author:
Me. Justice Stewaet
      Mr. Chief Justice Burger,

text:
    O’CONNOR v. DONALDSON
    No. 74-8.
    Argued January 15, 1975 —
    Decided June 26, 1975

      Raymond W. Oearey, Assistant Attorney General of Florida, argued the cause for petitioner pro hac vice. With him on the briefs were Robert L. Shevin, Attorney General, and Daniel S. Dearing, Special Assistant Attorney General.

      Bruce J. Ennis, Jr., argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Morton Birnbaum.

        William F. Hyland, Attorney General, Stephen Skillman, Assistant Attorney General, and Joseph T. Maloney, Deputy Attorney General, filed a brief for the State of New Jersey as amicus curiae urging reversal.
      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., for the American Psychiatric Assn.; by Francis M. Shea, Ralph J. Moore, Jr., John Townsend Rich, James F. Fitzpatrick, Kurt W. Melchior, Harry J. Rubin, Sheridan L. Neimark, and A. L. Zwerdling for the American Association on Mental Deficiency; and by June Resnick German and Alfred Berman for the Committee on Mental Hygiene of the New York State Bar Assn.

        William J. Brotan, Attorney General, and Andrew J. Ruzicho and Barbara J. Rouse, Assistant Attorneys General, filed a brief for the State of Ohio as amicus curiae.

   Me. Justice Stewaet

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The respondent, Kenneth Donaldson, was civilly committed to confinement as a mental patient in the Florida State Hospital at Chattahoochee in January 1957. He was kept in custody there against his will for nearly 15 years. The petitioner, Dr. J. B. O’Connor, was the hospital’s superintendent during most of this period. Throughout his confinement Donaldson repeatedly, but unsuccessfully, demanded his release, claiming that he was dangerous to no one, that he was not mentally ill, and that, at any rate, the hospital was not providing treatment for his supposed illness. Finally, in February 1971, Donaldson brought this lawsuit under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, alleging that O’Connor, and other members of the hospital staff named as defendants, had intentionally and maliciously deprived him of his constitutional right to liberty. After a four-day trial, the jury returned a verdict assessing both compensatory and punitive damages against O’Connor and a codefendant. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment, 493 F. 2d 507. We granted O’Connor’s petition for certiorari, 419 U. S. 894, because of the important constitutional questions seemingly presented.

I

Donaldson’s commitment was initiated by his father, who thought that his son was suffering from “delusions.” After hearings before a county judge of Pinellas County, Fla., Donaldson was found to be suffering from “paranoid schizophrenia” and was committed for “care, maintenance, and treatment” pursuant to Florida statutory provisions that have since been repealed. The state law was less than clear in specifying the grounds necessary for commitment, and the record is scanty as to Donaldson’s condition at the time of the judicial hearing. These matters are, however, irrelevant, for this case involves no challenge to the initial commitment, but is focused, instead, upon the nearly 15 years of confinement that followed.

The evidence sit the trial showed that the hospital staff had the power to release a patient, not dangerous to himself or others, even if he remained mentally ill and had been lawfully committed. Despite many requests, O’Connor refused to allow that power to be exercised in Donaldson’s case. At the trial, O’Connor indicated that he had believed that Donaldson would have been unable to make a “successful adjustment outside the institution,” but could not recall the basis for that conclusion. O’Connor retired as superintendent shortly before this suit was filed. A few months thereafter, and before the trial, Donaldson secured his release and a judicial restoration of competency, with the support of the hospital staff.

The testimony at the trial demonstrated, without contradiction, that Donaldson had posed no danger to others during his long confinement, or indeed at any point in his life. O’Connor himself conceded that he had no personal or secondhand knowledge that Donaldson had ever committed a dangerous act. There was no evidence that Donaldson had ever been suicidal or been thought likely to inflict injury upon himself. One of O’Connor’s codefendants acknowledged that Donaldson could have earned his own living outside the hospital. He had done so for some 14 years before his commitment, and immediately upon his release he secured a responsible job in hotel administration.

Furthermore, Donaldson’s frequent requests for release had been supported by responsible persons willing to provide him any care he might need on release. In 1963, for example, a representative of Helping Hands, Inc., a halfway house for mental patients, wrote O’Connor asking him to release Donaldson to its care. The request was accompanied by a supporting letter from the Minneapolis Clinic of Psychiatry and Neurology, which a codefendant conceded was a “good clinic.” O’Connor rejected the offer, replying that Donaldson could be released only to his parents. That rule was apparently of O’Connor’s own making. At the time, Donaldson was 55 years old, and, as O’Connor knew, Donaldson’s parents were too elderly and infirm to take responsibility for him. Moreover, in his continuing correspondence with Donaldson’s parents, O’Connor never informed them of the Helping Hands offer. In addition, on four separate occasions between 1964 and 1968, John Lembcke, a college classmate of Donaldson’s and a longtime family friend, asked O’Connor to release Donaldson to his care. On each occasion O’Connor refused. The record shows that Lembcke was a serious and responsible person, who was willing and able to assume responsibility for Donaldson’s welfare.

The evidence showed that Donaldson’s confinement was a simple regime of enforced custodial care, not a program designed to alleviate or cure his supposed illness. Numerous witnesses, including one of O’Connor’s codefendants, testified that Donaldson had received nothing but custodial care while at the hospital. O’Connor described Donaldson’s treatment as “milieu therapy.” But witnesses from the hospital staff conceded that, in the context of this case, “milieu therapy” was a euphemism for confinement in the “milieu” of a mental hospital. For substantial periods, Donaldson was simply kept in a large room that housed 60 patients, many of whom were under criminal commitment. Donaldson’s requests for ground privileges, occupational training, and an opportunity to discuss his case with O’Connor or other staff members were repeatedly denied.

At the trial, O’Connor’s principal defense was that he had acted in good faith and was therefore immune from any liability for monetary damages. His position, in short, was that state law, which he had believed valid, had authorized indefinite custodial confinement of the “sick,” even if they were not given treatment and their release could harm no one.

The trial judge instructed the members of the jury that they should find that O’Connor had violated Donaldson’s constitutional right to liberty if they found that he had

“confined [Donaldson] against his will, knowing that he was not mentally ill or dangerous or knowing that if mentally ill he was not receiving treatment for his alleged mental illness.
“Now, the purpose of involuntary hospitalization is treatment and not mere custodial care or punishment if a patient is not a danger to himself or others. Without such treatment there is no justification from a constitutional stand-point for continued confinement unless you should also find that [Donaldson] was dangerous to either himself or others.”

The trial judge further instructed the jury that O’Con-nor was immune from damages if he

“reasonably believed in good faith that detention of [Donaldson] was proper for the length of time he was so confined ....
“However, mere good intentions which do not give rise to a reasonable belief that detention is lawfully required cannot justify [Donaldson’s] confinement in the Florida State Hospital.”

The jury returned a verdict for Donaldson against O’Connor and a codefendant, and awarded damages of $38,500, including $10,000 in punitive damages.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court in a broad opinion dealing with “the far-reaching question whether the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a right to treatment to persons involuntarily civilly committed to state mental hospitals.” 493 F. 2d, at 509. The appellate court held that when, as in Donaldson’s case, the rationale for confinement is that the patient is in need of treatment, the Constitution requires that minimally adequate treatment in fact be provided. Id., at 521. The court further expressed the view that, regardless of the grounds for involuntary civil commitment, a person confined against his will at a state mental institution has “a constitutional right to receive such individual treatment as will give him a reasonable opportunity to be cured or to improve his mental condition.” Id., at 520. Conversely, the court’s opinion implied that it is constitutionally permissible for a State to confine a mentally ill person against his will in order to treat his illness, regardless of whether his illness renders him dangerous to himself or others. See id., at 522-527.

