Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/542/630.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 04:59:46+00:00

Document:
After Officer Fox began to investigate respondent's apparent violation of a temporary restraining order, a federal agent told Fox's colleague, Detective Benner, that respondent, a convicted felon, illegally possessed a pistol. Officer Fox and Detective Benner proceeded to respondent's home, where Fox arrested him for violating the restraining order. Benner attempted to advise respondent of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, but respondent interrupted, asserting that he knew his rights. Benner then asked about the pistol and retrieved and seized it. Respondent was indicted for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(1). The District Court granted his motion to suppress the pistol, reasoning that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him, and declining to rule on his alternative argument that the gun should be suppressed as the fruit of an unwarned statement. The Tenth Circuit reversed the probable-cause ruling, but affirmed the suppression order on respondent's alternative theory. Rejecting the Government's argument that Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U. S. 298, and Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433, foreclosed application of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine of Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, 488, to the present context, the appeals court reasoned that Oregon and Tucker, which were based on the view that Miranda announced a prophylactic rule, were incompatible with Dickerson v. United States, 530 U. S. 428, 444, in which this Court held that Miranda announced a constitutional rule. The appeals court thus equated Dickerson's ruling with the proposition that a failure to warn pursuant to Miranda is itself a violation of the suspect's Fifth Amendment rights.
304 F. 3d 1013, reversed and remanded.
Justice Thomas, joined by The Chief Justice and Justice Scalia, concluded that a failure to give a suspect Miranda warnings does not require suppression of the physical fruits of the suspect's unwarned but voluntary statements. Pp. 4-12.
(a) The Miranda rule is a prophylactic employed to protect against violations of the Self-Incrimination Clause, U. S Const., Amdt. 5. That Clause's core protection 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. It cannot be violated by the introduction of nontestimonial evidence obtained as a result of voluntary statements. See, e.g., United States v. Hubbell, 530 U. S. 27, 34. The Court has recognized and applied several prophylactic rules designed to protect the core privilege against self-incrimination. For example, the Miranda rule creates a presumption of coercion in custodial interrogations, in the absence of specific warnings, that is generally irrebuttable for purposes of the prosecution's case in chief. E.g., 507 U. S. 680, 690-691, any further extension of one of them must be justified by its necessity for the protection of the actual right against compelled self-incrimination, e.g., Chavez, supra, at 778. Thus, uncompelled statements taken without Miranda warnings can be used to impeach a defendant's testimony at trial, see Elstad, supra, at 307-308, though the fruits of actually compelled testimony cannot, see New Jersey v. Portash, 440 U. S. 450, 458-459. A blanket rule requiring suppression of statements noncompliant with the Miranda rule could not be justified by reference to the "Fifth Amendment goal of assuring trustworthy evidence" or by any deterrence rationale, e.g., Elstad, 490 U. S. 386. Finally, nothing in Dickerson calls into question the Court's continued insistence on its close-fit requirement. Pp. 5-8.
(b) That a mere failure to give Miranda warnings does not, by itself, violate a suspect's constitutional rights or even the Miranda rule was evident in many of the Court's pre-Dickerson cases, see, e.g., Elstad, supra, at 308, and the Court has adhered to that view since Dickerson, see Chavez, supra, at 772-773. This follows from the nature of the "fundamental trial right" protected by the Self-Incrimination Clause, e.g., Withrow, supra, at 691, which the Miranda rule, in turn, protects. Thus, the police do not violate a suspect's constitutional rights (or the Miranda rule) by negligent or even deliberate failures to provide full Miranda warnings. Potential violations occur, if at all, only upon the admission of unwarned statements into evidence. And, at that point, the exclusion of such statements is a complete and sufficient remedy for any perceived Miranda violation. Chavez, supra, at 790. Unlike actual violations of the Self-Incrimination Clause, there is, with respect to mere failures to warn, nothing to deter and therefore no reason to apply Wong Sun's "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. It is not for this Court to impose its preferred police practices on either federal or state officials. Pp. 8-10.
(c) The Tenth Circuit erred in ruling that the taking of unwarned statements violates a suspect's constitutional rights. Dickerson's characterization of Miranda as a constitutional rule does not lessen the need to maintain the close-fit requirement. There is no such fit here. Introduction of the nontestimonial fruit of a voluntary statement, such as respondent's pistol, does not implicate the Clause. It presents no risk that a defendant's coerced statements (however defined) will be used against him at a criminal trial. In any case, the exclusion of unwarned statements is a complete and sufficient remedy for any perceived Miranda violation. E.g., Chavez, supra, at 790. Similarly, because police cannot violate the 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 below believed. The word "witness" in the constitutional text limits the Self-Incrimination Clause's scope to testimonial evidence. Hubbell, supra, at 34-35. And although the Court requires the exclusion of the physical fruit of actually coerced statements, 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. This Court declines to extend that presumption further. Pp. 10-12.
