Source: http://legaliq.com/Case/Illinois_V_Gates
Timestamp: 2018-01-19 17:42:26
Document Index: 434077951

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1257', '§ 1257', '§ 25', '§ 1257', '§ 1257', '§ 107', '§ 16', '§ 1983', '§ 60', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

Illinois v. Gates (462 U.S. 213, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527)
Case Name: Illinois v. Gates
Filed: June 08, 1983
Citations: 462 U.S. 213, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527, 1983 U.S. LEXIS 54
Docket #: 81-430
Respondents Lance and Susan Gates were indicted for violation of state drug laws after police officers, executing a search warrant, discovered marihuana and other contraband in their automobile and home. Prior to trial the Gateses moved to suppress evidence seized during this search. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of lower state courts granting the motion. 85 Ill. 2d 376, 423 N. E. 2d 887 (1981). It held that the affidavit submitted in support of the State's application for a warrant to search the Gateses' property *217 was inadequate under this Court's decisions in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108 (1964), and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 (1969).
We granted certiorari to consider the application of the Fourth Amendment to a magistrate's issuance of a search warrant on the basis of a partially corroborated anonymous informant's tip. 454 U. S. 1140 (1982). After receiving briefs and hearing oral argument on this question, however, we requested the parties to address an additional question:
"[W]hether the rule requiring the exclusion at a criminal trial of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961); Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383 (1914), should to any extent be modified, so as, for example, not to require the exclusion of evidence obtained in the reasonable belief that the search and seizure at issue was consistent with the Fourth Amendment." 459 U. S. 1028 (1982).
Our certiorari jurisdiction over decisions from state courts derives from 28 U. S. C. § 1257, which provides that "[f]inal judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court as follows: . . . (3) By writ of certiorari,. . . where any title, right, privilege or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the constitution, treaties or statutes *218 of . . . the United States." The provision derives, albeit with important alterations, see, e. g., Act of Dec. 23, 1914, ch. 2, 38 Stat. 790; Act of June 25, 1948, § 1257, 62 Stat. 929, from the Judiciary Act of 1789, § 25, 1 Stat. 85.
Finally, the Court seemed to reaffirm the jurisdictional character of the rule against our deciding claims "not pressed nor passed upon" in state court in State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Duel, 324 U. S. 154, 160 (1945), where we explained that "[s]ince the [State] Supreme Court did not pass on the question, we may not do so." See also Hill v. California, 401 U. S. 797, 805-806 (1971).
Notwithstanding these decisions, however, several of our more recent cases have treated the so-called "not pressed or passed upon below" rule as merely a prudential restriction. In Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1 (1949), the Court reversed a state criminal conviction on a ground not urged in state court, nor even in this Court. Likewise, in Vachon v. New Hampshire, 414 U. S. 478 (1974), the Court summarily reversed a state criminal conviction on the ground, not raised in state court, or here, that it had been obtained in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court indicated in a footnote, id., at 479, n. 3, that it possessed discretion to ignore the failure to raise in state court the question on which it decided the case.
In addition to this lack of clarity as to the character of the "not pressed or passed upon below" rule, we have recognized that it often may be unclear whether the particular federal question presented in this Court was raised or passed upon below. In Dewey v. Des Moines, 173 U. S. 193, 197-198 (1899), the fullest treatment of the subject, the Court said *220 that "[i]f the question were only an enlargement of the one mentioned in the assignment of errors, or if it were so connected with it in substance as to form but another ground or reason for alleging the invalidity of the [lower court's] judgment, we should have no hesitation in holding the assignment sufficient to permit the question to be now raised and argued. Parties are not confined here to the same arguments which were advanced in the courts below upon a Federal question there discussed."[2] We have not attempted, and likely would not have been able, to draw a clear-cut line between cases involving only an "enlargement" of questions presented below and those involving entirely new questions.
We have identified several purposes underlying the "not pressed or passed upon" rule: for the most part, these are as applicable to the State's failure to have opposed the assertion of a particular federal right, as to a party's failure to have asserted the claim. First, "[q]uestions not raised below are those on which the record is very likely to be inadequate since it certainly was not complied with those questions in mind." Cardinale v. Louisiana, 394 U. S. 437, 439 (1969). Exactly the same difficulty exists when the State urges modification of an existing constitutional right or accompanying remedy. Here, for example, the record contains little, if anything, regarding the subjective good faith of the police officers that searched the Gateses' property  which might well be an important consideration in determining whether to fashion a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Our consideration of whether to modify the exclusionary rule plainly would benefit from a record containing such facts.
Likewise, "due regard for the appropriate relationship of this court to state courts," McGoldrick v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 309 U. S., at 434-435, demands that those courts be given an opportunity to consider the constitutionality of the actions of state officials, and, equally important, proposed changes in existing remedies for unconstitutional *222 actions. Finally, by requiring that the State first argue to the state courts that the federal exclusionary rule should be modified, we permit a state court, even if it agrees with the State as a matter of federal law, to rest its decision on an adequate and independent state ground. See Cardinale, supra, at 439. Illinois, for example, adopted an exclusionary rule as early as 1923, see People v. Brocamp, 307 Ill. 448, 138 N. E. 728 (1923), and might adhere to its view even if it thought we would conclude that the federal rule should be modified. In short, the reasons supporting our refusal to hear federal claims not raised in state court apply with equal force to the State's failure to challenge the availability of a well-settled federal remedy. Whether the "not pressed or passed upon below" rule is jurisdictional, as our earlier decisions indicate, see supra, at 217-219, or prudential, as several of our later decisions assume, or whether its character might be different in cases like this from its character elsewhere, we need not decide. Whatever the character of the rule may be, consideration of the question presented in our order of November 29, 1982, would be contrary to the sound justifications for the "not pressed or passed upon below" rule, and we thus decide not to pass on the issue.
The fact that the Illinois courts affirmatively applied the federal exclusionary rule  suppressing evidence against respondents  does not affect our conclusion. In Morrison v. Watson, 154 U. S. 111 (1894), the Court was asked to consider whether a state statute impaired the plaintiff in error's contract with the defendant in error. It declined to hear the case because the question presented here had not been pressed or passed on below. The Court acknowledged that the lower court's opinion had restated the conclusion, set forth in an earlier decision of that court, that the state statute did not impermissibly impair contractual obligations. Nonetheless, it held that there was no showing that "there was any real contest at any stage of this case upon the point," id., at 115, and that without such a contest, the routine restatement *223 and application of settled law by an appellate court did not satisfy the "not pressed or passed upon below" rule. Similarly, in the present case, although the Illinois courts applied the federal exclusionary rule, there was never "any real contest" upon the point. The application of the exclusionary rule was merely a routine act, once a violation of the Fourth Amendment had been found, and not the considered judgment of the Illinois courts on the question whether application of a modified rule would be warranted on the facts of this case. In such circumstances, absent the adversarial dispute necessary to apprise the state court of the arguments for not applying the exclusionary rule, we will not consider the question whether the exclusionary rule should be modified.
Likewise, we do not believe that the State's repeated opposition to respondents' substantive Fourth Amendment claims suffices to have raised the question whether the exclusionary rule should be modified. The exclusionary rule is "a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally" and not "a personal constitutional right of the party aggrieved." United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338, 348 (1974). The question whether the exclusionary rule's remedy is appropriate in a particular context has long been regarded as an issue separate from the question whether the Fourth Amendment rights of the party seeking to invoke the rule were violated by police conduct. See, e. g., United States v. Havens, 446 U. S. 620 (1980); United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U. S. 268 (1978); United States v. Calandra, supra; Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465 (1976). Because of this distinction, we cannot say that modification or abolition of the exclusionary rule is "so connected with [the substantive Fourth Amendment right at issue] as to form but another ground or reason for alleging the invalidity" of the judgment. Dewey v. Des Moines, 173 U. S., at 197-198. Rather, the rule's modification was, for purposes of the "not pressed or passed upon below" rule, a separate claim that had to be specifically presented to the state courts.
*224 Finally, weighty prudential considerations militate against our considering the question presented in our order of November 29, 1982. The extent of the continued vitality of the rules that have developed from our decisions in Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383 (1914), and Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961), is an issue of unusual significance. Sufficient evidence of this lies just in the comments on the issue that Members of this Court recently have made, e. g., Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, 415 (1971) (BURGER, C. J., dissenting); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 490 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring); id., at 502 (Black, J., dissenting); Stone v. Powell, supra, at 537-539 (WHITE, J., dissenting); Brewer v. Williams, 430 U. S. 387, 413-414 (1977) (POWELL, J., concurring); Robbins v. California, 453 U. S. 420, 437, 443-444 (1981) (REHNQUIST, J., dissenting). Where difficult issues of great public importance are involved, there are strong reasons to adhere scrupulously to the customary limitations on our discretion. By doing so we "promote respect . . . for the Court's adjudicatory process [and] the stability of [our] decisions." Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S., at 677 (Harlan, J., dissenting). Moreover, fidelity to the rule guarantees that a factual record will be available to us, thereby discouraging the framing of broad rules, seemingly sensible on one set of facts, which may prove ill-considered in other circumstances. In Justice Harlan's words, adherence to the rule lessens the threat of "untoward practical ramifications," id., at 676 (dissenting opinion), not foreseen at the time of decision. The public importance of our decisions in Weeks and Mapp and the emotions engendered by the debate surrounding these decisions counsel that we meticulously observe our customary procedural rules. By following this course, we promote respect for the procedures by which our decisions are rendered, as well as confidence in the stability of prior decisions. A wise exercise of the powers confided in this Court dictates that we reserve for another day the question whether the exclusionary rule should be modified.