II

We have concluded that the difficult issues of constitutional law dealt with by the Court of Appeals are not presented by this case in its present posture. Specifically, there is no reason now to decide whether mentally ill persons dangerous to themselves or to others have a right to treatment upon compulsory confinement by the State, or whether the State may compulsorily confine a nondangerous, mentally ill individual for the purpose of treatment. As we view it, this case raises a single, relatively simple, but nonetheless important question concerning every man’s constitutional right to liberty.

The jury found that Donaldson was neither dangerous to himself nor dangerous to others, and also found that, if mentally ill, Donaldson had not received treatment. That verdict, based on abundant evidénce, makes the issue before the Court a narrow one. We need not decide whether, when, or by what procedures, a mentally ill person may be confined by the State on any of the grounds which, under contemporary statutes, are generally advanced to justify involuntary confinement of such a person — to prevent injury to the public, to ensure his own survival or safety, or to alleviate or cure his illness. See Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U. S. 715, 736-737; Humphrey v. Cady, 405 U. S. 504, 509. For the jury found that none of the above grounds for continued confinement was present in Donaldson’s case.

Given the jury’s findings, what was left as justification for keeping Donaldson in continued confinement? The fact that state law may have authorized confinement of the harmless mentally ill does not itself establish a constitutionally adequate purpose for the confinement. See Jackson v. Indiana, supra, at 720-723; McNeil v. Director, Patuxent Institution, 407 U. S. 245, 248-250. Nor is it enough that Donaldson’s original confinement was founded upon a constitutionally adequate basis, if in fact it was, because even if his involuntary confinement was initially permissible, it could not constitutionally continue after that basis no longer existed. Jackson v. Indiana, supra, at 738; McNeil v. Director, Patuxent Institution, supra.

A finding of “mental illness” alone cannot justify a State’s locking a person up against his will and keeping him indefinitely in simple custodial confinement. Assuming that that term can be given a reasonably precise content and that the “mentally ill” can be identified with reasonable accuracy, there is still no constitutional basis for confining such persons involuntarily if they are dangerous to no one and can live safely in freedom.

May the State confine the mentally ill merely to ensure them a living standard superior to that they enjoy in the private community? That the State has a proper interest in providing care and assistance to the unfortunate goes without saying. But the mere presence of mental illness does not disqualify a person from preferring his home to the comforts of an institution. Moreover, while the State may arguably confine a person to save him from harm, incarceration is rarely if ever a necessary condition for raising the living standards of those capable of surviving safely in freedom, on their own or with the help of family or friends. See Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479, 488-490.

May the State fence in the harmless mentally ill solely to save its citizens from exposure to those whose ways are different? One might as well ask if the State, to avoid public unease, could incarcerate all who are physically unattractive or socially eccentric. Mere public intolerance or animosity cannot constitutionally justify the deprivation of a person’s physical liberty. See, e. g., Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15, 24-26; Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U. S. 611, 615; Street v. New York, 394 U. S. 576, 592; cf. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 534.

In short, a State cannot constitutionally confine without more a nondangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by himself or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends. Since the jury found, upon ample evidence, that O’Con-nor, as an agent of the State, knowingly did so confine Donaldson, it properly concluded that O’Connor violated Donaldson’s constitutional right to freedom.

Ill

O’Connor contends that in any event he should not be held personally liable for monetary damages because his decisions were made in “good faith.” Specifically, O’Connor argues that he was acting pursuant to state law which, he believed, authorized confinement of the mentally ill even when their release would not compromise their safety or constitute a danger to others, and that he could not reasonably have been expected to know that the state law as he understood it was constitutionally invalid. A proposed instruction to this effect was rejected by the District Court.

The District Court did instruct the jury, without objection, that monetary damages could not be assessed against O’Connor if he had believed reasonably and in good faith that Donaldson’s continued confinement was “proper,” and that punitive damages could be awarded only if O’Connor had acted “maliciously or wantonly or oppressively.” The Court of Appeals approved those instructions. But that court did not consider whether it was error for the trial judge to refuse the additional instruction concerning O’Connor’s claimed reliance on state law as authorization for Donaldson’s continued confinement. Further, neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals acted with the benefit of this Court’s most recent decision on the scope of the qualified immunity possessed by state officials under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S. 308.

Under that decision, the relevant question for the jury is whether O’Connor “knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of [Donaldson], or if he took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury to [Donaldson].” Id., at 322. See also Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U. S. 232, 247-248; Wood v. Strickland, supra, at 330 (opinion of Powell, J.). For purposes of this question, an official has, of course, no duty to anticipate unforeseeable constitutional developments. Wood v. Strickland, supra, at 322.

Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to enable that court to consider, in light of Wood v. Strickland, whether the District Judge’s failure to instruct with regard to the effect of O’Connor’s claimed reliance on state law rendered inadequate the instructions as to O’Connor’s liability for compensatory and punitive damages.

It is so ordered.

Mr. Chief Justice Burger,

concurring.

Although I join the Court’s opinion and judgment in this case, it seems to me that several factors merit more emphasis than it gives them. I therefore add the following remarks.

I

With respect to the remand to the Court of Appeals on the issue of official immunity from liability for monetary damages, it seems to me not entirely irrelevant that there was substantial evidence that Donaldson consistently refused treatment that was offered to him, claiming that he was not mentally ill and needed no treatment. The Court appropriately takes notice of the uncertainties of psychiatric diagnosis and therapy, and the reported cases are replete with evidence of the divergence of medical opinion in this vexing area. E. g., Greenwood v. United States, 350 U. S. 366, 375 (1956). See also Drope v. Missouri, 420 U. S. 162 (1975). Nonetheless, one of the few areas of agreement among behavioral specialists is that an uncooperative patient cannot benefit from therapy and that the first step in effective treatment is acknowledgment by the patient that he is suffering from an abnormal condition. See, e. g., Katz, The Right to Treatment — An Enchanting Legal Fiction? 36 U. Chi. L. Rev. 755, 768-769 (1969). Donaldson’s adamant refusal to do so should be taken into account in considering petitioner’s good-faith defense.

Perhaps more important to the issue of immunity is a factor referred to only obliquely in the Court’s opinion. On numerous occasions during the period of his confinement Donaldson unsuccessfully sought release in the Florida courts; indeed, the last of these proceedings was terminated only a few months prior to the bringing of this action. See 234 So. 2d 114 (1969), cert, denied, 400 U. S. 869 (1970). Whatever the reasons for the state courts’ repeated denials of relief, and regardless of whether they correctly resolved the issue tendered to them, petitioner and the other members of the medical staff at Florida State Hospital would surely have been justified in considering each such judicial decision as an approval of continued confinement and an independent intervening reason for continuing Donaldson’s custody. Thus, this fact is inescapably related to the issue of immunity and must be considered by the Court of Appeals on remand and, if a new trial on this issue is ordered, by the District Court.

