported that in the town of Ferguson, Missouri, with a population of 21,000, 16,000 people had outstanding warrants against them. Ferguson Report, at 6, 55.

Justice Department investigations across the country have illustrated how these astounding numbers of warrants can be used by police to stop people without cause. In a single year in New Orleans, officers "made nearly 60,000 arrests, of which about 20,000 were of people with outstanding traffic or misdemeanor warrants from neighboring parishes for such infractions as unpaid tickets." Dept. of Justice, Civil Rights Div., Investigation of the New Orleans Police Department 29 (2011), online at https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/03/17/nopd_report.pdf. In the St. Louis metropolitan area, officers "routinely" stop people-on the street, at bus stops, or even in court-for no reason other than "an officer's desire to check whether the subject had a municipal arrest warrant pending." Ferguson Report, at 49, 57. In Newark, New Jersey, officers stopped 52,235 pedestrians within a 4-year period and ran warrant checks on 39,308 of them. Dept. of Justice, Civil Rights Div., Investigation of the Newark Police Department 8, 19, n. 15 *2069(2014), online at https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2014/07/22/newark_ findings_7-22-14.pdf. The Justice Department analyzed these warrant-checked stops and reported that "approximately 93% of the stops would have been considered unsupported by articulated reasonable suspicion." Id., at 9, n. 7.

I do not doubt that most officers act in "good faith" and do not set out to break the law. That does not mean these stops are "isolated instance[s] of negligence," however. Ante, at 2063. Many are the product of institutionalized training procedures. The New York City Police Department long trained officers to, in the words of a District Judge, "stop and question first, develop reasonable suspicion later." Ligon v. New York, 925 F.Supp.2d 478, 537-538 (S.D.N.Y.), stay granted on other grounds, 736 F.3d 118 (C.A.2 2013). The Utah Supreme Court described as " 'routine procedure' or 'common practice' " the decision of Salt Lake City police officers to run warrant checks on pedestrians they detained without reasonable suspicion. State v. Topanotes, 2003 UT 30, ¶ 2, 76 P.3d 1159, 1160. In the related context of traffic stops, one widely followed police manual instructs officers looking for drugs to "run at least a warrants check on all drivers you stop. Statistically, narcotics offenders are ... more likely to fail to appear on simple citations, such as traffic or trespass violations, leading to the issuance of bench warrants. Discovery of an outstanding warrant gives you cause for an immediate custodial arrest and search of the suspect." C. Remsberg, Tactics for Criminal Patrol 205-206 (1995); C. Epp et al., Pulled Over 23, 33-36 (2014).

The majority does not suggest what makes this case "isolated" from these and countless other examples. Nor does it offer guidance for how a defendant can prove that his arrest was the result of "widespread" misconduct. Surely it should not take a federal investigation of Salt Lake County before the Court would protect someone in Strieff's position.

IV

Writing only for myself, and drawing on my professional experiences, I would add that unlawful "stops" have severe consequences much greater than the inconvenience suggested by the name. This Court has given officers an array of instruments to probe and examine you. When we condone officers' use of these devices without adequate cause, we give them reason to target pedestrians in an arbitrary manner. We also risk treating members of our communities as second-class citizens.

Although many Americans have been stopped for speeding or jaywalking, few may realize how degrading a stop can be when the officer is looking for more. This Court has allowed an officer to stop you for whatever reason he wants-so long as he can point to a pretextual justification after the fact. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996). That justification must provide specific reasons why the officer suspected you were breaking the law, Terry, 392 U.S., at 21, 88 S.Ct. 1868 but it may factor in your ethnicity, United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 886-887, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975), where you live, Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 147, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972), what you were wearing, United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 4-5, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989), and how you behaved, Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124-125, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000). The officer does not even need to know which law you might have broken so long as he can later point to any possible infraction-even one that is minor, unrelated, or ambiguous. Devenpeck v. Alford, *2070543 U.S. 146, 154-155, 125 S.Ct. 588, 160 L.Ed.2d 537 (2004) ; Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 530, 190 L.Ed.2d 475 (2014).