The Illinois Supreme Court concluded  and we are inclined to agree  that, standing alone, the anonymous letter sent to the Bloomingdale Police Department would not provide the basis for a magistrate's determination that there was probable cause to believe contraband would be found in the Gateses' car and home. The letter provides virtually nothing from which one might conclude that its author is either honest or his information reliable; likewise, the letter gives absolutely no indication of the basis for the writer's predictions regarding the Gateses' criminal activities. Something more was required, then, before a magistrate could conclude that there was probable cause to believe that contraband would be found in the Gateses' home and car. See Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S., at 109, n. 1; Nathanson v. United States, 290 U. S. 41 (1933).
The Illinois Supreme Court also properly recognized that Detective Mader's affidavit might be capable of supplementing *228 the anonymous letter with information sufficient to permit a determination of probable cause. See Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U. S. 560, 567 (1971). In holding that the affidavit in fact did not contain sufficient additional information to sustain a determination of probable cause, the Illinois court applied a "two-pronged test," derived from our decision in Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 (1969).[3] The Illinois Supreme Court, like some others, apparently understood Spinelli as requiring that the anonymous letter satisfy each of two independent requirements before it could be relied on. 85 Ill. 2d, at 383, 423 N. E. 2d, at 890. According to this view, the letter, as supplemented by Mader's affidavit, first had to adequately reveal the "basis of knowledge" of the letterwriter  the particular means by which he came by the information given in his report. Second, it had to provide *229 facts sufficiently establishing either the "veracity" of the affiant's informant, or, alternatively, the "reliability" of the informant's report in this particular case.
The Illinois court, alluding to an elaborate set of legal rules that have developed among various lower courts to enforce the "two-pronged test,"[4] found that the test had not been satisfied. First, the "veracity" prong was not satisfied because, "[t]here was simply no basis [for] conclud[ing] that the anonymous person [who wrote the letter to the Bloomingdale Police Department] was credible." Id., at 385, 423 N. E. 2d, at 891. The court indicated that corroboration by police of details contained in the letter might never satisfy the "veracity" prong, and in any event, could not do so if, as in the present case, only "innocent" details are corroborated. Id., at 390, 423 N. E. 2d, at 893. In addition, the letter gave no indication of the basis of its writer's knowledge of the *230 Gateses' activities. The Illinois court understood Spinelli as permitting the detail contained in a tip to be used to infer that the informant had a reliable basis for his statements, but it thought that the anonymous letter failed to provide sufficient detail to permit such an inference. Thus, it concluded that no showing of probable cause had been made.
This totality-of-the-circumstances approach is far more consistent with our prior treatment of probable cause[6] than *231 is any rigid demand that specific "tests" be satisfied by every informant's tip. Perhaps the central teaching of our decisions bearing on the probable-cause standard is that it is a "practical, nontechnical conception." Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 176 (1949). "In dealing with probable cause, . . . as the very name implies, we deal with probabilities. These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.' Id., at 175. Our observation in United States v. Cortez, 449 U. S. 411, 418 (1981), regarding "particularized suspicion," is also applicable to the probable-cause standard:
As these comments illustrate, probable cause is a fluid concept  turning on the assessment of probabilities in particular factual contexts  not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules. Informants' tips doubtless come in many shapes and sizes from many different types of persons. As we said in Adams v. Williams, 407 U. S. 143, 147 (1972): "Informants' tips, like all other clues and evidence coming to a policeman on the scene, may vary greatly in their value and reliability." Rigid legal rules are ill-suited to an area of such diversity. "One simple rule will not cover every situation." Ibid.[7]
*233 Moreover, the "two-pronged test" directs analysis into two largely independent channels  the informant's "veracity' or "reliability" and his "basis of knowledge." See nn. 4 and 5, supra. There are persuasive arguments against according these two elements such independent status. Instead, they are better understood as relevant considerations in the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis that traditionally has guided probable-cause determinations: a deficiency in one may be compensated for, in determining the overall reliability of a tip, by a strong showing as to the other, or by some other indicia of reliability. See, e. g., Adams v. Williams, supra, at 146-147; United States v. Harris, 403 U. S. 573 (1971).
If, for example, a particular informant is known for the unusual reliability of his predictions of certain types of criminal activities in a locality, his failure, in a particular case, to thoroughly set forth the basis of his knowledge surely should not serve as an absolute bar to a finding of probable cause based on his tip. See United States v. Sellers, 483 F. 2d 37 (CA5 1973).[8] Likewise, if an unquestionably honest citizen comes forward with a report of criminal activity  which if fabricated would subject him to criminal liability  we have found *234 rigorous scrutiny of the basis of his knowledge unnecessary. Adams v. Williams, supra. Conversely, even if we entertain some doubt as to an informant's motives, his explicit and detailed description of alleged wrongdoing, along with a statement that the event was observed firsthand, entitles his tip to greater weight than might otherwise be the case. Unlike a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis, which permits a balanced assessment of the relative weights of all the various indicia of reliability (and unreliability) attending an informant's tip, the "two-pronged test" has encouraged an excessively technical dissection of informants' tips,[9] with undue attention *235 being focused on isolated issues that cannot sensibly be divorced from the other facts presented to the magistrate.
We also have recognized that affidavits "are normally drafted by nonlawyers in the midst and haste of a criminal investigation. Technical requirements of elaborate specificity once enacted under common law pleadings have no proper place in this area." United States v. Ventresca, 380 U. S. 102, 108 (1965). Likewise, search and arrest warrants long have been issued by persons who are neither lawyers nor judges, and who certainly do not remain abreast of each judicial refinement of the nature of "probable cause." See Shadwick v. City of Tampa, 407 U. S. 345, 348-350 (1972). The rigorous inquiry into the Spinelli prongs and the complex superstructure of evidentiary and analytical rules that some have seen implicit in our Spinelli decision, cannot be reconciled with the fact that many warrants are  quite properly, 407 U. S., at 348-350  issued on the basis of nontechnical, *236 common-sense judgments of laymen applying a standard less demanding than those used in more formal legal proceedings. Likewise, given the informal, often hurried context in which it must be applied, the "built-in subtleties," Stanley v. State, 19 Md. App. 507, 528, 313 A. 2d 847, 860 (1974), of the "two-pronged test" are particularly unlikely to assist magistrates in determining probable cause.
If the affidavits submitted by police officers are subjected to the type of scrutiny some courts have deemed appropriate, police might well resort to warrantless searches, with the hope of relying on consent or some other exception to the Warrant Clause that might develop at the time of the search. In addition, the possession of a warrant by officers conducting an arrest or search greatly reduces the perception of unlawful or intrusive police conduct, by assuring "the individual whose property is searched or seized of the lawful authority of the executing officer, his need to search, and the limits of his power to search." United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1, 9 (1977). Reflecting this preference for the warrant process, the traditional standard for review of an issuing magistrate's probable-cause determination has been that so long as the magistrate had a "substantial basis for . . . conclud[ing]" that a search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing, the Fourth Amendment requires no more. Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257, 271 (1960). See United States v. *237 Harris, 403 U. S., at 577-583.[10] We think reaffirmation of this standard better serves the purpose of encouraging recourse to the warrant procedure and is more consistent with our traditional deference to the probable-cause determinations of magistrates than is the "two-pronged test."
Finally, the direction taken by decisions following Spinelli poorly serves "[t]he most basic function of any government": "to provide for the security of the individual and of his property." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 539 (1966) (WHITE, J., dissenting). The strictures that inevitably accompany the "two-pronged test" cannot avoid seriously impeding the task of law enforcement, see, e. g., n. 9, supra. If, as the Illinois Supreme Court apparently thought, that test must be rigorously applied in every case, anonymous tips would be of greatly diminished value in police work. Ordinary citizens, like ordinary witnesses, see Advisory Committee's Notes on Fed. Rule Evid. 701, 28 U. S. C. App., p. 570, generally do not provide extensive recitations of the basis of their everyday observations. Likewise, as the Illinois Supreme Court observed in this case, the veracity of persons supplying anonymous tips is by hypothesis largely unknown, and unknowable. As a result, anonymous tips seldom could survive a rigorous application of either of the Spinelli prongs. Yet, such tips, particularly when supplemented by *238 independent police investigation, frequently contribute to the solution of otherwise "perfect crimes." While a conscientious assessment of the basis for crediting such tips is required by the Fourth Amendment, a standard that leaves virtually no place for anonymous citizen informants is not.
For all these reasons, we conclude that it is wiser to abandon the "two-pronged test" established by our decisions in Aguilar and Spinelli.[11] In its place we reaffirm the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis that traditionally has informed probable-cause determinations. See Jones v. United States, supra; United States v. Ventresca, 380 U. S. 102 (1965); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160 (1949). 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 "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. And the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a "substantial basis for . . . conclud[ing]" that probable cause *239 existed. Jones v. United States, 362 U. S., at 271. We are convinced that this flexible, easily applied standard will better achieve the accommodation of public and private interests that the Fourth Amendment requires than does the approach that has developed from Aguilar and Spinelli.