II

As the Court points out, ante, at 570 n. 6, the District Court instructed the jury in part that “a person who is involuntarily civilly committed to a mental hospital does have a constitutional right to receive such treatment as will give him a realistic opportunity to he cured” (emphasis added), and the Court of Appeals unequivocally approved this phrase, standing alone, as a correct statement of the law. 493 F. 2d 507, 520 (CA5 1974). The Court’s opinion plainly gives no approval to that holding and makes clear that it binds neither the parties to this case nor the courts of the Fifth Circuit. See ante, at 577-578, n. 12. Moreover, in light of its importance for future litigation in this area, it should be emphasized that the Court of Appeals’ analysis has no basis in the decisions of this Court.

A

There can be no doubt that involuntary commitment to a mental hospital, like involuntary confinement of an individual for any reason, is a deprivation of liberty which the State cannot accomplish without due process of law. Specht v. Patterson, 386 U. S. 605, 608 (1967). Cf. In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1, 12-13 (1967). Commitment must be justified on the basis of a legitimate state interest, and the reasons for committing a particular individual must be established in an appropriate proceeding. Equally important, confinement must cease when those reasons no longer exist. See McNeil v. Director, Patuxent Institution, 407 U. S. 245, 249-250 (1972); Jackson v. Indiana, 406 IT. S. 715, 738 (1972).

The Court of Appeals purported to be applying these principles in developing the first of its theories supporting a constitutional right to treatment. It first identified what it perceived to be the traditional bases for civil commitment — physical dangerousness to oneself or others, or a need for treatment — and stated:

''[W]here, as in Donaldson’s case, the rationale for confinement is the ‘parens patriae’ rationale that the patient is in need of treatment, the due process clause requires that minimally adequate treatment be in fact provided. . . . 'To deprive any citizen of his or her liberty upon the altruistic theory that the confinement is for humane therapeutic reasons and then fail to provide adequate treatment violates the very fundamentals of due process.’ ” 493 F. 2d, at 521.

The Court of Appeals did not explain its conclusion that the rationale for respondent’s commitment was that he needed treatment. The Florida statutes in effect during the period of his confinement did not require that a person who had been adjudicated incompetent and ordered committed either be provided with psychiatric treatment or released, and there was no such condition in respondent’s order of commitment. Cf. Rouse v. Cameron, 125 U. S. App. D. C. 366, 373 F. 2d 451 (1967). More important, the instructions which the Court of Appeals read as establishing an absolute constitutional right to treatment did not require the jury to make any findings regarding the specific reasons for respondent’s confinement or to focus upon any rights he may have had under state law. Thus, the premise of the Court of Appeals’ first theory must have been that, at least with respect to persons who are not physically dangerous, a State has no power to confine the mentally ill except for the purpose of providing them with treatment.

That proposition is surely not descriptive of the power traditionally exercised by the States in this area. Historically, and for a considerable period of time, subsidized custodial care in private foster homes or boarding houses was the most benign form of care provided incompetent or mentally ill persons for whom the States assumed responsibility. Until well into the 19th century the vast majority of such persons were simply restrained in poorhouses, almshouses, or jails. See A. Deutsch, The Mentally 111 in America 38-54, 11A-131 (2d ed. 1949). The few States that established institutions for the mentally ill during this early period were concerned primarily with providing a more humane place of confinement and only secondarily with “during” the persons sent there. See id., at 98-113.

As the trend toward state care of the mentally ill expanded, eventually leading to the present statutory schemes for protecting such persons, the dual functions of institutionalization continued to be recognized. While one of the goals of this movement was to provide medical treatment to those who could benefit from it, it was acknowledged that this could not be done in all cases and that there was a large range of mental illness for which no known “cure” existed. In time, providing places for the custodial confinement of the so-called “dependent insane” again emerged as the major goal of the States’ programs in this area and remained so well into this century. See id., at 228-271; D. Rothman, The Discovery of the Asylum 264-295 (1971).

In short, the idea that States may not confine the mentally ill except for the purpose of providing them with treatment is of very recent origin, and there is no historical basis for imposing such a limitation on state power. Analysis of the sources of the civil commitment power likewise lends no support to that notion. There can be little doubt that in the exercise of its police power a State may confine individuals solely to protect society from the dangers of significant antisocial acts or communicable disease. Cf. Minnesota ex rel. Pearson v. Probate Court, 309 U. S. 270 (1940); Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 25-29 (1905). Additionally, the States are vested with the historic parens patriae power, including the duty to protect “persons under legal disabilities to act for themselves.” Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co., 405 U. S. 251, 257 (1972). See also Mormon Church v. United States, 136 U. S. 1, 56-58 (1890). The classic example of this role is when a State undertakes to act as “ 'the general guardian of all infants, idiots, and lunatics.’ ” Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co., supra, at 257, quoting 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *47.

Of course, an inevitable consequence of exercising the parens patriae power is that the ward’s personal freedom will be substantially restrained, whether a guardian is appointed to control his property, he is placed in the custody of a private third party, or committed to an institution. Thus, however the power is implemented, due process requires that it not be invoked indiscriminately. At a minimum, a particular scheme for protection of the mentally ill must rest upon a legislative determination that it is compatible with the best interests of the affected class and that its members are unable to act for themselves. Cf. Mormon Church v. United States, supra. Moreover, the use of alternative forms of protection may be motivated by different considerations, and the justifications for one may not be invoked to rationalize another. Cf. Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U. S., at 737-738. See also American Bar Foundation, The Mentally Disabled and the Law 254-255 (S. Brakel & R. Rock ed. 1971).

However, the existence of some due process limitations on the parens patriae power does not justify the further conclusion that it may be exercised to confine a mentally ill person only if the purpose of the confinement is treatment. Despite many recent advances in medical knowledge, it remains a stubborn fact that there are many forms of mental illness which are not understood, some which are untreatable in the sense that no effective therapy has yet been discovered for them, and that rates of “cure” are generally low. See Schwitzgebel, The Right to Effective Mental Treatment, 62 Calif. L. Rev. 936, 941-948 (1974). There can be little responsible debate regarding “the uncertainty of diagnosis in this field and the tentativeness of professional judgment.” Greenwood v. United States, 350 U. S., at 375. See also Ennis & Litwack, Psychiatry and the Presumption of Expertise: Flipping Coins in the Courtroom, 62 Calif. L. Rev. 693, 697-719 (1974). Similarly, as previously observed, it is universally recognized as fundamental to effective therapy that the patient acknowledge his illness and cooperate with those attempting to give treatment; yet the failure of a large proportion of mentally ill persons to do so is a common phenomenon. See Katz, supra, 36 U. Chi. L. Rev., at 768-769. It may be that some persons in either of these categories, and there may be others, are unable to function in society and will suffer real harm to themselves unless provided with care in a sheltered environment. See, e. g., Lake v. Cameron, 124 U. S. App. D. C. 264, 270-271, 364 F. 2d 657, 663-664 (1966) (dissenting opinion). At the very least, I am not able to say that a state legislature is powerless to make that kind of judgment. See Greenwood v. United States, supra.

B

Alternatively, it has been argued that, a Fourteenth Amendment right to treatment for involuntarily confined mental patients derives from the fact that many of the safeguards of the criminal process are not present in civil commitment. The Court of Appeals described this theory as follows:

a[A] due process right to treatment is based on the principle that when the three central limitations on the government's power to detain- — that detention be in retribution for a specific offense; that it be limited to a fixed term; and that it be permitted after a proceeding where the fundamental procedural safeguards are observed — are absent, there must be a quid pro quo extended by the government to justify confinement. And the quid pro quo most commonly recognized is the provision of rehabilitative treatment.” 493 F. 2d, at 522.