The indignity of the stop is not limited to an officer telling you that you look like a criminal. See Epp, Pulled Over, at 5. The officer may next ask for your "consent" to inspect your bag or purse without telling you that you can decline. See Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 438, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991). Regardless of your answer, he may order you to stand "helpless, perhaps facing a wall with [your] hands raised." Terry, 392 U.S., at 17, 88 S.Ct. 1868. If the officer thinks you might be dangerous, he may then "frisk" you for weapons. This involves more than just a pat down. As onlookers pass by, the officer may " 'feel with sensitive fingers every portion of [your] body. A thorough search [may] be made of [your] arms and armpits, waistline and back, the groin and area about the testicles, and entire surface of the legs down to the feet.' " Id., at 17, n. 13, 88 S.Ct. 1868.

The officer's control over you does not end with the stop. If the officer chooses, he may handcuff you and take you to jail for doing nothing more than speeding, jaywalking, or "driving [your] pickup truck ... with [your] 3-year-old son and 5-year-old daughter ... without [your] seatbelt fastened." Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 323-324, 121 S.Ct. 1536, 149 L.Ed.2d 549 (2001). At the jail, he can fingerprint you, swab DNA from the inside of your mouth, and force you to "shower with a delousing agent" while you "lift [your] tongue, hold out [your] arms, turn around, and lift [your] genitals." Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, 566 U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 132 S.Ct. 1510, 1514, 182 L.Ed.2d 566 (2012) ; Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. ----, ----, 133 S.Ct. 1958, 1980, 186 L.Ed.2d 1 (2013). Even if you are innocent, you will now join the 65 million Americans with an arrest record and experience the "civil death" of discrimination by employers, landlords, and whoever else conducts a background check. Chin, The New Civil Death, 160 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1789, 1805 (2012) ; see J. Jacobs, The Eternal Criminal Record 33-51 (2015); Young & Petersilia, Keeping Track, 129 Harv. L. Rev. 1318, 1341-1357 (2016). And, of course, if you fail to pay bail or appear for court, a judge will issue a warrant to render you "arrestable on sight" in the future. A. Goffman, On the Run 196 (2014).

This case involves a suspicionless stop, one in which the officer initiated this chain of events without justification. As the Justice Department notes, supra, at 2068 - 2069, many innocent people are subjected to the humiliations of these unconstitutional searches. The white defendant in this case shows that anyone's dignity can be violated in this manner. See M. Gottschalk, Caught 119-138 (2015). But it is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny. See M. Alexander, The New Jim Crow 95-136 (2010). For generations, black and brown parents have given their children "the talk"-instructing them never to run down the street; always keep your hands where they can be seen; do not even think of talking back to a stranger-all out of fear of how an officer with a gun will react to them. See, e.g., W.E.B. Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk (1903); J. Baldwin, The Fire Next Time (1963); T. Coates, Between the World and Me (2015).

By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. It says that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights. It *2071implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged.

We must not pretend that the countless people who are routinely targeted by police are "isolated." They are the canaries in the coal mine whose deaths, civil and literal, warn us that no one can breathe in this atmosphere. See L. Guinier & G. Torres, The Miner's Canary 274-283 (2002). They are the ones who recognize that unlawful police stops corrode all our civil liberties and threaten all our lives. Until their voices matter too, our justice system will continue to be anything but.

* * *

I dissent.

Justice KAGAN, with whom Justice GINSBURG joins, dissenting.

If a police officer stops a person on the street without reasonable suspicion, that seizure violates the Fourth Amendment. And if the officer pats down the unlawfully detained individual and finds drugs in his pocket, the State may not use the contraband as evidence in a criminal prosecution. That much is beyond dispute. The question here is whether the prohibition on admitting evidence dissolves if the officer discovers, after making the stop but before finding the drugs, that the person has an outstanding arrest warrant. Because that added wrinkle makes no difference under the Constitution, I respectfully dissent.

This Court has established a simple framework for determining whether to exclude evidence obtained through a Fourth Amendment violation: Suppression is necessary when, but only when, its societal benefits outweigh its costs. See ante, at 2060 - 2061; Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 237, 131 S.Ct. 2419, 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011). The exclusionary rule serves a crucial function-to deter unconstitutional police conduct. By barring the use of illegally obtained evidence, courts reduce the temptation for police officers to skirt the Fourth Amendment's requirements. See James v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 307, 319, 110 S.Ct. 648, 107 L.Ed.2d 676 (1990). But suppression of evidence also "exacts a heavy toll": Its consequence in many cases is to release a criminal without just punishment. Davis, 564 U.S., at 237, 131 S.Ct. 2419. Our decisions have thus endeavored to strike a sound balance between those two competing considerations-rejecting the "reflexive" impulse to exclude evidence every time an officer runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment, id., at 238, 131 S.Ct. 2419 but insisting on suppression when it will lead to "appreciable deterrence" of police misconduct, Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 141, 129 S.Ct. 695, 172 L.Ed.2d 496 (2009).