Our earlier cases illustrate the limits beyond which a magistrate may not venture in issuing a warrant. A sworn statement of an affiant that "he has cause to suspect and does believe" that liquor illegally brought into the United States is located on certain premises will not do. Nathanson v. United States, 290 U. S. 41 (1933). An affidavit must provide the magistrate with a substantial basis for determining the existence of probable cause, and the wholly conclusory statement at issue in Nathanson failed to meet this requirement. An officer's statement that "[a]ffiants have received reliable information from a credible person and do believe" that heroin is stored in a home, is likewise inadequate. Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108 (1964). As in Nathanson, this is a mere conclusory statement that gives the magistrate virtually no basis at all for making a judgment regarding probable cause. 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. But when we move beyond the "bare bones" affidavits present in cases such as Nathanson and Aguilar, this area simply does not lend itself to a prescribed set of rules, like that which had developed from Spinelli. Instead, the flexible, common-sense standard articulated in Jones, Ventresca, and Brinegar better serves the purposes of the Fourth Amendment's probable-cause requirement.
JUSTICE BRENNAN'S dissent suggests in several places that the approach we take today somehow downgrades the *240 role of the neutral magistrate, because Aguilar and Spinelli "preserve the role of magistrates as independent arbiters of probable cause . . . ." Post, at 287. Quite the contrary, we believe, is the case. The essential protection of the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, as stated in Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10 (1948), is in "requiring that [the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence] be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime." Id., at 13-14. Nothing in our opinion in any way lessens the authority of the magistrate to draw such reasonable inferences as he will from the material supplied to him by applicants for a warrant; indeed, he is freer than under the regime of Aguilar and Spinelli to draw such inferences, or to refuse to draw them if he is so minded.
Our decision in Draper v. United States, 358 U. S. 307 (1959), however, is the classic case on the value of corroborative efforts of police officials. There, an informant named Hereford reported that Draper would arrive in Denver on a train from Chicago on one of two days, and that he would be carrying a quantity of heroin. The informant also supplied a fairly detailed physical description of Draper, and predicted that he would be wearing a light colored raincoat, brown slacks, and black shoes, and would be walking "real fast." Id., at 309. Hereford gave no indication of the basis for his information.[12]
The showing of probable cause in the present case was fully as compelling as that in Draper. Even standing alone, the facts obtained through the independent investigation of Mader and the DEA at least suggested that the Gateses were involved in drug trafficking. In addition to being a popular vacation site, Florida is well known as a source of narcotics and other illegal drugs. See United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U. S. 544, 562 (1980) (POWELL, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); DEA, Narcotics Intelligence Estimate, The Supply of Drugs to the U. S. Illicit Market From Foreign and Domestic Sources in 1980, pp. 8-9. Lance Gates' flight to West Palm Beach, his brief, overnight stay in a motel, and apparent immediate return north to Chicago in the family car, conveniently awaiting him in West Palm Beach, is as suggestive of a prearranged drug run, as it is of an ordinary vacation trip.
In my view, the question regarding modification of the exclusionary rule framed in our order of November 29, 1982, 459 U. S. 1028 (1982), is properly before us and should be addressed. I continue to believe that the exclusionary rule is an inappropriate remedy where law enforcement officials act in the reasonable belief that a search and seizure was consistent with the Fourth Amendment  a position I set forth in Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465, 537-539 (1976). In this case, it was fully reasonable for the Bloomingdale, Ill., police to believe that their search of respondents' house and automobile comported with the Fourth Amendment as the search was conducted pursuant to a judicially issued warrant. The *247 exclusion of probative evidence where the constable has not blundered not only sets the criminal free but also fails to serve any constitutional interest in securing compliance with the important requirements of the Fourth Amendment. On this basis, I concur in the Court's judgment that the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court must be reversed.
The Court declines to address the exclusionary rule question because the Illinois courts were not invited to modify the rule in the first instance. The Court's refusal to face this important question cannot be ascribed to jurisdictional limitations. I fully agree that the statute which gives us jurisdiction in this cause, 28 U. S. C. § 1257(3), prevents us from deciding federal constitutional claims raised here for the first time on review of state-court decisions. Cardinale v. Louisiana, 394 U. S. 437, 438-439 (1969). But it is equally well established that " `[n]o particular form of words or phrases is essential, but only that the claim of invalidity and the ground therefor be brought to the attention of the state court with fair precision and in due time.' " Street v. New York, 394 U. S. 576, 584 (1969) (quoting New York ex rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U. S. 63, 67 (1928)). Notwithstanding the select and controversial instances in which the Court has reversed a state-court decision for "plain error,"[1] we have consistently dismissed for want of jurisdiction where the federal claim asserted in this Court was not raised below. But this obviously is not such a case. As the Court points out, "[i]t is clear in this case that respondents expressly raised, at every level of the Illinois judicial system, the claim that the Fourth Amendment had been violated by the actions of the Illinois *248 police and that the evidence seized by the officers should be excluded from their trial." Ante, at 220. Until today, we have not required more.
We have never suggested that the jurisdictional stipulations of § 1257 require that all arguments on behalf of, let alone in opposition to, a federal claim be raised and decided below.[2] See R. Stern & E. Gressman, Supreme Court Practice 230 (5th ed. 1978). Dewey v. Des Moines, 173 U. S. 193 (1899), distinguished the raising of constitutional claims and the making of arguments in support of or in opposition to those claims.
The presentation and decision of respondents' Fourth Amendment claim fully embraces the argument that due to the nature of the alleged Fourth Amendment violation, the seized evidence should not be excluded. Our decisions concerning the scope of the exclusionary rule cannot be divorced from the Fourth Amendment; they rest on the relationship of Fourth Amendment interests to the objectives of the criminal justice system. See, e. g., United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U. S. 268 (1978); Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465 (1976).[4] Similarly, the issues surrounding a proposed good-faith modification are intricately and inseverably tied to the nature of the Fourth Amendment violation: the degree of probable cause, the presence of a warrant, and the clarity of previously announced Fourth Amendment principles all inform the *250 good-faith issue. The Court's own holding that the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a "substantial basis" for concluding that probable cause existed, ante, at 244-245, is itself but a variation on the good-faith theme. See Brief for Petitioner on Reargument 4-26.
As a jurisdictional requirement, I have no doubt that the exclusionary rule question is before us as an indivisible element of the claim that the Constitution requires exclusion of certain evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. As a prudential matter, I am unmoved by the Court's lengthy discourse as to why it must avoid the question. First, the Court turns on its head the axiom that " `due regard for the appropriate relationship of this Court to state courts,' McGoldrick v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 309 U. S., at 434-435, demands that those courts be given an opportunity to consider the constitutionality of the actions of state officials," ante, at 221. This statement, written to explain why a state statute should not be struck down on federal grounds not raised in the state courts,[5] hardly applies when the question is whether a rule of federal law articulated by this Court should now be narrowed to reduce the scope of federal intrusion into the State's administration of criminal justice. Insofar as modifications of the federal exclusionary *251 rule are concerned, the Illinois courts are bound by this Court's pronouncements. Cf. Oregon v. Hass, 420 U. S. 714, 719 (1975). I see little point in requiring a litigant to request a state court to overrule or modify one of this Court's precedents. Far from encouraging the stability of our precedents, the Court's proposed practice could well undercut stare decisis. Either the presentation of such issues to the lower courts will be a completely futile gesture or the lower courts are now invited to depart from this Court's decisions whenever they conclude such a modification is in order.[6]
The Court correctly notes that Illinois may choose to pursue a different course with respect to the state exclusionary rule. If this Court were to formulate a "good-faith" exception to the federal exclusionary rule, the Illinois Supreme Court would be free to consider on remand whether the state exclusionary rule should be modified accordingly. The possibility that it might have relied upon the state exclusionary rule had the "good-faith" question been posed does not constitute independent and adequate state grounds. "The possibility that the state court might have reached the same conclusion if it had decided the question purely as a matter of state law does not create an adequate and independent state ground that relieves this Court of the necessity of considering the federal question." United Air Lines, Inc. v. Mahin, 410 U. S. 623, 630-631 (1973); Beecher v. Alabama, 389 U. S. 35, 37, n. 3 (1967); C. Wright, The Law of Federal Courts § 107, pp. 747-748 (4th ed. 1983). Nor does having the state court first decide whether the federal exclusionary rule should be modified  and presentation of the federal question does not insure that the equivalent state-law issue will be *252 raised or decided[7]  avoid the unnecessary decision of a federal question. The Court still must reach a federal question to decide the instant case. Thus, in today's opinion, the Court eschews modification of the exclusionary rule in favor of interring the test established by Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108 (1964), and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 (1969). Nor is the exclusionary rule question avoided  it is simply deferred until "another day."
The Court's straining to avoid coming to grips with the exclusionary rule issue today may be hard for the country to understand  particularly given earlier statements by some Members of the Court.[10] The question has been fully briefed and argued by the parties and amici curiae, including the United States.[11] The issue is central to the enforcement of law and the administration of justice throughout the Nation. The Court of Appeals for the second largest Federal Circuit *254 has already adopted such an exception, United States v. Williams, 622 F. 2d 830 (CA5 1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 449 U. S. 1127 (1981), and the new Eleventh Circuit is presumably bound by its decision. Several Members of this Court have for some time expressed the need to consider modifying the exclusionary rule, ante, at 224, and Congress as well has been active in exploring the question. See The Exclusionary Rule Bills, Hearings on S. 101, S. 751, and S. 1995 before the Subcommittee on Criminal Law of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Cong., 1st and 2d Sess. (1981-1982). At least one State has already enacted a good-faith exception. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-3-308 (Supp. 1982). Of course, if there is a jurisdictional barrier to deciding the issue, none of these considerations are relevant. But if no such procedural obstacle exists, I see it as our responsibility to end the uncertainty and decide whether the rule will be modified. The question of whether probable cause existed for the issuance of a warrant and whether the evidence seized must be excluded in this case should follow our reconsideration of the framework by which such issues, as they arise from the Fourth Amendment, are to be handled.