Justice Kennedy, joined by Justice O'Connor, concluded that it is unnecessary to decide whether the detective's failure to give Patane 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. In Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U. S. 298, New York v. Quarles, 467 U. S. 649, and Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222, evidence obtained following unwarned interrogations was held admissible based in large part on the Court's recognition that the concerns underlying the Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, rule must be accommodated to other objectives of the criminal justice system. Here, it is sufficient to note that the Government presents an even stronger case for admitting the evidence obtained as the result of Patane's unwarned statement than was presented in Elstad and Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433. Admission of nontestimonial physical fruits (the pistol here) does not run the risk of admitting into trial an accused's coerced incriminating statements against himself. In light of reliable physical evidence's important probative value, 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. Pp. 1-2.
Thomas, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia, J., joined. Kennedy, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which O'Connor, J., joined. Souter, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
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, 384 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.
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 closely 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: "I 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 v. 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, supra, 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 (CA1 2002)), explaining that "[d]eterrence 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).
lated 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 consistent with this opinion.
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, 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.
Similarly, 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 (opinion of Souter, J.) (requiring a " 'powerful showing' " before "expand[ing] ... 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 justified 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." Amdt. 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, 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 insistence that the closest possible fit be maintained between the Self-Incrimination Clause and any rule designed to protect it.
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, supra, at 772-773 (plurality opinion) (holding that a failure to read Miranda warnings did not violate the respondent's constitutional rights); 494 U. S. 259, 264 (1990)). See also Chavez, supra, 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").
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, 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.
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 strong 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, 538 U. S., 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.
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 system. 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 Patane'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 "[any]thing to deter" so long as the unwarned statements are not later introduced at trial. Ante, at 8-10.
The majority 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 In closing their eyes to the consequences of giving an evidentiary advantage to those who ignore Miranda, the majority 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.
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. I respectfully dissent.
For reasons similar to those set forth in Justice Souter's dissent and in my concurring opinion in Missouri v. Seibert, ante, at __, 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, courts would exclude physical evidence derived from unwarned questioning unless the failure to provide Miranda warnings was in good faith. See Seibert, ante, at __ (slip op., at 1) (Breyer, J., concurring); cf. ante, at 1, 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.
The Government concedes that respondent's answers to subsequent on-the-scene questioning are inadmissible at trial under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), despite the partial warning and respondent's assertions that he knew his rights.
The Court of Appeals also distinguished Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U. S. 298 (1985), on the ground that the second (and warned) confession at issue there was the product of the defendant's volition. 304 F. 3d, at 1019, 1021. For the reasons discussed below, we do not find this distinction relevant.
We acknowledge that there is language in some of the Court's post-Miranda decisions that might suggest that the Miranda rule operates as a direct constraint on police. See, e.g., Stansbury v. California, 511 U. S. 318, 322 (1994) (per curiam); Moran v. Burbine, 475 U. S. 412, 420 (1986) (stating that "Miranda imposed on the police an obligation to follow certain procedures"); cf. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U. S. 477, 485 (1981). But Miranda itself made clear that its focus was the admissibility of statements, see, e.g., 530 U. S. 428, 443-444 (2000) (equating the Miranda rule with the proposition that "unwarned statements may not be used as evidence in the prosecution's case in chief " (emphasis added)).
We reject respondent's invitation to apply the balancing test of Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338 (1939). Brief for Respondent 15-33. At issue in Nardone was the violation of a federal wiretap statute, and the Court employed an exclusionary rule to deter those violations. But, once again, there are no violations (statutory or constitutional) to deter here.
It is worth mentioning that the Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of our decision in Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U. S. 760 (2003).
While Fourth Amendment protections extend to "persons, houses, papers, and effects," the Self-Incrimination Clause prohibits only compelling a defendant to be "a witness against himself," Amdt. 5.
It is not clear whether the Government could have used legal processes actually to compel respondent to produce the Glock, though there is a reasonable argument that it could have. See, e.g., United States v. Hubbell, 530 U. S. 27, 42-45 (2000); Baltimore City Dept. of Social Servs. v. Bouknight, 493 U. S. 549, 554-556 (1990); Fisher v. United States, 425 U. S. 391 (1976); Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 302-303 (1967); Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, 761 (1966). But see Commonwealth v. Hughes, 380 Mass. 583, 404 N. E. 2d 1239 (1980); Goldsmith v. Superior Court, 152 Cal. App. 3d 76, 199 Cal. Rptr. 366 (1984). In light of this, it would be especially odd to exclude the Glock here.
In so saying, we are taking the legal issue as it comes to us, even though the facts give off the scent of a made-up case. If there was a Miranda failure, the most immediate reason was that Patane told the police to stop giving the warnings because he already knew his rights. There could easily be an analogy in this case to the bumbling mistake the police committed in Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U. S. 298 (1985). See Missouri v. Seibert, ante, at ___ (plurality opinion) (slip op., at 12-13).
To the extent that Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433 (1974) (admitting the testimony of a witness who was discovered because of an unwarned custodial interrogation), created another exception to Miranda, it is off the point here. In Tucker, we explicitly declined to lay down a broad rule about the fruits of unwarned statements. Instead, we "place[d] our holding on a narrower ground," relying principally on the fact that the interrogation occurred before Miranda was decided and was conducted in good faith according to constitutional standards governing at that time. 378 U. S. 478 (1964)).

References: v. 
 §922
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §922
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §2263
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.