This case thus requires the Court to determine whether excluding the fruits of Officer Douglas Fackrell's unjustified stop of Edward Strieff would significantly deter police from committing similar constitutional violations in the future. And as the Court states, that inquiry turns on application of the "attenuation doctrine," ante, at 2061 - 2062-our effort to "mark the point" at which the discovery of evidence "become[s] so attenuated" from the police misconduct that the deterrent benefit of exclusion drops below its cost. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 911, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). Since Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 604-605, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975), three factors have guided that analysis. First, the closer the "temporal proximity" between the unlawful act and the discovery of evidence, the greater the deterrent value of suppression. Id., at 603, 95 S.Ct. 2254. Second, the more "purpose[ful]" or "flagran[t]" the police illegality, the clearer the necessity, and better the chance, of preventing similar misbehavior. Id., at 604, 95 S.Ct. 2254.

*2072And third, the presence (or absence) of "intervening circumstances" makes a difference: The stronger the causal chain between the misconduct and the evidence, the more exclusion will curb future constitutional violations. Id., at 603-604, 95 S.Ct. 2254. Here, as shown below, each of those considerations points toward suppression: Nothing in Fackrell's discovery of an outstanding warrant so attenuated the connection between his wrongful behavior and his detection of drugs as to diminish the exclusionary rule's deterrent benefits.

Start where the majority does: The temporal proximity factor, it forthrightly admits, "favors suppressing the evidence." Ante, at 2062. After all, Fackrell's discovery of drugs came just minutes after the unconstitutional stop. And in prior decisions, this Court has made clear that only the lapse of "substantial time" between the two could favor admission. Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626, 633, 123 S.Ct. 1843, 155 L.Ed.2d 814 (2003) (per curiam ); see, e.g., Brown, 422 U.S., at 604, 95 S.Ct. 2254 (suppressing a confession when "less than two hours" separated it from an unlawful arrest). So the State, by all accounts, takes strike one.

Move on to the purposefulness of Fackrell's conduct, where the majority is less willing to see a problem for what it is. The majority chalks up Fackrell's Fourth Amendment violation to a couple of innocent "mistakes." Ante, at 2063. But far from a Barney Fife-type mishap, Fackrell's seizure of Strieff was a calculated decision, taken with so little justification that the State has never tried to defend its legality. At the suppression hearing, Fackrell acknowledged that the stop was designed for investigatory purposes-i.e., to "find out what was going on [in] the house" he had been watching, and to figure out "what [Strieff] was doing there." App. 17-18. And Fackrell frankly admitted that he had no basis for his action except that Strieff "was coming out of the house." Id., at 17. Plug in Fackrell's and Strieff's names, substitute "stop" for "arrest" and "reasonable suspicion" for "probable cause," and this Court's decision in Brown perfectly describes this case:

"[I]t is not disputed that [Fackrell stopped Strieff] without [reasonable suspicion]. [He] later testified that [he] made the [stop] for the purpose of questioning [Strieff] as part of [his] investigation.... The illegality here ... had a quality of purposefulness. The impropriety of the [stop] was obvious. [A]wareness of that fact was virtually conceded by [Fackrell] when [he] repeatedly acknowledged, in [his] testimony, that the purpose of [his] action was 'for investigation': [Fackrell] embarked upon this expedition for evidence in the hope that something might turn up." 422 U.S., at 592, 605, 95 S.Ct. 2254 (some internal punctuation altered; footnote, citation, and paragraph break omitted).

In Brown, the Court held those facts to support suppression-and they do here as well. Swing and a miss for strike two.