The exclusionary rule is a remedy adopted by this Court to effectuate the Fourth Amendment right of citizens "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures . . . ." Although early opinions suggested that the Constitution required exclusion of all illegally obtained evidence, the exclusionary rule "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., at 486. Because of the inherent trustworthiness of seized tangible evidence and the resulting social costs from its loss through suppression, application *255 of the exclusionary rule has been carefully "restricted to those areas where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served." United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338, 348 (1974). Even at criminal trials the exclusionary rule has not been applied indiscriminately to ban all illegally obtained evidence without regard to the costs and benefits of doing so. Infra, at 256-257. These developments, born of years of experience with the exclusionary rule in operation, forcefully suggest 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.
Second, the rule has not been applied in proceedings other than the trial itself. In United States v. Calandra, supra, the Court refused to extend the rule to grand jury proceedings. "Any incremental deterrent effect which might be achieved by extending the rule to grand jury proceedings is uncertain at best. . . . We therefore decline to embrace a view that would achieve a speculative and undoubtedly minimal advance in the deterrence of police misconduct at the expense of substantially impeding the role of the grand jury." 414 U. S., at 351-352. Similarly, in United States v. Janis, 428 U. S. 433 (1976), the exclusionary rule was not extended to forbid the use in federal civil proceedings of evidence illegally seized by state officials, since the likelihood of deterring unlawful police conduct was not sufficient to outweigh the social costs imposed by the exclusion.
*256 Third, even at a criminal trial, the same analysis has led us to conclude that the costs of excluding probative evidence outweighed the deterrence benefits in several circumstances. We have refused to prohibit the use of illegally seized evidence for the purpose of impeaching a defendant who testifies in his own behalf. United States v. Havens, 446 U. S. 620 (1980); Walder v. United States, 347 U. S. 62 (1954). We have also declined to adopt a "per se or `but for' rule" that would make inadmissible any evidence which comes to light through a chain of causation that began with an illegal arrest. Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590, 603 (1975). And we have held that testimony of a live witness may be admitted, notwithstanding that the testimony was derived from a concededly unconstitutional search. United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U. S. 268 (1978). Nor is exclusion required when law enforcement agents act in good-faith reliance upon a statute or ordinance that is subsequently held to be unconstitutional. United States v. Peltier, 422 U. S. 531 (1975); Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U. S. 31 (1979).[12] Cf. United States v. Caceres, 440 U. S. 741, 754-757 (1979) (exclusion not *257 required of evidence tainted by violation of an executive department's rules concerning electronic eavesdropping).
For these reasons, "application of the [exclusionary] rule has been restricted to those areas where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served." United States *259 v. Calandra, 414 U. S., at 348.[14] The reasoning of our recent cases strongly suggests that there is insufficient justification to suppress evidence at a criminal trial which was seized in the reasonable belief that the Fourth Amendment was not violated. The deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule has never been established by empirical evidence, despite *260 repeated attempts. United States v. Janis, 428 U. S., at 449-453; Irvine v. California, 347 U. S. 128, 136 (1954). But accepting that the rule deters some police misconduct, it is apparent as a matter of logic that there is little if any deterrence when the rule is invoked to suppress evidence obtained by a police officer acting in the reasonable belief that his conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment. As we initially observed in Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S., at 447, and reiterated in United States v. Peltier, 422 U. S., at 539:
This Court has never set forth a rationale for applying the exclusionary rule to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant; it has simply done so without considering whether Fourth Amendment interests will be advanced. It is my view that they generally will not be. When officers have dutifully obtained a search warrant from a judge or magistrate, and execute the warrant as directed by its terms, exclusion of the evidence thus obtained cannot be expected to deter future reliance on such warrants. The warrant is prima facie proof that the officers acted reasonably in conducting the search or seizure; "[o]nce the warrant issues, there is literally nothing more that the policeman can do in seeking to comply with the law." Stone v. Powell, supra, at 498 (BURGER, C. J., concurring).[16] AS JUSTICE STEVENS *263 put it in writing for the Court in United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798, 823, n. 32 (1982): "[A] warrant issued by a magistrate normally suffices to establish" that a law enforcement officer has "acted in good faith in conducting the search." Nevertheless, the warrant may be invalidated because of a technical defect or because, as in this case, the judge issued a warrant on information later determined to fall short of probable cause. Excluding evidence for these reasons can have no possible deterrent effect on future police conduct, unless it is to make officers less willing to do their duty. Indeed, applying the exclusionary rule to warrant searches may well reduce incentives for police to utilize the preferred warrant procedure when a warrantless search may be permissible under one of the established exceptions to the warrant requirement. See ante, at 236; Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S., at 611, and n. 3 (POWELL, J., concurring in part); P. Johnson, New Approaches to Enforcing the Fourth Amendment 11 (unpublished paper, 1978). See also United States v. United States District Court, 407 U. S. 297, 316-317 (1972); United States v. Ventresca, 380 U. S. 102, 106-107 (1965).
Opponents of the proposed "reasonable belief" exception suggest that such a modification would allow magistrates and judges to flout the probable-cause requirements in issuing warrants. This is a novel concept: the exclusionary rule was adopted to deter unlawful searches by police, not to punish the errors of magistrates and judges. Magistrates must be neutral and detached from law enforcement operations and I would not presume that a modification of the exclusionary rule will lead magistrates to abdicate their responsibility to apply the law.[17] In any event, I would apply the exclusionary *264 rule when it is plainly evident that a magistrate or judge had no business issuing a warrant. See, e. g., Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108 (1964); Nathanson v. United States, 290 U. S. 41 (1933). Similarly, the good-faith exception would not apply if the material presented to the magistrate or judge is false or misleading, Franks v. Delaware, 438 U. S. 154 (1978), or so clearly lacking in probable cause that no well-trained officer could reasonably have thought that a warrant should issue.
Finally, it is contended that a good-faith exception will be difficult to apply in practice. This concern appears grounded in the assumption that courts would inquire into the subjective belief of the law enforcement officers involved. I would eschew such investigations. "[S]ending state and federal courts on an expedition into the minds of police officers would produce a grave and fruitless misallocation of judicial resources." Massachusetts v. Painten, 389 U. S. 560, 565 (1968) (WHITE, J., dissenting). Moreover, "[s]ubjective intent alone . . . does not make otherwise lawful conduct illegal or unconstitutional." Scott v. United States, 436 U. S. 128, 136 (1978). Just last Term, we modified the qualified immunity public officials enjoy in suits seeking damages against federal officials for alleged deprivations of constitutional rights, eliminating the subjective component of the standard. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800 (1982). Although *267 searches pursuant to a warrant will rarely require any deep inquiry into reasonableness, I would measure the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure only by objective standards. Even for warrantless searches, the requirement should be no more difficult to apply than the closely related good-faith test which governs civil suits under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. In addition, the burden will likely be offset by the reduction in the number of cases which will require elongated considerations of the probable-cause question, and will be greatly outweighed by the advantages in limiting the bite of the exclusionary rule to the field in which it is most likely to have its intended effects.
Since a majority of the Court deems it inappropriate to address the good-faith issue, I briefly address the question that the Court does reach  whether the warrant authorizing the search and seizure of respondents' car and home was constitutionally valid. Abandoning the "two-pronged test" of Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108 (1964), and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 (1969), the Court upholds the validity of the warrant under a new "totality of the circumstances" approach. Although I agree that the warrant should be upheld, I reach this conclusion in accordance with the Aguilar-Spinelli framework.
"[T]he nature of the corroborating evidence in this case would satisfy neither the `basis of knowledge' nor the *269 `veracity' prong of Aguilar. Looking to the affidavit submitted as support for Detective Mader's request that a search warrant issue, we note that the corroborative evidence here was only of clearly innocent activity. Mader's independent investigation revealed only that Lance and Sue Gates lived on Greenway Drive; that Lance Gates booked passage on a flight to Florida; that upon arriving he entered a room registered to his wife; and that he and his wife left the hotel together by car. The corroboration of innocent activity is insufficient to support a finding of probable cause." Id., at 390, 423 N. E. 2d, at 893.