To the extent that this theory may be read to permit a State to confine an individual simply because it is willing to provide treatment, regardless of the subject's ability to function in society, it raises the gravest of constitutional problems, and I have no doubt the Court of Appeals would agree on this score. As a justification for a constitutional right to such treatment, the quid pro quo theory suffers from equally serious defects.

It is too well established to require extended discussion that due process is not an inflexible concept. Rather, its requirements are determined in particular instances by identifying and accommodating the interests of the individual and society. See, e. g., Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 480-484 (1972); McNeil v. Director, Patuxent Institution, 407 U. S., at 249-250; McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U. S. 528, 545-555 (1971) (plurality opinion). Where claims that the State is acting in the best interests of an individual are said to justify reduced procedural and substantive safeguards, this Court’s decisions require that they be “candidly appraised.” In re Gault, 387 U. S., at 21, 27-29. However, in so doing judges are not free to read their private notions of public policy or public health into the Constitution. Olsen v. Nebraska, 313 U. S. 236, 246-247 (1941).

The quid pro quo theory is a sharp departure from, and cannot coexist with, due process principles. As an initial matter, the theory presupposes that essentially the same interests are involved in every situation where a State seeks to confine an individual; that assumption, however, is incorrect. It is elementary that the justification for the criminal process and the unique deprivation of liberty which it can impose requires that it be invoked only for commission of a specific offense prohibited by legislative enactment. See Powell v. Texas, 392 U. S. 514, 541-544 (1968) (opinion of Black, J.). But it would be incongruous, for example, to apply the same limitation when quarantine is imposed by the State to protect the public from a highly communicable disease. See Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S., at 29-30.

A more troublesome feature of the quid pro quo theory is that it would elevate a concern for essentially procedural safeguards into a new substantive constitutional right. Rather than inquiring whether strict standards of proof or periodic redetermination of a patient’s condition are required in civil confinement, the theory accepts the absence of such safeguards but insists that the State provide benefits which, in the view of a court, are adequate “compensation” for confinement. In light of the wide divergence of medical opinion regarding the diagnosis of and proper therapy for mental abnormalities, that prospect is especially troubling in this area and cannot be squared with the principle that “courts may not substitute for the judgments of legislators their own understanding of the public welfare, but must instead concern themselves with the validity under the Constitution of the methods which the legislature has selected.” In re Gault, 387 U. S., at 71 (Harlan, J., concurring and dissenting). Of course, questions regarding the adequacy of procedure and the power of a State to continue particular confinements are ultimately for the courts, aided by expert opinion to the extent that is found helpful. But I am not persuaded that we should abandon the traditional limitations on the scope of judicial review.

C

In sum, I cannot accept the reasoning of the Court of Appeals and can discern no basis for equating an involuntarily committed mental patient’s unquestioned constitutional right not to be confined without due process of law with a constitutional right to treatment. Given the present state of medical knowledge regarding abnormal human behavior and its treatment, few things would be more fraught with peril than to irrevocably condition a State’s power to protect the mentally ill upon the providing of “such treatment as will give [them] a realistic opportunity to be cured.” Nor can I accept the theory that a State may lawfully confine an individual thought to need treatment and justify that deprivation of liberty solely by providing some treatment. Our concepts of due process would not tolerate such a “tradeoff.” Because the Court of Appeals' analysis could be read as authorizing those results, it should not be followed.

       Donaldson’s original complaint was filed as a class action on behalf of himself and all of his fellow patients in an entire department of the Florida State Hospital at Chattahoochee. In addition to a damages claim, Donaldson’s complaint also asked for habeas corpus relief ordering his release, as well as the release of all members of the class. Donaldson further sought declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the hospital to provide adequate psychiatric treatment.
      After Donaldson’s release and after the District Court dismissed the action as a class suit, Donaldson filed an amended complaint, repeating his claim for compensatory and punitive damages. Although the amended complaint retained the prayer for declaratory and injunctive relief, that request was eliminated from the case prior to trial. See 493 F. 2d 507, 512-513.

       The judicial commitment proceedings were pursuant to § 394.22 (11) of the State Public Health Code, which provided:
      “Whenever any person who has been adjudged mentally incompetent requires confinement or restraint to prevent self-injury or violence to others, the said judge shall direct that such person be forthwith delivered to a superintendent of a Florida state hospital, for the mentally ill, after admission has been authorized under regulations approved by the board of commissioners of state institutions, for care, maintenance, and treatment, as provided in sections 394.09, 394.24, 394.25, 394.26 and 394.27, or make such other disposition of him as he may be permitted by law Fla. Laws 1955— 1956 Extra. Sess., c. 31403, § 1, p. 62.
      Donaldson had been adjudged “incompetent” several days earlier under §394.22 (1), which provided for such a finding as to any person who was
      “incompetent by reason of mental illness, sickness, drunkenness, excessive use of drugs, insanity, or other mental or physical condition, so that he is incapable of caring for himself or managing his property, or is likely to dissipate or lose his property or become the victim of designing persons, or inflict harm on himself or others Fla. Gen. Laws 1955, c. 29909, § 3, p. 831.
      It would appear that § 394.22 (11) (a) contemplated that involuntary commitment would be imposed only on those “incompetent” persons who “require [d] confinement or restraint to prevent self-injury or violence to others.” But this is not certain, for § 394.22 (11) (c) provided that the judge could adjudicate the person a “harmless incompetent” and release him to a guardian upon a finding that he did “not require confinement or restraint to prevent self-injury or violence to others and that treatment in the Florida State Hospital is unnecessary or would be without benefit to such person Fla. Gen. Laws 1955, c. 29909, § 3, p. 835 (emphasis added). In this regard, it is noteworthy that Donaldson’s “Order for Delivery of Mentally Incompetent” to the Florida State Hospital provided that he required “confinement or restraint to prevent self-injury or violence to others, or to insure proper treatment.” (Emphasis added.) At any rate, the Florida commitment statute provided no judicial procedure whereby one still incompetent could secure his release on the ground that he was no longer dangerous to himself or others.
      Whether the Florida statute provided a “right to treatment” for involuntarily committed patients is also open to dispute. Under §394.22 (11) (a), commitment “to prevent self-injury or violence to others” was “for care, maintenance, and treatment.” Recently Florida has totally revamped its civil commitment law and now provides a statutory right to receive individual medical treatment. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 394.459 (1973).

       The sole statutory procedure for release required a judicial reinstatement of a patient’s “mental competency.” Public Health Code §§ 394.22 (15) and (16), Fla. Gen. Laws 1955, c. 29909, § 3, pp. 838-841. But this procedure could be initiated by the hospital staff. Indeed, it was at the staff’s initiative that Donaldson was finally restored to competency, and liberty, almost immediately after O’Connor retired from the superintendency.
      In addition, witnesses testified that the hospital had always had its own procedure for releasing patients — for “trial visits,” “home visits,” “furloughs,” or “out of state discharges” — even though the patients had not been judicially restored to competency. Those conditional releases often became permanent, and the hospital merely closed its books on the patient. O’Connor did not deny at trial that he had the power to release patients; he conceded that it was his “duty” as superintendent of the hospital “to determine whether that patient having once reached the hospital was in such condition as to request that he be considered for release from the hospital.”