Finally, consider whether any intervening circumstance "br[oke] the causal chain" between the stop and the evidence. Ante, at 2062. The notion of such a disrupting event comes from the tort law doctrine of proximate causation. See Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co., 553 U.S. 639, 658-659, 128 S.Ct. 2131, 170 L.Ed.2d 1012 (2008) (explaining that a party cannot "establish [ ] proximate cause" when "an intervening cause break[s] the chain of causation between" the act and the injury); Kerr, Good Faith, New Law, and the Scope of the Exclusionary Rule, 99 Geo. L. J. 1077, 1099 (2011) (Fourth Amendment attenuation analysis "looks to *2073whether the constitutional violation was the proximate cause of the discovery of the evidence"). And as in the tort context, a circumstance counts as intervening only when it is unforeseeable-not when it can be seen coming from miles away. See W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, B. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts 312 (5th ed. 1984). For rather than breaking the causal chain, predictable effects (e.g., X leads naturally to Y leads naturally to Z) are its very links.

And Fackrell's discovery of an arrest warrant-the only event the majority thinks intervened-was an eminently foreseeable consequence of stopping Strieff. As Fackrell testified, checking for outstanding warrants during a stop is the "normal" practice of South Salt Lake City police. App. 18; see also State v. Topanotes, 2003 UT 30, ¶ 2, 76 P.3d 1159, 1160 (describing a warrant check as "routine procedure" and "common practice" in Salt Lake City). In other words, the department's standard detention procedures-stop, ask for identification, run a check-are partly designed to find outstanding warrants. And find them they will, given the staggering number of such warrants on the books. See generally ante, at 2067 - 2068 (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting). To take just a few examples: The State of California has 2.5 million outstanding arrest warrants (a number corresponding to about 9% of its adult population); Pennsylvania (with a population of about 12.8 million) contributes 1.4 million more; and New York City (population 8.4 million) adds another 1.2 million. See Reply Brief 8; Associated Press, Pa. Database, NBC News (Apr. 8, 2007), online at http://goo.gl/3Yq3Nd (as last visited June 17, 2016); N.Y. Times, Oct. 8, 2015, p. A24.1 So outstanding warrants do not appear as bolts from the blue. They are the run-of-the-mill results of police stops-what officers look for when they run a routine check of a person's identification and what they know will turn up with fair regularity. In short, they are nothing like what intervening circumstances are supposed to be.2 Strike three.

The majority's misapplication of Brown 's three-part inquiry creates unfortunate incentives for the police-indeed, practically invites them to do what Fackrell did here. Consider an officer who, like Fackrell, wishes to stop someone for investigative reasons, but does not have what a court would view as reasonable suspicion. If the officer believes that any evidence he discovers will be inadmissible, he is likely to think the unlawful stop not worth making-precisely the deterrence *2074the exclusionary rule is meant to achieve. But when he is told of today's decision? Now the officer knows that the stop may well yield admissible evidence: So long as the target is one of the many millions of people in this country with an outstanding arrest warrant, anything the officer finds in a search is fair game for use in a criminal prosecution. The officer's incentive to violate the Constitution thus increases: From here on, he sees potential advantage in stopping individuals without reasonable suspicion-exactly the temptation the exclusionary rule is supposed to remove. Because the majority thus places Fourth Amendment protections at risk, I respectfully dissent.

*588Justice Scalia

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We address in this case the question whether a defendant’s incriminating statement to a jailhouse informant, concededly elicited in violation of Sixth Amendment strictures, is admissible at trial to impeach the defendant’s conflicting statement.

I

In the early hours of January 7,2004, after two days of no sleep and some drug use, Rhonda Theel and respondent Donnie Ray Ventris reached an ill-conceived agreement to confront Ernest Hicks in his home. The couple testified that the aim of the visit was simply to investigate rumors that Hicks abused children, but the couple may have been inspired by the potential for financial gain: Theel had recently learned that Hicks carried large amounts of cash.

The encounter did not end well. One or both of the pair shot and killed Hicks with shots from a .38-caliber revolver, and the companions drove off in Hicks’s truck with approximately $300 of his money and his cell phone. On receiving a tip from two friends of the couple who had helped transport them to Hicks's home, officers arrested Ventris and Theel and charged them with various crimes, chief among them murder and aggravated robbery. The State dropped the *589murder charge against Theel in exchange for her guilty plea to the robbery charge and her testimony identifying Ventris as the shooter.