Thus, in Draper v. United States, 358 U. S. 307 (1959), an informant stated on September 7 that Draper would be carrying narcotics when he arrived by train in Denver on the morning of September 8 or September 9. The informant also provided the police with a detailed physical description *270 of the clothes Draper would be wearing when he alighted from the train. The police observed Draper leaving a train on the morning of September 9, and he was wearing the precise clothing described by the informant. The Court held that the police had probable cause to arrest Draper at this point, even though the police had seen nothing more than the totally innocent act of a man getting off a train carrying a briefcase. As we later explained in Spinelli, the important point was that the corroboration showed both that the informant was credible, i. e., that he "had not been fabricating his report out of whole cloth," Spinelli, 393 U. S., at 417, and that he had an adequate basis of knowledge for his allegations, "since the report was of the sort which in common experience may be recognized as having been obtained in a reliable way." Id., at 417-418. The fact that the informant was able to predict, two days in advance, the exact clothing Draper would be wearing dispelled the possibility that his tip was just based on rumor or "an offhand remark heard at a neighborhood bar." Id., at 417. Probably Draper had planned in advance to wear these specific clothes so that an accomplice could identify him. A clear inference could therefore be drawn that the informant was either involved in the criminal scheme himself or that he otherwise had access to reliable, inside information.[22]
*271 As in Draper, the police investigation in the present case satisfactorily demonstrated that the informant's tip was as trustworthy as one that would alone satisfy the Aguilar tests. The tip predicted that Sue Gates would drive to Florida, that Lance Gates would fly there a few days after May 3, and that Lance would then drive the car back. After the police corroborated these facts,[23] the judge could reasonably have inferred, as he apparently did, that the informant, who had specific knowledge of these unusual travel plans, did not make up his story and that he obtained his information in a reliable way. It is theoretically possible, as respondents insist, that the tip could have been supplied by a "vindictive travel agent" and that the Gateses' activities, although unusual, might not have been unlawful.[24] But Aguilar and Spinelli, like our other cases, do not require that certain guilt be established before a warrant may properly be issued. "[O]nly the probability, and not a prima facie showing, *272 of criminal activity is the standard of probable cause." Spinelli, supra, at 419 (citing Beck v. Ohio, 379 U. S. 89, 96 (1964)). I therefore conclude that the judgment of the Illinois Supreme Court invalidating the warrant must be reversed.
The Court reasons, ante, at 233, that the "veracity" and "basis of knowledge" tests are not independent, and that a deficiency as to one can be compensated for by a strong showing as to the other. Thus, a finding of probable cause may be based on a tip from an informant "known for the unusual reliability of his predictions" or from "an unquestionably honest citizen," even if the report fails thoroughly to set forth the basis upon which the information was obtained. Ibid. If this is so, then it must follow a fortiori that "the affidavit of an officer, known by the magistrate to be honest and experienced, stating that [contraband] is located in a certain building" must be acceptable. Spinelli, 393 U. S., at 424 (WHITE, J., concurring). It would be "quixotic" if a similar statement from an honest informant, but not one from an honest officer, could furnish probable cause. Ibid. But we have repeatedly held that the unsupported assertion or belief of an officer does not satisfy the probable-cause requirement. See, e. g., Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U. S. 560, 564-565 *273 (1971); Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257, 269 (1960); Nathanson v. United States, 290 U. S. 41 (1933).[25] Thus, this portion of today's holding can be read as implicitly rejecting the teachings of these prior holdings.
Although I join JUSTICE STEVENS' dissenting opinion and agree with him that the warrant is invalid even under the Court's newly announced "totality of the circumstances" test, see post, at 294-295, and n. 8, I write separately to dissent from the Court's unjustified and ill-advised rejection of the two-prong test for evaluating the validity of a warrant based on hearsay announced in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108 (1964), and refined in Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 (1969).
See also Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U. S. 560, 564 (1971); Spinelli v. United States, supra, at 415; United States v. Ventresca, 380 U. S. 102, 109 (1965); Aguilar v. Texas, supra, at 111; Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257, 270-271 *276 (1960); Giordenello v. United States, 357 U. S. 480, 486 (1958); United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U. S. 452, 464 (1932).
In order to emphasize the magistrate's role as an independent arbiter of probable cause and to insure that searches or seizures are not effected on less than probable cause, the Court has insisted that police officers provide magistrates with the underlying facts and circumstances that support the officers' conclusions. In Nathanson v. United States, 290 U. S. 41 (1933), the Court held invalid a search warrant that was based on a customs agent's "mere affirmation of suspicion and belief without any statement of adequate supporting facts." Id., at 46. The Court stated: "Under the Fourth Amendment, an officer may not properly issue a warrant to search a private dwelling unless he can find probable cause therefor from facts or circumstances presented to him under oath or affirmation. Mere affirmance of belief or suspicion is not enough." Id., at 47.
Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108 (1964), merely made explicit what was implicit in Jones. In considering a search warrant based on hearsay, the Court reviewed Nathanson *278 and Giordenello and noted the requirement established by those cases that an officer provide the magistrate with the underlying facts or circumstances that support the officer's conclusion that there is probable cause to justify the issuance of a warrant. The Court stated:
The Aguilar standard was refined in Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 (1969). In Spinelli, the Court reviewed a search warrant based on an affidavit that was "more ample," id., at 413, than the one in Aguilar. The affidavit in Spinelli contained not only a tip from an informant, but also a report of an independent police investigation that allegedly corroborated the informant's tip. 393 U. S., at 413. Under these circumstances, the Court stated that it was "required to delineate the manner in which Aguilar's two-pronged test should be applied . . . ." Ibid.
The Court held that the Aguilar test should be applied to the tip, and approved two additional ways of satisfying that test. First, the Court suggested that if the tip contained sufficient detail describing the accused's criminal activity it might satisfy Aguilar's basis of knowledge prong. 393 U. S., at 416. Such detail might assure the magistrate that he is "relying on something more substantial than a casual rumor circulating in the underworld or an accusation based merely on an individual's general reputation." Ibid. Although the tip in the case before it did not meet this standard, "[t]he detail provided by the informant in Draper v. United States, 358 U. S. 307 (1959), provide[d] a suitable benchmark," ibid., because "[a] magistrate, when confronted with such detail, could reasonably infer that the informant *280 had gained his information in a reliable way." Id., at 417 (footnote omitted).[3]
Second, the Court stated that police corroboration of the details of a tip could provide a basis for satisfying Aguilar. *281 393 U. S., at 417. The Court's opinion is not a model of clarity on this issue since it appears to suggest that corroboration can satisfy both the basis of knowledge and veracity prongs of Aguilar. 393 U. S., at 417-418.[4] JUSTICE WHITE's concurring opinion, however, points the way to a proper reading of the Court's opinion. After reviewing the Court's decision in Draper v. United States, 358 U. S. 307 (1959), JUSTICE WHITE concluded that "[t]he thrust of Draper is not that the verified facts have independent significance with respect to proof of [another unverified fact]." 393 U. S., at 427. In his view, "[t]he argument instead relates to the reliability of the source: because an informant is right about some things, he is more probably right about other facts, usually the critical, unverified facts." Ibid. JUSTICE WHITE then pointed out that prior cases had rejected "the notion that the past *282 reliability of an officer is sufficient reason for believing his current assertions." Ibid. JUSTICE WHITE went on to state:
Until today the Court has never squarely addressed the application of the Aguilar and Spinelli standards to tips from anonymous informants. Both Aguilar and Spinelli dealt with tips from informants known at least to the police. See also, e. g., Adams v. Williams, 407 U. S. 143, 146 (1972); United States v. Harris, 403 U. S. 573, 575 (1971); Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U. S., at 565; McCray v. Illinois, 386 U. S. *284 300, 302 (1967); Jones v. United States, 362 U. S., at 268-269. And surely there is even more reason to subject anonymous informants' tips to the tests established by Aguilar and Spinelli. By definition nothing is known about an anonymous informant's identity, honesty, or reliability. One commentator has suggested that anonymous informants should be treated as presumptively unreliable. See Comment, Anonymous Tips, Corroboration, and Probable Cause: Reconciling the Spinelli/Draper Dichotomy in Illinois v. Gates, 20 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 99, 107 (1982). See also Adams v. Williams, supra, at 146 (suggesting that an anonymous telephone tip provides a weaker case for a Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), stop than a tip from an informant known to the police who had provided information in the past); United States v. Harris, supra, at 599 (Harlan, J., dissenting) ("We cannot assume that the ordinary law-abiding citizen has qualms about [appearing before a magistrate]"). In any event, there certainly is no basis for treating anonymous informants as presumptively reliable. Nor is there any basis for assuming that the information provided by an anonymous informant has been obtained in a reliable way. If we are unwilling to accept conclusory allegations from the police, who are presumptively reliable, or from informants who are known, at least to the police, there cannot possibly be any rational basis for accepting conclusory allegations from anonymous informants.
Only one of the cases cited by the Court in support of its "totality of the circumstances" approach, Jaben v. United States, 381 U. S. 214 (1965), was decided subsequent to Aguilar. It is by no means inconsistent with Aguilar.[7] The other three cases[8] cited by the Court as supporting its *287 totality-of-the-circumstances approach were decided before Aguilar. In any event, it is apparent from the Court's discussion of them, see ante, at 232-233, n. 7, that they are not inconsistent with Aguilar.
It also should be emphasized that cases such as Nathanson v. United States, 290 U. S. 41 (1933), and Giordenello v. United States, 357 U. S. 480 (1958), discussed supra, at 276-277, directly contradict the Court's suggestion, ante, at 233, that a strong showing on one prong of the Aguilar test should compensate for a deficient showing on the other. If the conclusory allegations of a presumptively reliable police officer are insufficient to establish probable cause, there is no conceivable reason why the conclusory allegations of an anonymous informant should not be insufficient as well. Moreover, contrary to the Court's implicit suggestion, Aguilar and Spinelli do not stand as an insuperable barrier to the use *288 of even anonymous informants' tips to establish probable cause. See supra, at 277-282. It is no justification for rejecting them outright that some courts may have employed an overly technical version of the Aguilar-Spinelli standards, see ante, at 234-235, and n. 9.