       There was some evidence that Donaldson, who is a Christian Scientist, on occasion refused to take medication. The trial judge instructed the jury not to award damages for any period of confinement during which Donaldson had declined treatment.

       At the close of Donaldson’s case in chief, O’Connor moved for a directed verdict on the ground that state law at the time of Donaldson’s confinement authorized institutionalization of the mentally ill even if they posed no danger to themselves or others. This motion was denied. At the close of all the evidence, O’Connor asked that the jury be instructed that "if defendants acted pursuant to a statute which was not declared unconstitutional at the time, they cannot be held accountable for such action.” The District Court declined to give this requested instruction.

       The District Court defined treatment as follows:
      “You are instructed that a person who is involuntarily civilly committed to a mental hospital does have a constitutional right to receive such treatment as will give him a realistic opportunity to be cured or to improve his mental condition.” (Emphasis added.)
      O’Connor argues that this statement suggests that a mental patient has a right to treatment even if confined by reason of dangerousness to himself or others. But this is to take the above paragraph out of context, for it is bracketed by paragraphs making clear the trial judge’s theory that treatment is constitutionally required only if mental illness alone, rather than danger to self or others, is the reason for confinement. If O’Connor had thought the instructions ambiguous on this point, he could have objected to them and requested a clarification. He did not do so. We accordingly have no occasion here to decide whether persons committed on grounds of dangerousness enjoy a “right to treatment.”
      In pertinent part, the instructions read as follows:
      “The Plaintiff claims in brief that throughout the period of his hospitalization he was not mentally ill or dangerous to himself or others, and claims further that if he was mentally ill, or if Defendants believed he was mentally ill, Defendants withheld from him the treatment necessary to improve his mental condition. '
      “The Defendants claim, in brief, that Plaintiff’s detention was legal and proper, or if his detention was not legal and proper, it was the result of mistake, without malicious intent.
      “In order to prove his claim under the Civil Rights Act, the burden is upon the Plaintiff in this case to establish by a preponderance of the evidence in this case the following facts:
      “That the Defendants confined Plaintiff against his will, knowing that he was not mentally ill or dangerous or knowing that if mentally ill he was not receiving treatment for his alleged mental illness.
      “[T]hat the Defendants’ acts and conduct deprived the Plaintiff of his Federal Constitutional right not to be denied or deprived of his liberty without due process of law as that phrase is defined and explained in these instructions ....
      “You are instructed that a person who is involuntarily civilly committed to a mental hospital does have a constitutional right to receive such treatment as will give him a realistic opportunity to be cured or to improve his mental condition.
      “Now, the purpose of involuntary hospitalization is treatment and not mere custodial care or punishment if a patient is not a danger to himself or others. Without such treatment there is no justification from a constitutional stand-point for continued confinement unless you should also find that the Plaintiff was dangerous either to himself or others.”

       The trial judge had instructed that punitive damages should be awarded only if “the act or omission of the Defendant or Defendants which proximately caused injury to the Plaintiff was maliciously or wantonly or oppressively done.”

       Given the jury instructions, see n. 6 supra, it is possible that the jury went so far as to find that O’Connor knew not only that Donaldson was harmless to himself and others but also that he was not mentally ill at all. If it so found, the jury was permitted by the instructions to rule against O’Connor regardless of the nature of the “treatment” provided. If we were to construe the jury’s verdict in that fashion, there would remain no substantial issue in this case: That a wholly sane and innocent person has a constitutional right not to be physically confined by the State when his freedom will pose a danger neither to himself nor to others cannot be seriously doubted.

       The judge’s instructions used the phrase “dangerous to himself.” Of course, even if there is no foreseeable risk of self-injury or suicide, a person is literally “dangerous to himself” if for physical or other reasons he is helpless to avoid the hazards of freedom either through his own efforts or with the aid of willing family members or friends. While it might be argued that the judge’s instructions could have been more detailed on this point, O’Connor raised no objection to them, presumably because the evidence clearly showed that Donaldson was not “dangerous to himself” however broadly that phrase might be defined.

       O’Connor argues that, despite the jury’s verdict, the Court must assume that Donaldson was receiving treatment sufficient to justify his confinement, because the adequacy of treatment is a “nonjusticiable” question that must be left to the discretion of the psychiatric profession. That argument is unpersuasive. Where “treatment” is the sole asserted ground for depriving a person of liberty, it is plainly unacceptable to suggest that the courts are powerless to determine whether the asserted ground is present. See Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U. S. 715. Neither party objected to the jury instruction defining treatment. There is, accordingly, no occasion in this case to decide whether the provision of treatment, standing alone, can ever constitutionally justify involuntary confinement or, if it can, how much or what kind of treatment would suffice for that purpose. In its present posture this case involves not involuntary treatment but simply involuntary custodial confinement.

       See n. 5, supra. During his years of confinement, Donaldson unsuccessfully petitioned the state and federal courts for release from the Florida State Hospital on a number of occasions. None of these claims was ever resolved on its merits, and no evidentiary hearings were ever held. O’Connor has not contended that he relied on these unsuccessful court actions as an independent intervening reason for continuing Donaldson’s confinement, and no instructions on this score were requested.

         Upon remand, the Court of Appeals is to consider only the question whether O’Connor is to be held liable for monetary damages for violating Donaldson’s constitutional right to liberty. The jury found, on substantial evidence and under adequate instructions, that O’Connor deprived Donaldson, who was dangerous neither to himself nor to others and was provided no treatment, of the constitutional right to liberty. Cf. n. 8, supra. That finding needs no further consideration. If the Court of Appeals holds that a remand to the District Court is necessary, the only issue to be determined in that court will be whether O’Connor is immune from liability for monetary damages.
      Of necessity our decision vacating the judgment of the Court of Appeals deprives that court’s opinion of precedential effect, leaving this Court’s opinion and judgment as the sole law of the case. See United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U. S. 36.

       I have difficulty understanding how the issue of immunity can be resolved on this record and hence it is very likely a new trial on this issue may be required; if that is the case I would hope these sensitive and important issues would have the benefit of more effective presentation and articulation on behalf of petitioner.

       The Court’s reference to “milieu therapy,” ante, at 569, may be construed as disparaging that concept. True, it is capable of being used simply to cloak official indifference, but the reality is that some mental abnormalities respond to no known treatment. Also, some mental patients respond, as do persons suffering from a variety of physiological ailments, to what is loosely called “milieu treatment,” i. e., keeping them comfortable, well nourished, and in a protected environment. It is not for us to say in the baffling field of psychiatry that “milieu therapy” is always a pretense.

       That petitioner’s counsel failed to raise this issue is not a reason why it should not be considered with respect to immunity in light of the Court’s holding that the defense was preserved for appellate review.

       See Editorial, A New Right, 46 A. B. A. J. 516 (1960).

       Indeed, there is considerable debate concerning the threshold questions of what constitutes “mental disease” and “treatment.” See Szasz, The Right to Health, 57 Geo. L. J. 734 (1969).

       Indeed, respondent may have shared both of these characteristics. His illness, paranoid schizophrenia, is notoriously unsusceptible to treatment, see Livermore, Malmquist, & Meehl, On the Justifications for Civil Commitment, 117 U. Pa. L. Rev. 75, 93, and n. 52 (1968), and the reports of the Florida State Hospital staff which were introduced into evidence expressed the view that he was unwilling to acknowledge his illness and was generally uncooperative.