Prior to trial, officers planted an informant in Ventris’s holding cell, instructing him to “keep [his] ear open and listen” for incriminating statements. App. 146. According to the informant, in response to his statement that Ventris appeared to have “something more serious weighing in on his mind,” Ventris divulged that “[h]e’d shot this man in his head and in his chest” and taken “his keys, his wallet, about $350.00, and ... a vehicle.” Id., at 154, 150.

At trial, Ventris took the stand and blamed the robbery and shooting entirely on Theel. The government sought to call the informant, to testify to Ventris’s prior contradictory statement; Ventris objected. The State conceded that there was “probably a violation” of Ventris’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel but nonetheless argued that the statement was admissible for impeachment purposes because the violation “doesn’t give the Defendant... a license to just get on the stand and lie.” Id., at 143. The trial court agreed and allowed the informant’s testimony, but instructed the jury to “consider with caution” all testimony given in exchange for benefits from the State. Id., at 30. The jury ultimately acquitted Ventris of felony murder and misdemeanor theft but returned a guilty verdict on the aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery counts.

The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that “[o]nce a criminal prosecution has commenced, the defendant’s statements made to an undercover informant surreptitiously acting as an agent for the State are not admissible at trial for any reason, including the impeachment of the defendant’s testimony.” 285 Kan. 595, 606, 176 P. 3d 920, 928 (2008). Chief Justice McFarland dissented, id., at 611, 176 P. 3d, at 930. We granted the State’s petition for certiorari, 554 U. S. 944 (2008).

*590II

The Sixth Amendment, applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . . have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” The core of this right has historically been, and remains today, “the opportunity for a defendant to consult with an attorney and to have him investigate the case and prepare a defense for trial.” Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U. S. 344, 348 (1990). We have held, however, that the right extends to having counsel present at various pretrial “critical” interactions between the defendant and the State, United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218, 224 (1967), including the deliberate elicitation by law enforcement officers (and their agents) of statements pertaining to the charge, Massiah v. United States, 377 U. S. 201, 206 (1964). The State has conceded throughout these proceedings that Ventris’s confession was taken in violation of Massiah’s dictates and was therefore not admissible in the prosecution’s case in chief. Without affirming that this concession was necessary, see Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U. S. 436, 459-460 (1986), we accept it as the law of the case. The only question we answer today is whether the State must bear the additional consequence of inability to counter Ventris’s contradictory testimony by placing the informant on the stand.

A

Whether otherwise excluded evidence can be admitted for purposes of impeachment depends upon the nature of the constitutional guarantee that is violated. Sometimes that explicitly mandates exclusion from trial, and sometimes it does not. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be compelled to give evidence against himself, and so is violated whenever a truly coerced confession is introduced at trial, whether by way of impeachment or otherwise. New Jersey v. Portash, 440 U. S. 450, 458-459 (1979). The Fourth *591Amendment, on the other hand, guarantees that no person shall be subjected to unreasonable searches or seizures, and says nothing about excluding their fruits from evidence; exclusion comes by way of deterrent sanction rather than to avoid violation of the substantive guarantee. Inadmissibility has not been automatic, therefore, but we have instead applied an exclusionary-rule balancing test. See Walder v. United States, 347 U. S. 62, 65 (1954). The same is true for violations of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment prophylactic rules forbidding certain pretrial police conduct. See Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222, 225-226 (1971); Harvey, supra, at 348-350.

Respondent argues that the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel is a “right an accused is to enjoy a[t] trial” Brief for Respondent 11. The core of the right to counsel is indeed a trial right, ensuring that the prosecution’s case is subjected to “the crucible of meaningful adversarial testing.” United States v. Cronic, 466 U. S. 648, 656 (1984). See also Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, 57-58 (1932). But our opinions under the Sixth Amendment, as under the Fifth, have held that the right covers pretrial interrogations to ensure that police manipulation does not render counsel entirely impotent — depriving the defendant of “‘effective representation by counsel at the only stage when legal aid and advice would help him.’ ” Massiah, supra, at 204 (quoting Spano v. New York, 360 U. S. 315, 326 (1959) (Douglas, J., concurring)). See also Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 468-469 (1966).