The Court's complete failure to provide any persuasive reason for rejecting Aguilar and Spinelli doubtlessly reflects impatience with what it perceives to be "overly technical" rules governing searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment. Words such as "practical," "nontechnical," and "common sense," as used in the Court's opinion, are but code words for an overly permissive attitude towards police practices in derogation of the rights secured by the Fourth Amendment. Everyone shares the Court's concern over the horrors of drug trafficking, but under our Constitution only measures consistent with the Fourth Amendment may be employed by government to cure this evil. We must be ever mindful of Justice Stewart's admonition in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443 (1971): "In times of unrest, whether caused by crime or racial conflict or fear of internal subversion, this basic law and the values that it represents may appear unrealistic or `extravagant' to some. But the values were those of the authors of our fundamental constitutional concepts." Id., at 455 (plurality opinion). In the same vein, Glasser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60 (1942), warned that "[s]teps innocently taken may, one by one, lead to the irretrievable impairment of substantial liberties." Id., at 86.
Rights secured by the Fourth Amendment are particularly difficult to protect because their "advocates are usually criminals." Draper v. United States, 358 U. S., at 314 (Douglas, J., dissenting). But the rules "we fashion [are] for the innocent and guilty alike." Ibid. See also Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U. S. 352, 362, n. 1 (1983) (BRENNAN, J., concurring); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S., at 181 (Jackson, J., dissenting). *291 By replacing Aguilar and Spinelli with a test that provides no assurance that magistrates, rather than the police, or informants, will make determinations of probable cause; imposes no structure on magistrates' probable-cause inquires; and invites the possibility that intrusions may be justified on less than reliable information from an honest or credible person, today's decision threatens to "obliterate one of the most fundamental distinctions between our form of government, where officers are under the law, and the police-state where they are the law." Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S., at 17.
What the judge did know at that time was that the anonymous informant had not been completely accurate in his or her predictions. The informant had indicated that " `Sue . . . drives their car to Florida where she leaves it to be loaded up with drugs . . . . Sue fl[ies] back after she drops the car off in Florida.' " 85 Ill. 2d 376, 379, 423 N. E. 2d 887, 888 (1981) (emphasis added). Yet Detective Mader's affidavit reported that she " `left the West Palm Beach area driving the Mercury northbound.' " 82 Ill. App. 3d 749, 757, 403 N. E. 2d 77, 82 (1980).
The discrepancy between the informant's predictions and the facts known to Detective Mader is significant for three reasons. First, it cast doubt on the informant's hypothesis that the Gates already had " `over [$100,000] worth of drugs in their basement,' " 85 Ill. 2d, at 379, 423 N. E. 2d, at 888. The informant had predicted an itinerary that always kept one *292 spouse in Bloomingdale, suggesting that the Gates did not want to leave their home unguarded because something valuable was hidden within. That inference obviously could not be drawn when it was known that the pair was actually together over a thousand miles from home.
Of course, the activities in this case did not stop when the judge issued the warrant. The Gates drove all night to Bloomingdale, the officers searched the car and found 400 pounds of marihuana, and then they searched the house.[5] However, none of these subsequent events may be considered in evaluating the warrant,[6] and the search of the house was legal only if the warrant was valid. Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U. S. 30, 33-35 (1970). I cannot accept the Court's casual conclusion that, before the Gates arrived in Bloomingdale, there was probable cause to justify a valid entry and search of a private home. No one knows who the informant in this case was, or what motivated him or her to write the note. Given that the note's predictions were faulty in one *294 significant respect, and were corroborated by nothing except ordinary innocent activity, I must surmise that the Court's evaluation of the warrant's validity has been colored by subsequent events.[7]
Although the foregoing analysis is determinative as to the house search, the car search raises additional issues because "there is a constitutional difference between houses and cars." Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U. S. 42, 52 (1970). Cf. Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 589-590 (1980). An officer who has probable cause to suspect that a highly movable automobile contains contraband does not need a valid warrant in order to search it. This point was developed in our opinion in United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798 (1982), which was not decided until after the Illinois Supreme Court rendered its decision in this case. Under Ross, the car search may have been valid if the officers had probable cause after the Gates arrived.
[1] The apparent rule of Crowell v. Randell that a federal claim have been both raised and addressed in state court was generally not understood in the literal fashion in which it was phrased. See R. Robertson & F. Kirkham, Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States § 60 (1951). Instead, the Court developed the rule that a claim would not be considered here unless it had been either raised or squarely considered and resolved in state court. See, e. g., McGoldrick v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 309 U. S. 430, 434-435 (1940); State Farm Mutual Ins. Co. v. Duel, 324 U. S. 154, 160 (1945).
[3] In Spinelli, police officers observed Mr. Spinelli going to and from a particular apartment, which the telephone company said contained two telephone with stated numbers. The officers also were "informed by a confidential reliable informant that William Spinelli [was engaging in illegal gambling activities]" at the apartment, and that he used two phones, with numbers corresponding to those possessed by the police. 393 U. S., at 414. The officers submitted an affidavit with this information to a magistrate and obtained a warrant to search Spinelli's apartment. We held that the magistrate could have made his determination of probable cause only by "abdicating his constitutional function," id., at 416. The Government's affidavit contained absolutely no information regarding the informant's reliability. Thus, it did not satisfy Aguilar's requirement that such affidavits contain "some of the underlying circumstances" indicating that "the informant . . . was `credible' " or that "his information [was] `reliable.' " Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108, 114 (1964). In addition, the tip failed to satisfy Aguilar's requirement that it detail "some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that . . . narcotics were where he claimed they were." Ibid. We also held that if the tip concerning Spinelli had contained "sufficient detail" to permit the magistrate to conclude "that he [was] relying on something more substantial than a casual rumor circulating in the underworld or an accusation based merely on an individual's general reputation," 393 U. S., at 416, then he properly could have relied on it; we thought, however, that the tip lacked the requisite detail to permit this "self-verifying detail" analysis.
[4] See, e. g., Stanley v. State, 19 Md. App. 507, 313 A. 2d 847 (1974). In summary, these rules posit that the "veracity" prong of the Spinelli test has two "spurs"  the informant's "credibility" and the "reliability" of his information. Various interpretations are advanced for the meaning of the "reliability" spur of the "veracity" prong. Both the "basis of knowledge" prong and the "veracity" prong are treated as entirely separate requirements, which must be independently satisfied in every case in order to sustain a determination of probable cause. See n. 5, infra. Some ancillary doctrines are relied on to satisfy certain of the foregoing requirements. For example, the "self-verifying detail" of a tip may satisfy the "basis of knowledge" requirement, although not the "credibility" spur of the "veracity" prong. See 85 Ill. 2d, at 388, 423 N. E. 2d, at 892. Conversely, corroboration would seem not capable of supporting the "basis of knowledge" prong, but only the "veracity" prong. Id., at 390, 423 N. E. 2d, at 893.
As our language indicates, we intended neither a rigid compartmentalization of the inquiries into an informant's "veracity," "reliability," and "basis of knowledge," nor that these inquiries be elaborate exegeses of an informant's tip. Rather, we required only that some facts bearing on two particular issues be provided to the magistrate. Our decision in Jaben v. United States, 381 U. S. 214 (1965), demonstrated this latter point. We held there that a criminal complaint showed probable cause to believe the defendant had attempted to evade the payment of income taxes. We commented:
[7] The diversity of informants' tips, as well as the usefulness of the totality-of-the-circumstances approach to probable cause, is reflected in our prior decisions on the subject. In Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257, 271 (1960), we held that probable cause to search petitioners' apartment was established by an affidavit based principally on an informant's tip. The unnamed informant claimed to have purchased narcotics from petitioners at their apartment; the affiant stated that he had been given correct information from the informant on a prior occasion. This, and the fact that petitioners had admitted to police officers on another occasion that they were narcotics users, sufficed to support the magistrate's determination of probable cause.
Likewise, in Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U. S. 528 (1964), the Court upheld a magistrate's determination that there was probable cause to believe that certain stolen property would be found in petitioner's apartment. The affidavit submitted to the magistrate stated that certain furs had been stolen, and that a confidential informant, who previously had furnished confidential information, said that the saw the furs in petitioner's home. Moreover, another confidential informant, also claimed to be reliable, stated that one Schweihs had stolen the furs. Police reports indicated that petitioner had been seen in Schweihs' company, and a third informant stated that petitioner was a fence for Schweihs.
Finally, in Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23 (1963), we held that information within the knowledge of officers who searched the Kers' apartment provided them with probable cause to believe drugs would be found there. The officers were aware that one Murphy had previously sold marihuana to a police officer; the transaction had occurred in an isolated area, to which Murphy had led the police. The night after this transaction, police observed Mr. Ker and Murphy meet in the same location. Murphy approached Ker's car, and, although police could see nothing change hands, Murphy's modus operandi was identical to what it had been the night before. Moreover, when police followed Ker from the scene of the meeting with Murphy he managed to lose them after performing an abrupt U-turn. Finally, the police had a statement from an informant who had provided reliable information previously, that Ker was engaged in selling marihuana, and that his source was Murphy. We concluded that "[t]o say that this coincidence of information was sufficient to support a reasonable belief of the officers that Ker was illegally in possession of marijuana is to indulge in understatement." Id., at 36.