       This is not to imply that I accept all of the Court of Appeals’ conclusions regarding the limitations upon the States’ power to detain persons who commit crimes. For example, the notion that confinement must be “for a fixed term” is difficult to square with the widespread practice of indeterminate sentencing, at least where the upper limit is a life sentence.

       Even advocates of a right to treatment have criticized the quid pro quo theory on this ground. E. g., Developments in the Law— Civil Commitment of the Mentally 111, 87 Harv. L. Rev. 1190, 1325 n. 39 (1974).

       It should be pointed out that several issues which the Court has touched upon in other contexts are not involved here. As the Court’s opinion makes plain, this is not a case of a person’s seeking release because he has been confined “without ever obtaining a judicial determination that such confinement is warranted.” McNeil v. Director, Patuxent Institution, 407 U. S. 245, 249 (1972). Although respondent’s amended complaint alleged that his 1956 hearing before the Pinellas County Court was procedurally defective and ignored various factors relating to the necessity for commitment, the persons to whom those allegations applied were either not served with process or dismissed by the District Court prior to trial. Respondent has not sought review of the latter rulings, and this case does not involve the rights of a person in an initial competency or commitment proceeding. Cf. Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U. S. 715, 738 (1972); Specht v. Patterson, 386 U. S. 605 (1967); Minnesota ex rel. Pearson v. Probate Court, 309 U. S. 270 (1940).
      Further, it was not alleged that respondent was singled out for discriminatory treatment by the staff of Florida State Hospital or that patients at that institution were denied privileges generally available to other persons under commitment in Florida. Thus, the question whether different bases for commitment justify differences in conditions of confinement is not involved in this litigation. Cf. Jackson v. Indiana, supra, at 723-730; Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U. S. 107 (1966).
      Finally, there was no evidence whatever that respondent was abused or mistreated at Florida State Hospital or that the failure to provide him with treatment aggravated his condition. There was testimony regarding the general quality of life at the hospital, but the jury was not asked to consider whether respondent’s confinement was in effect “punishment” for being mentally ill. The record provides no basis for concluding, therefore, that respondent was denied rights secured by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Cf. Robinson v. California, 370 U. S. 660 (1962).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author:
Mr. Justice Blackmun
      Mr. Justice White, Mr. Justice Powell,

license: Public Domain

text:
    BROWN v. ILLINOIS
    No. 73-6650.
    Argued March 18, 1975 —
    Decided June 26, 1975

      Robert P. Isaacson argued the cause for petitioner pro hac vice. With him on the brief were James J. Doherty and John T. Moran.

      Jayne A. Carr, Assistant Attorney General of Illinois, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were William J. Scott, Attorney General, and James B. Zagel, Assistant Attorney General.

        Solicitor General Bork and Acting Assistant Attorney General Keeney filed a memorandum for the United States as amicus curiae.

   Mr. Justice Blackmun

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case lies at the crossroads of the Fourth and the Fifth Amendments. Petitioner was arrested without probable cause and without a warrant. He was given, in full, the warnings prescribed by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). Thereafter, while in custody, he made two inculpatory statements. The issue is whether evidence of those statements was properly admitted, or should have been excluded, in petitioner’s subsequent trial for murder in state court. Expressed another way, the issue is whether the statements were to be excluded as the fruit of the illegal arrest, or were admissible because the giving of the Miranda warnings sufficiently attenuated the taint of the arrest. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963). The Fourth Amendment, of course, has been held to be applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961).

I

As petitioner Richard Brown was climbing the last of the stairs leading to the rear entrance of his Chicago apartment in the early evening of May 13, 1968, he happened to glance at the window near the door. He saw, pointed at him through the window, a revolver held by a stranger who was inside the apartment. The man said: “Don’t move, you are under arrest.” App. 42. Another man, also with a gun, came up behind Brown and repeated the statement that he was under arrest. It was about 7:45 p. m. The two men turned out to be Detectives William Nolan and William Lenz of the Chicago police force. It is not clear from the record exactly when they advised Brown of their identity, but it is not disputed that they broke into his apartment, searched it, and then arrested Brown, all without probable cause and without any warrant, when he arrived. They later testified that they made the arrest for the purpose of questioning Brown as part of their investigation of the murder of a man named Roger Corpus.

Corpus was murdered one week earlier, on May 6, with a .38-caliber revolver in his Chicago West Side second-floor apartment. Shortly thereafter, Detective Lenz obtained petitioner’s name, among others, from Corpus’ brother. Petitioner and the others were identified as acquaintances of the victim, not as suspects.

On the day of petitioner’s arrest, Detectives Lenz and Nolan, armed with a photograph of Brown, and another officer arrived at petitioner’s apartment about 5 p. m. App. 77, 78. While the third officer covered the front entrance downstairs, the two detectives broke into Brown’s apartment and searched it. Id., at 86. Lenz then positioned himself near the rear door and watched through the adjacent window which opened onto the back porch. Nolan sat near the front door. He described the situation at the later suppression hearing:

“After we were there for a while, Detective Lenz told me that somebody was coming up the back stairs. I walked out the front door through the hall and around the corner, and I stayed there behind a door leading on to the back porch. At this time I heard Detective Lenz say, 'Don’t move, you are under arrest.’ I looked out. I saw Mr. Brown backing away from the window. I walked up behind him, I told him he is under arrest, come back inside the apartment with us.” Id., at 42.

As both officers held him at gunpoint, the three entered the apartment. Brown was ordered to stand against the wall and was searched. No weapon was found. Id., at 93. He was asked his name. When he denied being Richard Brown, Detective Lenz showed him the photograph, informed him that he was under arrest for the murder of Roger Corpus, id., at 16, handcuffed him, id., at 93, and escorted him to the squad car.

The two detectives took petitioner to the Maxwell Street police station. During the 20-minute drive Nolan again asked Brown, who then was sitting with him in the back seat of the car, whether his name was Richard Brown and whether he owned a 1966 Oldsmobile. Brown alternately evaded these questions or answered them falsely. Tr. 74. Upon arrival at the station house Brown was placed in the second-floor central interrogation room. The room was bare, except for a table and four chairs. He was left alone, apparently without handcuffs, for some minutes while the officers obtained the file on the Corpus homicide. They returned with the file, sat down at the table, one across from Brown and the other to his left, and spread the file on the table in front of him. App. 19.

The officers warned Brown of his rights under Miranda. Ibid. They then informed him that they knew of an incident that had occurred in a poolroom on May 5, when Brown, angry at having been cheated at dice, fired a shot from a revolver into the ceiling. Brown answered: “Oh, you know about that.” Id., at 20. Lenz informed him that a bullet had been obtained from the ceiling of the poolroom and had been taken to the crime laboratory to be compared with bullets taken from Corpus’ body. Ibid. Brown responded: “Oh, you know that, too.” Id., at 20-21. At this point — it was about 8:45 p. m. — Lenz asked Brown whether he wanted to talk about the Corpus homicide. Petitioner answered that he did. For the next 20 to 25 minutes Brown answered questions put to him by Nolan, as Lenz typed. Id., at 21-23.

This questioning produced a two-page statement in which Brown acknowledged that he and a man named Jimmy Claggett visited Corpus on the evening of May 5; that the three for some time sat drinking and smoking marihuana; that Claggett ordered him at gunpoint to bind Corpus’ hands and feet with cord from the headphone of a stereo set; and that Claggett, using a .38-caliber revolver sold to him by Brown, shot Corpus three times through a pillow. The statement was signed by Brown. Id., at 9, 38.