Our opinion in Massiah, to be sure, was equivocal on what precisely constituted the violation. It quoted various authorities indicating that the violation occurred at the moment of the postindictment interrogation because such questioning “‘contravenes the basic dictates of fairness in the conduct of criminal causes.’ ” 377 U. S., at 205 (quoting People v. Waterman, 9 N. Y. 2d 561, 565, 175 N. E. 2d 445, 448 (1961)). But the opinion later suggested that the violation *592occurred only when the improperly obtained evidence was “used against [the defendant] at his trial.” 377 U. S., at 206-207. That question was irrelevant to the decision in Massiah in any event. Now that we are confronted with the question, we conclude that the Massiah right is a right to be free of uncounseled interrogation, and is infringed at the time of the interrogation. That, we think, is when the “Assistance of Counsel” is denied.

It is illogical to say that the right is not violated until trial counsel’s task of opposing conviction has been undermined by the statement’s admission into evidence. A defendant is not denied counsel merely because the prosecution has been permitted to introduce evidence of guilt — even evidence so overwhelming that the attorney’s job of gaining an acquittal is rendered impossible. In such circumstances the accused continues to enjoy the assistance of counsel; the assistance is simply not worth much. The assistance of counsel has been denied, however, at the prior critical stage which produced, the inculpatory evidence. Our cases acknowledge that reality in holding that the stringency of the warnings necessary for a waiver of the assistance of counsel varies according to “the usefulness of counsel to the accused at the particular [pretrial] proceeding.” Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U. S. 285, 298 (1988). It is that deprivation which demands a remedy.

The United States insists that “post-charge deliberate elicitation of statements without the defendant's counsel or a valid waiver of counsel is not intrinsically unlawful.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 17, n. 4. That is true when the questioning is unrelated to charged crimes — the Sixth Amendment right is “offense specific,” McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U. S. 171, 175 (1991). We have never said, however, that officers may badger counseled defendants about charged crimes so long as they do not use information they gain. The constitutional violation occurs when the uncounseled interrogation is conducted.

*593B

This case does not involve, therefore, the prevention of a constitutional violation, but rather the scope of the remedy for a violation that has already occurred. Our precedents make clear that the game of excluding tainted evidence for impeachment purposes is not worth the candle. The interests safeguarded by such exclusion are “outweighed by the need to prevent perjury and to assure the integrity of the trial process.” Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465, 488 (1976). “It is one thing to say that the Government cannot make an affirmative use of evidence unlawfully obtained. It is quite another to say that the defendant can . . . provide himself with a shield against contradiction of his untruths.” Walder, supra, at 65. Once the defendant testifies in a way that contradicts prior statements, denying the prosecution use of “the traditional truth-testing devices of the adversary process,” Harris, supra, at 225, is a high price to pay for vindication of the right to counsel at the prior stage.

On the other side of the scale, preventing impeachment use of statements taken in violation of Massiah would add little appreciable deterrence. Officers have significant incentive to ensure that they and their informants comply with the Constitution’s demands, since statements lawfully obtained can be used for all purposes rather than simply for impeachment. And the ex ante probability that evidence gained in violation of Massiah would be of use for impeachment is exceedingly small. An investigator would have to anticipate both that the defendant would choose to testify at trial (an unusual occurrence to begin with) and that he would testify inconsistently despite the admissibility of his prior statement for impeachment. Not likely to happen — or at least not likely enough to risk squandering the opportunity of using a properly obtained statement for the prosecution’s case in chief.

In any event, even if “the officer may be said to have little to lose and perhaps something to gain by way of possibly *594uncovering impeachment material,” we have multiple times rejected the argument that this “speculative possibility” can trump the costs of allowing perjurious statements to go unchallenged. Oregon v. Hass, 420 U. S. 714, 723 (1975). We have held in every other context that tainted evidence — evidence whose very introduction does not constitute the constitutional violation, but whose obtaining was constitutionally invalid — is admissible for impeachment. See ibid.; Walder, 347 U. S., at 65; Harris, 401 U. S., at 226; Harvey, 494 U. S., at 348. We see no distinction that would alter the balance here.*

* * *

We hold that the informant’s testimony, concededly elicited in violation of the Sixth Amendment, was admissible to challenge Ventris’s inconsistent testimony at trial. The judgment of the Kansas Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, dissenting.

In Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U. S. 344 (1990), the Court held that a statement obtained from a defendant in violation *595of the Sixth Amendment could be used to impeach his testimony at trial. As I explained in a dissent joined by three other Members of the Court, that holding eroded the principle that “those who are entrusted with the power of government have the same duty to respect and obey the law as the ordinary citizen.” Id., at 369. It was my view then, as it is now, that “the Sixth Amendment is violated when the fruits of the State’s impermissible encounter with the represented defendant are used for impeachment just as it is when the fruits are used in the prosecutor’s case in chief.” Id., at 355.

In this case, the State has conceded that it violated the Sixth Amendment as interpreted in Massiah v. United States, 377 U. S. 201, 206 (1964), when it used a jailhouse informant to elicit a statement from the defendant. No Miranda warnings were given to the defendant,1 nor was he otherwise alerted to the fact that he was speaking to a state agent. Even though the jury apparently did not credit the informant’s testimony, the Kansas Supreme Court correctly concluded that the prosecution should not be allowed to exploit its pretrial constitutional violation during the trial itself. The Kansas court’s judgment should be affirmed.

This Court’s contrary holding relies on the view that a defendant’s pretrial right to counsel is merely “prophylactic” in nature. See ante, at 591. The majority argues that any violation of this prophylactic right occurs solely at the time the State subjects a counseled defendant to an uncounseled interrogation, not when the fruits of the encounter are used against the defendant at trial. Ante, at 592. This reasoning is deeply flawed.

The pretrial right to counsel is not ancillary to, or of lesser importance than, the right to rely on counsel at trial. The Sixth Amendment grants the right to counsel “[i]n all crimi*596nal prosecutions,” and we have long recognized that the right applies in periods before trial commences, see United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218, 224 (1967). We have never endorsed the notion that the pretrial right to counsel stands at the periphery of the Sixth Amendment. To the contrary, we have explained that the pretrial period is “perhaps the most critical period of the proceedings” during which a defendant “requires the guiding hand of counsel.” Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, 57, 69 (1932); see Maine v. Moulton, 474 U. S. 159, 176 (1985) (recognizing the defendant’s “right to rely on counsel as a ‘medium’ between him and the State” in all critical stages of prosecution). Placing the prophylactic label on a core Sixth Amendment right mischaraeterizes the sweep of the constitutional guarantee.

Treating the State’s actions in this case as a violation of a prophylactic right, the Court concludes that introducing the illegally obtained evidence at trial does not itself violate the Constitution. I strongly disagree. While the constitutional breach began at the time of interrogation, the State’s use of that evidence at trial compounded the violation. The logic that compels the exclusion of the evidence during the State’s case in chief extends to any attempt by the State to rely on the evidence, even for impeachment. The use of ill-gotten evidence during any phase of criminal prosecution does damage to the adversarial process — the fairness of which the Sixth Amendment was designed to protect. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 685 (1984); see also Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U. S. 269, 276 (1942) (“[The] procedural devices rooted in experience were written into the Bill of Rights not as abstract rubrics in an elegant code but in order to assure fairness and justice before any person could be deprived of ‘life, liberty or property’ ”).

When counsel is excluded from a critical pretrial interaction between the defendant and the State, she may be unable to effectively counter the potentially devastating, and poten*597tially false,2 evidence subsequently introduced at trial. Inexplicably, today’s Court reftises to recognize that this is a constitutional harm.3 Yet in Massiah, the Court forcefully explained that a defendant is “denied the basic protections of [the Sixth Amendment] guarantee when there [is] used against him at his trial evidence of his own incriminating words” that were “deliberately elicited from him after he had been indicted and in the absence of his counsel.” 377 U. S., at 206. Sadly, the majority has retreated from this robust understanding of the right to counsel.

Today’s decision is lamentable not only because of its flawed underpinnings, but also because it is another occasion in which the Court has privileged the prosecution at the expense of the Constitution. Permitting the State to cut corners in criminal proceedings taxes the legitimacy of the entire criminal process. “The State’s interest in truthseeking is congruent with the defendant’s interest in representation by counsel, for it is an elementary premise of our system of criminal justice ‘“that partisan advocacy on both sides of a case will best promote the ultimate objective that the guilty be convicted and the innocent go free.” ’ ” Harvey, 494 U. S., at 357 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (quoting United States v. Cronic, 466 U. S. 648, 655 (1984)). Although the Court may *598not be concerned with the use of ill-gotten evidence in derogation of the right to counsel, I remain convinced that such shabby tactics are intolerable in all cases. I respectfully dissent.