[9] Some lower court decisions, brought to our attention by the State, reflect a rigid application of such rules. In Bridger v. State, 503 S. W. 2d 801 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974), the affiant had received a confession of armed robbery from one of two suspects in the robbery; in addition, the suspect had given the officer $800 in cash stolen during the robbery. The suspect also told the officer that the gun used in the robbery was hidden in the other suspect's apartment. A warrant issued on the basis of this was invalidated on the ground that the affidavit did not satisfactorily describe how the accomplice had obtained his information regarding the gun.
[10] We also have said that "[a]lthough in a particular case it may not be easy to determine when an affidavit demonstrates the existence of probable cause, the resolution of doubtful or marginal cases in this area should be largely determined by the preference to be accorded to warrants," United States v. Ventresca, 380 U. S. 102, 109 (1965). This reflects both a desire to encourage use of the warrant process by police officers and a recognition that once a warrant has been obtained, intrusion upon interests protected by the Fourth Amendment is less severe than otherwise may be the case. Even if we were to accept the premise that the accurate assessment of probable cause would be furthered by the "two-pronged test," which we do not, these Fourth Amendment policies would require a less rigorous standard than that which appears to have been read into Aguilar and Spinelli.
[11] The Court's decision in Spinelli has been the subject of considerable criticism, both by Members of this Court and others. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, concurring in United States v. Harris, 403 U. S. 573, 585-586 (1971), noted his long-held view "that Spinelli . . . was wrongly decided" by this Court. Justice Black similarly would have overruled that decision. Id., at 585. Likewise, a noted commentator has observed that "[t]he Aguilar-Spinelli formulation has provoked apparently ceaseless litigation." 8A J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 41.04, p. 41-43 (1982).
[13] The Illinois Supreme Court thought that the verification of details contained in the anonymous letter in this case amounted only to "[t]he corroboration of innocent activity," 85 Ill. 2d 376, 390, 423 N. E. 2d 887, 893 (1981), and that this was insufficient to support a finding of probable cause. We are inclined to agree, however, with the observation of Justice Moran in his dissenting opinion that "[i]n this case, just as in Draper, seemingly innocent activity became suspicious in light of the initial tip." Id., at 396, 423 N. E. 2d, at 896. And it bears noting that all of the corroborating detail established in Draper was of entirely innocent activity  a fact later pointed out by the Court in both Jones v. United States, 362 U. S., at 269-270, and Ker v. California, 374 U. S., at 36.
This is perfectly reasonable. As discussed previously, probable cause requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity. By hypothesis, therefore, innocent behavior frequently will provide the basis for a showing of probable cause; to require otherwise would be to sub silentio impose a drastically more rigorous definition of probable cause than the security of our citizens' demands. We think the Illinois court attempted a too rigid classification of the types of conduct that may be relied upon in seeking to demonstrate probable cause. See Brown v. Texas, 443 U. S. 47, 52, n. 2 (1979). In making a determination of probable cause the relevant inquiry is not whether particular conduct is "innocent" or "guilty," but the degree of suspicion that attaches to particular types of noncriminal acts.
[2] The Court has previously relied on issues and arguments not raised in the state court below in order to dispose of a federal question that was properly raised. In Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 658 (1972), the Court held that unmarried fathers could not be denied a hearing on parental fitness that was afforded other Illinois parents. Although this issue was not presented in the Illinois courts, the Court found that it could properly be considered: "we dispose of the case on the constitutional premise raised below, reaching the result by a method of analysis readily available to the state court. For the same reason the strictures of Cardinale v. Louisiana, 394 U. S. 437 (1969), and Hill v. California, 401 U. S. 797 (1971), have been fully observed." Id., at 658, n. 10. The dissent argued that the Court was deciding a due process claim instead of an equal protection one, but there was no suggestion that it mattered at all that the Court had relied on a different type of equal protection argument.
[4] The Court relies on these cases for the surprising assertion that the Fourth Amendment and exclusionary rule questions are "distinct." I had understood the very essence of Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U. S. 128 (1978), to be that standing to seek exclusion of evidence could not be divorced from substantive Fourth Amendment rights. Past decisions finding that the remedy of exclusion is not always appropriate upon the finding of a Fourth Amendment violation acknowledge the close relationship of the issues. For example, in United States v. Ceccolini it was said: "The constitutional question under the Fourth Amendment was phrased in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963), as whether `the connection between the lawless conduct of the police and the discovery of the challenged evidence has "become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint." ' " 435 U. S., at 273-274. It is also suprising to learn that the issues in Stone v. Powell are "distinct" from the Fourth Amendment.
[6] The Court observes that "although the Illinois courts applied the federal exclusionary rule, there was never `any real contest' upon the point." Ante, at 223. But the proper forum for a "real contest" on the continued vitality of the exclusionary rule that has developed from our decisions in Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383 (1914), and Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961), is this Court.
[10] In California v. Minjares, 443 U. S. 916, 928 (1979) (REHNQUIST, J., joined by BURGER, C. J., dissenting from the denial of stay), the author of today's opinion for the Court urged that the parties be directed to brief whether the exclusionary rule should be retained. In Minjares, like this case, respondents had raised a Fourth Amendment claim but petitioners had not attacked the validity of the exclusionary rule in the state court. See also Robbins v. California, 453 U. S. 420, 437 (1981) (REHNQUIST, J., dissenting) (advocating overruling of Mapp v. Ohio, supra).
[12] To be sure, Peltier and DeFillippo did not modify the exclusionary rule itself. Peltier held that Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266 (1973), was not to be given retroactive effect; DeFillippo upheld the validity of an arrest made in good-faith reliance on an ordinance subsequently declared unconstitutional. The effect of these decisions, of course, was that evidence was not excluded because of the officer's reasonable belief that he was acting lawfully, and the Court's reasoning, as I discuss infra, at 260-261, leads inexorably to the more general modification of the exclusionary rule I favor. Indeed, JUSTICE BRENNAN recognized this in his dissent in Peltier, 422 U. S., at 551-552.
I recognize that we have held that the exclusionary rule required suppression of evidence obtained in searches carried out pursuant to statutes, not previously declared unconstitutional, which purported to authorize the searches in question without probable cause and without a valid warrant. See, e. g., Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U. S. 465 (1979); Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, supra; Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40 (1968); Berger v. New York, 388 U. S. 41 (1967). The results in these cases may well be different under a "good-faith" exception to the exclusionary rule.
[14] Our decisions applying the exclusionary rule have referred to the "imperative of judicial integrity," Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, 222 (1960), although recent opinions of the Court make clear that the primary function of the exclusionary rule is to deter violations of the Fourth Amendment, Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S., at 486; United States v. Janis, 428 U. S. 433, 446 (1976); United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S., at 348. I do not dismiss the idea that the integrity of the courts may be compromised when illegally seized evidence is admitted, but I am convinced that the force of the argument depends entirely on the type of search or seizure involved. At one extreme, there are lawless invasions of personal privacy that shock the conscience, and the admission of evidence so obtained must be suppressed as a matter of due process, entirely aside from the Fourth Amendment. See, e. g., Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165 (1952). Also deserving of exclusionary treatment are searches and seizures perpetrated in intentional and flagrant disregard of Fourth Amendment principles. But the question of exclusion must be viewed through a different lens when a Fourth Amendment violation occurs because the police have reasonably erred in assessing the facts, mistakenly conducted a search authorized under a presumably valid statute, or relied in good faith upon a warrant not supported by probable cause. In these circumstances, the integrity of the courts is not implicated. The violation of the Fourth Amendment is complete before the evidence is admitted. Thus, "[t]he primary meaning of `judicial integrity' in the context of evidentiary rules is that the courts must not commit or encourage violations of the Constitution." United States v. Janis, supra, at 458, n. 35. Cf. United States v. Peltier, 422 U. S. 531, 537 (1975) ("The teaching of these retroactivity cases is that if the law enforcement officers reasonably believed in good faith that evidence they had seized was admissible at trial, the `imperative of judicial integrity' is not offended by the introduction into evidence of that material even if decisions subsequent to the search or seizure have broadened the exclusionary rule to encompass evidence seized in that manner"). I am content that the interests in judicial integrity run along with rather than counter to the deterrence concept, and that to focus upon the latter is to promote, not denigrate, the former.
[15] It has been suggested that the deterrence function of the exclusionary rule has been understated by viewing the rule as aimed at special deterrence, when, in fact, the exclusionary rule is directed at "affecting the wider audience of law enforcement officials and society at large." 1 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure 6 (1983 Supp.). See also Mertens & Wasserstrom, The Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule: Deregulating the Police and Derailing the Law, 70 Geo. L. J. 365, 399-401 (1981). I agree that the exclusionary rule's purpose is not only, or even primarily, to deter the individual police officer involved in the instant case. It appears that this objection assumes that the proposed modification of the exclusionary rule will turn only on the subjective "good faith" of the officer. Grounding the modification in objective reasonableness, however, retains the value of the exclusionary rule as an incentive for the law enforcement profession as a whole to conduct themselves in accord with the Fourth Amendment. Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200, 221 (1979) (STEVENS, J., concurring).