About 9:30 p. m. the two detectives and Brown left the station house to look for Claggett in an area of Chicago Brown knew him to frequent. They made a tour of that area but did not locate their quarry. They then went to police headquarters where they endeavored, without success, to obtain a photograph of Claggett. They resumed their search — it was now about 11 p. m. — and they finally observed Claggett crossing at an intersection. Lenz and Nolan arrested him. All four, the two detectives and the two arrested men, returned to the Maxwell Street station about 12:15 a. m. Id., at 39.

Brown was again placed in the interrogation room. He was given coffee and was left alone, for the most part, until 2 a. m. when Assistant State’s Attorney Crilly arrived.

Crilly, too, informed Brown of his Miranda rights. After a half hour’s conversation, a court reporter appeared. Once again the Miranda warnings were given: “I read him the card.” Id., at 30. Crilly told him that he “was sure he would be charged with murder.” Id., at 32. Brown gave a second statement, providing a factual account of the murder substantially in accord with his first statement, but containing factual inaccuracies with respect to his personal background. When the statement was completed, at about 3 a. m., Brown refused to sign it. Id., at 57. An hour later he made a phone call to his mother. At 9:30 that morning, about 14 hours after his arrest, he was taken before a magistrate.

On June 20 Brown and Claggett were jointly indicted by a Cook County grand jury for Corpus’ murder. Prior to trial, petitioner moved to suppress the two statements he had made. He alleged that his arrest and detention had been illegal and that the statements were taken from him in violation of his constitutional rights. After a hearing, the motion was denied. R. 46.

The case proceeded to trial. The State introduced evidence of both statements. Detective Nolan testified as to the contents of the first, App. 89-92, but the writing itself was not placed in evidence. The second statement was introduced and was read to the jury in full. Tr. 509-528. Brown was 23 at the time of the trial. Id., at 543.

The jury found petitioner guilty of murder. R. 80. He was sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 15 years nor more than 30 years. Id., at 83.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the judgment of conviction. 56 Ill. 2d 312, 307 N. E. 2d 356 (1974). The court refused to accept the State’s argument that Brown’s arrest was lawful. “Upon review of the record, we conclude that the testimony fails to show that at the time of his apprehension there was probable cause for defendant’s arrest, [and] that his arrest was, therefore, unlawful.” Id., at 315, 307 N. E. 2d, at 357. But it went on to hold in two significant and unembellished sentences:

“[W]e conclude that the giving of the Miranda warnings, in the first instance by the police officer and in the second by the assistant State’s Attorney, served to break the causal connection between the illegal arrest and the giving of the statements, and that defendant’s act in making the statements was ‘sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint of the unlawful invasion.’ (Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, at 486.) We hold, therefore, that the circuit court did not err in admitting the statements into evidence.” Id., at 317, 307 N. E. 2d, at 358.

Aside from its reliance upon the presence of the Miranda warnings, no specific aspect of the record or of the circumstances was cited by the court in support of its conclusion. The court, in other words, appears to have held that the Miranda warnings in and of themselves broke the causal chain so that any subsequent statement, even one induced by the continuing effects of unconstitutional custody, was admissible so long as, in the traditional sense, it was voluntary and not coerced in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Because of our concern about the implication of our holding in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963), to the facts of Brown’s case, we granted certiorari. 419 U. S. 894 (1974).

II

In Wong Sun, the Court pronounced the principles to be applied where the issue is whether statements and other evidence obtained after an illegal arrest or search should be excluded. In that case, federal agents elicited an oral statement from defendant Toy after forcing entry at 6 a. m. into his laundry, at the back of which he had his living quarters. The agents had followed Toy down the hall to the bedroom and there had placed him under arrest. The Court of Appeals found that there was no probable cause for the arrest. This Court concluded that that finding was “amply justified by the facts clearly shown on this record.” 371 U. S., at 479. Toy’s statement, which bore upon his participation in the sale of narcotics, led the agents to question another person, Johnny Yee, who actually possessed narcotics. Yee stated that heroin had been brought to him earlier by Toy and another Chinese known to him only as “Sea Dog.” Under questioning, Toy said that “Sea Dog” was Wong Sun. Toy led agents to a multifamily dwelling where, he said, Wong Sun lived. Gaining admittance to the building through a bell and buzzer, the agents climbed the stairs and entered the apartment. One went into the back room and brought Wong Sun out in handcuffs. After arraignment, Wong Sun was released on his own recognizance. Several days later, he returned voluntarily to give an unsigned confession.

This Court ruled that Toy’s declarations and the contraband taken from Yee were the fruits of the agents’ illegal action and should not have been admitted as evidence against Toy. Id., at 484-488. It held that the statement did not result from “ 'an intervening independent act of a free will,’ ” and that it was not “sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint of the unlawful invasion.” Id., at 486. With respect to Wong Sun’s confession, however, the Court held that in the light of his lawful arraignment and release on his own recognizance, and of his return voluntarily several days later to make the statement, the connection between his unlawful arrest and the statement “had 'become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.’ Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338, 341.” Id., at 491. The Court said:

“We need not hold that all evidence is 'fruit of the poisonous tree’ simply because it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police. Rather, the more apt question in such a case is 'whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.’ Maguire, Evidence of Guilt, 221 (1959).” Id., at 487-A88.

The exclusionary rule thus was applied in Wong Sun primarily to protect Fourth Amendment rights. Protection of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was not the Court’s paramount concern there. To the extent that the question whether Toy’s statement was voluntary was considered, it was only to judge whether it “was sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint of the unlawful invasion.” Id., at 486 (emphasis added).

The Court in Wong Sun, as is customary, emphasized that application of the exclusionary rule on Toy’s behalf protected Fourth Amendment guarantees in two respects: “in terms of deterring lawless conduct by federal officers,” and by “closing the doors of the federal courts to any use of evidence unconstitutionally obtained.” Ibid. These considerations of deterrence and of judicial integrity, by now, have become rather commonplace in the Court’s cases. See, e. g., United States v. Peltier, ante, at 535-538; United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338, 347 (1974); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 12-13, 28-29 (1968). “The rule is calculated to prevent, not to repair. Its purpose is to deter — to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way — by removing the incentive to disregard it.” Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, 217 (1960). But “[d]e-spite its broad deterrent purpose, the exclusionary rule has never been interpreted to proscribe the use of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons.” United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S., at 348. See also Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433, 446-447 (1974).

III

The Illinois courts refrained from resolving the question, as apt here as it was in Wong Sun, whether Brown’s statements were obtained by exploitation of the illegality of his arrest. They assumed that the Miranda warnings, by themselves, assured that the statements (verbal acts, as contrasted with physical evidence) were of sufficient free will as to purge the primary taint of the unlawful arrest. Wong Sun, of course, preceded Miranda.

This Court has described the Miranda warnings as a “prophylactic rule,” Michigan v. Payne, 412 U. S. 47, 53 (1973), and as a “procedural safeguard,” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S., at 457, 478, employed to protect Fifth Amendment rights against “the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings.” Id., at 458. The function of the warnings relates to the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against coerced self-incrimination, and the exclusion of a statement made in the absence of the warnings, it is said, serves to deter the taking of an incriminating statement without first informing the individual of his Fifth Amendment rights.

