Document: 446 U.S. 620 100 S.Ct. 1912 64 L.Ed.2d 559 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.J. Lee HAVENS. No. 79-305. Argued March 19, 1980. Decided May 27, Rehearing Denied Aug. 11, See 448 911, 101 25. Syllabus After respondent and another man (McLeroth) arrived at the Miami Airport on a flight from Peru, customs officer searched McLeroth found cocaine sewed into makeshift pockets in T-shirt he was wearing. When implicated respondent, arrested his luggage without warrant. A which pieces had been cut that matched sewn to McLeroth's seized. The seized suppressed prior respondent's trial federal drug charges. At trial, McLeroth, who pleaded guilty, testified against asserting supplied him with altered shut. Respondent, taking stand own defense, acknowledged, direct testimony, testimony "taped or draped around body" but denied "ever engage[d] kind of activity" McLeroth. On cross-examination, Government called attention these answers then asked whether anything do sewing T-shirt. Respondent had. And when missing luggage, replied both questions: "Not my knowledge." rebuttal for Government, admitted evidence over objection, jury being instructed be considered only impeaching credibility. Respondent's conviction reversed by Court Appeals, held illegally may used impeachment if contradicts particular statement made defendant course examination. Held : defendant's statements response proper cross-examination reasonably suggested examination are subject otherwise albeit has obtained is inadmissible as substantive guilt. Cf. Harris v. New York, 401 222, 91 643, 28 1; Oregon Hass, 420 714, 95 1215, 43 570. Here, could easily understood denial any connection contradiction This growing out ensuing did not violate constitutional rights. Pp. 624-628. 592 F.2d 848, remanded. Andrew L. Frey, Washington, D. C., petitioner. William C. Lee, Fort Wayne, Ind., respondent. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered opinion Court. 1 petition certiorari filed United States this criminal case presented single question: fruit an unlawful search seizure nevertheless impeach false given where does squarely contradict We issued writ, 444 962, 447, 62 374 (1979). 2 * convicted importing, conspiring import, intentionally possessing controlled substance, cocaine. According Havens John attorneys Ft. boarded Lima, Miami, Fla. In wearing under outer clothing. previously cleared arrested. His officers no drugs other were motion trial. 3 Both men charged three-count indictment, guilty one count Havens. Among things, asserted took defense involvement smuggling included following: 4 "Q. you heard testify earlier something effect material taped body so on, testimony? 5 "A. Yes, I did. 6 Did ever engage activity Augusto anyone else fourth visit Peru? 7 not." App. 34. 8 follows: 9 Now, examination, sir, trip absolutely nothing wrapping bandages tee shirts involving McLeroth; correct? 10 don't—I said anything, yes. matter. 11 12 your cotton swatches make shirt? 13 Absolutely not. 14 Sir, came through Customs, International Airport, October 2, 1977, have suitcase Size 38-40 medium shirts?" Id., 35. 15 An objection latter question overruled questioning continued: 16 day, man's shirt clothing tail 17 Not knowledge. 18 19 Havens, I'm going hand what Government's Exhibit identification ask 2nd, 1975 [sic]? 20 No." 46. 21 also having told agent T-shirts belonged 22 rebuttal, claimed bag, including 9, Over evidence, should Havens' 23 Appeals reversed, relying Agnello States, 269 20, 46 4, 70 L.Ed. 145 (1925), Walder 347 62, 74 354, 98 503 (1954). court 848 (CA5 1979). reverse. II 24 supra, conspiracy sell package possessed packages involved know them. seen narcotics can exhibited apartment. permitted rebuttal. affirmed Appeals. holding Fourth Amendment required exclusion evidence. pointed "[i]n concerning cocaine" "did waive protection justify respect search." U.S., 35, S.Ct., 7. said, quoting Silverthorne Lumber Co. 251 385, 392, 40 182, 183, 319 (1920), exclusionary rule commands "shall before it shall all." 25 rejected our later cases, however, limited. use illegal chief defendant. approved, saying would pervert Weeks 232 383, 34 341, 58 652 (1914), hold otherwise. Similarly, (1971), 570 (1975), taken violation Miranda Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 694 (1966), unusable prosecution part its case, admissible testimony. clear limited collateral matters. 225, 645. 26 These cases tainted offered main credibility unless during examination; first time impeached. approach because, read record, about incriminating contents luggage; T-shirt, desired appeared direct. 27 It true brought Walder, Harris, impeached while testifying view, flat permitting misapprehends underlying rationale Hass. repudiated all Furthermore, Agnello, "smuggled in" opportunity cross-examination. relied 7, done "to implication too tenuous opened upon permit reversing District us, stop consider how closely connected matters gone If questions competent cross-examiner they in"; forbidding using contrary reliable possession fails take account particularly stressed importance arriving truth trials, well obligation speak questions. notion shield "perverted license perjury way free risk confrontation inconsistent utterances." 226, 646. 722, 723, 1221. deterrent function rules excluding unconstitutionally sufficiently served denying government case. "speculative possibility" making unavailable contribute substantially respect. 