[17] Much is made of Shadwick v. City of Tampa, 407 U. S. 345 (1972), where we held that magistrates need not be legally trained. Shadwick's holding was quite narrow. First, the Court insisted that "an issuing magistrate must meet two tests. He must be neutral and detached, and he must be capable of determining whether probable cause exists for the requested arrest or search." Id., at 350. Second, in Shadwick, the Court Clerk's authority extended only to the relatively straightforward task of issuing arrest warrants for breach of municipal ordinances. To issue search warrants, an individual must be capable of making the probable-cause judgments involved. In this regard, I reject the Court's insinuation that it is too much to expect that persons who issue warrants remain abreast of judicial refinements of probable cause. Ante, at 235. Finally, as indicated in text, I do not propose that a warrant clearly lacking a basis in probable cause can support a "good-faith" defense to invocation of the exclusionary rule.
[18] Respondents and some amici contend that this practice would be inconsistent with the Art. III requirement of an actual case or controversy. I have no doubt that a defendant who claims that he has been subjected to an unlawful search or seizure and seeks suppression of the evidentiary fruits thereof raises a live controversy within the Art. III authority of federal courts to adjudicate. It is fully appropriate for a court to decide whether there has been a wrong before deciding what remedy to impose. When questions of good-faith immunity have arisen under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, we have not been constrained to reach invariably the immunity question before the violation issue. Compare O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U. S. 563 (1975) (finding constitutional violation and remanding for consideration of good-faith defense), with Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U. S. 555, 566, n. 14 (1978) (finding good-faith defense first). Similarly, we have exercised discretion at times in deciding the merits of a claim even though the error was harmless, while on other occasions resolving the case solely by reliance on the harmless-error doctrine. Compare Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U. S. 371, 372 (1972) (declining to decide whether admission of confession was constitutional violation because error, if any, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt), with Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U. S. 1 (1970) (upholding right to counsel at preliminary hearing and remanding for harmless-error determination).
[19] For example, a pattern or practice of official conduct that is alleged to violate Fourth Amendment rights may be challenged by an aggrieved individual in a suit for declaratory or injunctive relief. See, e. g., Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U. S. 547 (1978). (Of course, there are limits on the circumstances in which such actions will lie. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U. S. 362 (1976); Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95 (1983).) Although a municipality is not liable under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 on a theory of respondent superior, local governing bodies are subject to suit for constitutional torts resulting from implementation of local ordinances, regulations, policies, or even customary practices. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U. S. 658 (1978). Such entities enjoy no immunity defense that might impede resolution of the substantive constitutional issue. Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 622 (1980). In addition, certain state courts may continue to suppress, as a matter of state law, evidence in state trials for any Fourth Amendment violation. These cases would likely provide a sufficient supply of state criminal cases in which to resolve unsettled questions of Fourth Amendment law. As a final alternative, I would entertain the possibility of according the benefits of a new Fourth Amendment rule to the party in whose case the rule is first announced. See Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293, 301 (1967).
[20] The "veracity" prong is satisfied by a recitation in the affidavit that the informant previously supplied accurate information to the police, see McCray v. Illinois, 386 U. S. 300, 303-304 (1967), or by proof that the informant gave his information against his penal interest, see United States v. Harris, 403 U. S. 573, 583-584 (1971) (plurality opinion). The "basis of knowledge" prong is satisfied by a statement from the informant that he personally observed the criminal activity, or, if he came by the information indirectly, by a satisfactory explanation of why his sources were reliable, or, in the absence of a statement detailing the manner in which the information was gathered, by a description of the accused's criminal activity in sufficient detail that the magistrate may infer that the informant is relying on something more substantial than casual rumor or an individual's general reputation. Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S., at 416.
[26] Bridger v. State, 503 S. W. 2d 801 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974), and People v. Palanza, 55 Ill. App. 3d 1028, 371 N. E. 2d 687 (1978), which the Court describes ante, at 234, n. 9, appear to me to be excellent examples of overly technical applications of the Aguilar-Spinelli standard. The holdings in these cases could easily be disapproved without reliance on a "totality of the circumstances" analysis.
[1] Although the warrant was issued under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court stated that "[t]he provisions of these Rules must be read in light of the constitutional requirements they implement." 357 U. S., at 485. See Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108, 112, n. 3 (1964) ("The principles announced in Giordenello derived . . . from the Fourth Amendment, and not from our supervisory power").
[3] There is some tension between Draper v. United States, 358 U. S. 307 (1959), and Aguilar. In Draper, the Court considered the validity of a warrantless arrest based on an informant's tip and police corroboration of certain details of the tip. The informant, who in the past had always given accurate and reliable information, told the police that Draper was peddling narcotics. The informant later told the police that Draper had left for Chicago by train to pick up some heroin and would return by train on the morning of one of two days. The informant gave the police a detailed physical description of Draper and of the clothing he was wearing. The informant also said that Draper would be carrying a tan zipper bag and that he walked very fast. 358 U. S., at 309.
[9] The Court also argues that "[i]f the affidavits submitted by police officers are subjected to the type of scrutiny some courts have deemed appropriate, police might well resort to warrantless searches, with the hope of relying on consent or some other exception to the Warrant Clause that might develop at the time of the search." Ante, at 236. If the Court is suggesting, as it appears to be, that the police will intentionally disregard the law, it need only be noted in response that the courts are not helpless to deal with such conduct. Moreover, as was noted in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443 (1971):
[2] Lance does not appear to have behaved suspiciously in flying down to Florida. He made a reservation in his own name and gave an accurate home phone number to the airlines. Cf. Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S. 491, 493, n. 2 (1983); United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U. S. 544, 548 (1980) (Stewart, J., announcing the judgment). And Detective Mader's affidavit does not report that he did any of the other things drug couriers are notorious for doing, such as paying for the ticket in cash, Royer, 460 U. S., at 493, n. 2, dressing casually, ibid., looking pale and nervous, ibid.; Mendenhall, supra, at 548, improperly filling out baggage tags, Royer, 460 U. S., at 493, n. 2, carrying American Tourister luggage, ibid., not carrying any luggage, Mendenhall, 446 U. S., at 564-565 (POWELL, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment), or changing airlines en route, ibid.
[4] The Court purports to rely on the proposition that "if the [anonymous] informant could predict with considerable accuracy the somewhat unusual travel plans of the Gateses, he probably also had a reliable basis for his statements that the Gateses kept a large quantity of drugs in their home." Ante, at 245-246, n. 14 (emphasis added). Even if this syllogism were sound, but see Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 427 (1969) (WHITE, J., concurring), its premises are not met in this case.
[6] It is a truism that "a search warrant is valid only if probable cause has been shown to the magistrate and that an inadequate showing may not be rescued by post-search testimony on information known to the searching officers at the time of the search." Rice v. Wolff, 513 F. 2d 1280, 1287 (CA8 1975). See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 450-451 (1971); Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U. S. 560, 565, n. 8 (1971); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108, 109, n. 1 (1964); Jones v. United States, 357 U. S. 493, 497-498 (1958); Giordenello v. United States, 357 U. S. 480, 486 (1958); Taylor v. United States, 286 U. S. 1, 6 (1932); Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20, 33 (1925).
[7] Draper v. United States, 358 U. S. 307 (1959), affords no support for today's holding. That case did not involve an anonymous informant. On the contrary, as the Court twice noted, Mr. Hereford was "employed for that purpose and [his] information had always been found accurate and reliable." Id., at 313; see id., at 309. In this case, the police had no prior experience with the informant, and some of his or her information in this case was unreliable and inaccurate.
[8] The Court holds that what were heretofore considered two independent "prongs"  "veracity" and "basis of knowledge"  are now to be considered together as circumstances whose totality must be appraised. Ante, at 233. "[A] deficiency in one may be compensated for, in determining the overall reliability of a tip, by a strong showing as to the other, or by some other indicia of reliability." Ibid. Yet in this case, the lower courts found neither factor present. 85 Ill. 2d, at 390, 423 N. E. 2d, at 893. And the supposed "other indicia" in the affidavit take the form of activity that is not particularly remarkable. I do not understand how the Court can find that the "totality" so far exceeds the sum of its "circumstances."
United States v. Jo Ann Williams
David L. Rice v. Charles L. Wolff
State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Duel
Dewey v. Des Moines
Illinois v. Lance Gates, Et Ux
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Chi-Choi Wong
State v. Teate
Hartman v. Robertson
Brian Marques Askew v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Marc Joseph Stout v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Slade v. Com.
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Mitchell
Com. v. Johnson, R.
United States v. Maxwell Allen v. James Casey
Elliot Culp v. State of Mississippi
Lynn Martin v. International Matex Tank Terminals--Bayonne
United States v. George Payne
United States v. Eric Shields
United States v. Michael Karrer
United States of America Government of the Virgin Islands v. Ernie Ritter Reggy Ritter Dale Ritter
United States v. Genaro Medina-Ortiz
United States v. Denis Dorais v. Laurie Gomes
United States v. Mark Albers Jim T. Freegard David Moran Erin Moran David Pierce Carmel Presse Lyle Presse J. Jeff Schabs Mark Sheehan Kirk Smith David M. Strobel Steve Van Horn
United States v. Joseph T. Brady
United States v. Joseph Kelly v. Terrence M. Nikrasch
United States v. Aron Dwayne Versteeg
United States v. Bruce Albert White
Melvin Albiso Aurelio Jr. Casem v. Sherman Block County of Los Angeles Dwayne Benson Scott Johnson Ten Unknown Named L.A. County Deputy Sheriffs
Did you want to cite the ILLINOIS V. GATES court case? Copy and paste the below to your blog or Web page or create a forum post.