29 Neither nor Hass assertedly reasoning those controls one. There gainsaying fundamental goal legal system. repeatedly insisted defendants testify, must truthfully suffer consequences. even though compelled will. Bryson 396 64, 72, 90 355, 360, 264 (1969); Knox, 77, 363, 275 (1969). essential, therefore, functioning adversary system takes stand, effective attempt elicit truth. fully binding cross-examined. privilege self-incrimination questioning. Brown 356 148, 154-155, 78 622, 626, 589 (1958). He unquestionably knowingly lies Apfelbaum, 445 115, 948, 63 250 (1980); supra; Wong, 431 174, 97 1823, 52 231 (1977). terms seemingly utterances available government, we see difference magnitude between put plainly within scope Without opportunity, normal severely impeded. 30 think policies more bar here than ends thought adequately implemented challenged chief. incremental furthering testifies deemed insufficient require go unchallenged, resulting impairment integrity factfinding goals reaffirm assessment competing interests, government's otherwise, 31 judgment, noted counsel's ground matter "covered direct," remarked "[i]t covered direct." error since view As indicated, view; understand indicated question, answer sought impeached, need instance. suggest either improper absent cannot accept suggestions because seizure, assisted preparing smuggling. acknowledged "was on" . " Quite reasonably, seems testimony; and, above, 32 reverse judgment remand further proceedings consistent opinion. 33 So ordered. BRENNAN, joined MARSHALL Part STEWART STEVENS, dissenting. 35 upholds admission deliberately elicited cover accused behalf. dissent. Criminal now prosecutors licensed insinuate guise longer unfettered right elect their today's decision unwarranted departure controlling but, regrettably, yet element trend depreciate protections guaranteed criminally accused. 36 us impression. identical issue confronted determined instant decision—that constitutionally impermissible admit rebut raised Subsequently, (1954), introduction unlawfully acquired accused's assertions previous conduct But pains draw distinction noting "the [Walder] went beyond mere complicity crimes sweeping [and untrue] claim never dealt narcotics." 65, 356. "shar[p] contras[t]," tried smuggle [the evidence] cross-examination," "elicit[ed] expected denial. ." 66, 37 Court's recent decisions left undisturbed. allowed uncounseled So, too, reaffirmed context Significantly, neither intimated lost vitality, emphasized effaced. 38 attempts discredit casting strawman holding, demolishing pitiful scarecrow creation. Specifically, cites Agnello's quotation language "illegally 'shall all,' ante, 624, refers subsequent indeed impeachment. actual principle discerned employ power predicate words, about—or of—suppressible warranted That advantage evidentiary suppression advance specific perjurious claims 39 Nor correct turning tenuity link there Ante, 625. related lacked knowledge commodity transporting 29-30, 5. For "[t]he Frank tended show intent .." Thus, flaw prompted States. specifically stated "must deny elements thereby giving leave introduce secured it, therefore chief." Since law perfectly permissible cross-examine crime, quoted passage impose condition prosecutor refer evidence—that is, some relies disability challenge credibility." Ibid. fact, current interpretation simply trivializes transforming holdings reflection common-law relevance. 41 Finally, York impel hand. exception established fairly cabined willingness forgo certain areas prescribed passes control lay admitting suppressible To sure, requires "proper"; traditional principles accord parties considerable latitude crossexamining opposing witnesses. McCormick, Law Evidence §§ 21-24 (2d ed. 1972).1 practical terms, allows moderately talented "work [as would] avoid consequence, will 42 "[T]he Constitution guarantees fullest meet accusation him." 356; 229-230, 647 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting). Regrettably, surrender guarantee price imposes basis Constitution.2 agree purchased expense another. foregoing demonstration break precedent provides sufficient condemn present ruling unleashing, does, hitherto relatively confined rule. here, culminates sequence undercuts canon convictions procured governmental lawbreaking. 226-232, 646-49 dissenting); 724-725, 1222 44 '[I]t monstrous courts aid abet law-breaking police officer.' 724, 1222, 232, 649 especially troubling mode analysis employed each, bottomed determination "incremental furthering" warrant probative 267; 721, 1220; 45 Of course, "[t]here system." 626. undeniable promotion objective consonant ends, enshrined Constitution. still hope prepared acquiesce torture "shocks conscience" demonstrably advanced process. rate, important countenance misbehavior, pursuit processes judicial fueled illegalities authorities. See, e. g., Mapp Ohio, 367 81 1684, 1081 (1961). Nevertheless, undertaken strike "balance" "policies" finds Bill Rights "competing interes[t]" accurate determinations. 627. balancing effort completely freewheeling. Far applying criteria intrinsic Fifth Amendments, resolves succeeding declaring much enough deter misconduct. 627; 645; cf. Stone Powell, 428 465, 486-489, 96 3037, 3048-50, 49 1067 (1976); Calandra, 414 338, 350-352, 94 613, 621-622, 561 (1974). hardly conforms disciplined analytical method described "legal reasoning," judges endeavor formulate derive applied consistently predictably. 47 Ultimately, fear, ad hoc obscures decisionmaking legislative administrative policymaking. More disturbingly, treating privileges incentive schemes, denigrates unique status protections. Yet efficacy bulwark national liberty depends precisely public appreciation special character prescriptions. responsibility enforce guarantees; such patently disregard obligation. 48 Accordingly, Federal Rule 611 provide limitation affecting witness." constraints adopted generally fashion Although behavior ostensibly merely attack contradicting serve buttress affirmative prosecution's almost enhance unrealistic assume limiting instructions afford significant protection. Bruton 391 123, 88 1620, 476 (1968).

Category: 0