Although, almost 90 years ago, the Court observed that the Fifth Amendment is in “intimate relation” with the Fourth, Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 633 (1886), the Miranda warnings thus far have not been regarded as a means either of remedying or deterring violations of Fourth Amendment rights. Frequently, as here, rights under the two Amendments may appear to coalesce since “the ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’ condemned in the Fourth Amendment are almost always made for the purpose of compelling a man to give evidence against himself, which in criminal cases is condemned in the Fifth Amendment.” Ibid.; see Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S., at 646 n. 5. The exclusionary rule, however, when utilized to effectuate the Fourth Amendment, serves interests and policies that are distinct from those it serves under the Fifth. It is directed at all unlawful searches and seizures, and not merely those that happen to produce incriminating material or testimony as fruits. In short, exclusion of a confession made without Miranda warnings might be regarded as necessary to effectuate the Fifth Amendment, but it would not be sufficient fully to protect the Fourth. Miranda warnings, and the exclusion of a confession made without them, do not alone sufficiently deter a Fourth Amendment violation.

Thus, even if the statements in this case were found to be voluntary under the Fifth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment issue remains. In order for the causal chain, between the illegal arrest and the statements made subsequent thereto, to be broken, Wong Sun requires not merely that the statement meet the Fifth Amendment standard of voluntariness but that it be “sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint.” 371 U. S., at 486. Wong Sun thus mandates consideration of a statement’s admissibility in light of the distinct policies and interests of the Fourth Amendment.

If Miranda warnings, by themselves, were held to attenuate the taint of an unconstitutional arrest, regardless of how wanton and purposeful the Fourth Amendment violation, the effect of the exclusionary rule would be substantially diluted. See Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U. S. 721, 726-727 (1969). Arrests made without warrant or without probable cause, for questioning or “investigation,” would be encouraged by the knowledge that evidence derived therefrom could well be made admissible at trial by the simple expedient of giving Miranda warnings. Any incentive to avoid Fourth Amendment violations would be eviscerated by making the warnings, in effect, a “cure-all,” and the constitutional guarantee against unlawful searches and seizures could be said to be reduced to “a form of words.” See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S., at 648.

It is entirely possible, of course, as the State here argues, that persons arrested illegally frequently may decide to confess, as an act of free will unaffected by the initial illegality. But the Miranda warnings, alone and per se, cannot always make the act sufficiently a product of free will to break, for Fourth Amendment purposes, the causal connection between the illegality and the confession. They cannot assure in every case that the Fourth Amendment violation has not been unduly exploited. See Westover v. United States, 384 U. S. 436, 496-497 (1966).

While we therefore reject the per se rule which the Illinois courts appear to have accepted, we also decline to adopt any alternative per se or “but for” rule. The petitioner himself professes not to demand so much. Tr. of Oral Arg. 12, 45, 47. The question whether a confession is the product of a free will under Wong Sun must be answered on the facts of each case. No single fact is dispositive. The workings of the human mind are too complex, and the possibilities of misconduct too diverse, to permit protection of the Fourth Amendment to turn on such a talismanic test. The Miranda warnings are an important factor, to be sure, in determining whether the confession is obtained by exploitation of an illegal arrest. But they are not the only factor to be considered. The temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession, the presence of intervening circumstances, see Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U. S. 356, 365 (1972), and, particularly, the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct are all relevant. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S., at 491. The voluntariness of the statement is a threshold requirement. Cf. 18 U. S. C. § 3501. And the burden of showing admissibility rests, of course, on the prosecution.

IV

Although the Illinois courts failed to undertake the inquiry mandated by Wong Sun to evaluate the circumstances of this case in the light of the policy served by the exclusionary rule, the trial resulted in a record of amply sufficient detail and depth from which the determination may be made. We therefore decline the suggestion of the United States, as amicus curiae, see Morales v. New York, 396 U. S. 102 (1969), to remand the case for further factual findings. We conclude that the State failed to sustain the burden of showing that the evidence in question was admissible under Wong Sun.

Brown’s first statement was separated from his illegal arrest by less than two hours, and there was no intervening event of significance whatsoever. In its essentials, his situation is remarkably like that of James Wah Toy in Wong Sun. We could hold Brown’s first statement admissible only if we overrule Wong Sun. We decline to do so. And the second statement was clearly the result and the fruit of the first.

The illegality here, moreover, had a quality of purposefulness. The impropriety of the arrest was obvious; awareness of that fact was virtually conceded by the two detectives when they repeatedly acknowledged, in their testimony, that the purpose of their action was “for investigation” or for “questioning.” App. 35, 43, 78, 81, 83, 88, 89, 94. The arrest, both in design and in execution, was investigatory. The detectives embarked upon this expedition for evidence in the hope that something might turn up. The manner in which Brown’s arrest was effected gives the appearance of having been calculated to cause surprise, fright, and confusion.

We emphasize that our holding is a limited one. We decide only that the Illinois courts were in error in assuming that the Miranda warnings, by themselves, under Wong Sun always purge the taint of an illegal arrest.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Illinois is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Mr. Justice White,

concurring in the judgment.

Insofar as the Court holds (1) that despite Miranda warnings the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments require the exclusion from evidence of statements obtained as the fruit of an arrest which the arresting officers knew or should have known was without probable cause and unconstitutional, and (2) that the statements obtained in this case were in this category, I am in agreement and therefore concur in the judgment.

Mr. Justice Powell,

with whom Mr. Justice Rehnquist joins, concurring in part.

I join the Court insofar as it holds that the per se rule adopted by the Illinois Supreme Court for determining the admissibility of petitioner’s two statements inadequately accommodates the diverse interests underlying the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. I would, however, remand the case for reconsideration under the general standards articulated in the Court’s opinion and elaborated herein.

A

The issue presented in this case turns on proper application of the policies underlying the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, not on the Fifth Amendment or the prophylaxis added to that guarantee by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). The Court recognized in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963), that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule applies to statements obtained following an illegal arrest just as it does to tangible evidence seized in a similar manner or obtained pursuant to an otherwise illegal search and seizure. Wong Sun squarely rejected, however, the suggestion that the admissibility of statements so obtained should be governed by a simple “but for” test that would render inadmissible all statements given subsequent to an illegal arrest. Id., at 487-488. In a similar manner, the Court today refrains from according dispositive weight to the single factor of Miranda warnings. I agree with each holding. Neither of the rejected extremes adequately recognizes the competing considerations involved in a determination to exclude evidence after finding that official possession of that evidence was to some degree caused by a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

On this record, I cannot conclude as readily as the Court that admission of the statements here at issue would constitute an effective overruling of Wong Sun. See ante, at 604-605. Although Wong Sun establishes the boundaries within which this case must be decided, the incompleteness of the record leaves me uncertain that it compels the exclusion of petitioner’s statements. The statements at issue in Wong Sun were on the temporal extremes in relation to the illegal arrest. Cf. Collins v. Beto, 348 F. 2d 823, 832, 834-836 (CA5 1965) (Friendly, J., concurring). Toy’s statement was obtained immediately after his pursuit and arrest by six agents. It appears to have been a spontaneous response to a question put to him in the frenzy of that event, and there is no indication that the agents made any attempt to inform him of his right to remain silent. Wong Sun’s statement, by contrast, was not given until after he was arraigned and released on his own recognizance. Wong Sun voluntarily returned to the station a few days after the arrest for questioning. His statement was preceded by an official warning of his right to remain silent and to have counsel if he desired. The Court rejected the Government’s assertion that Toy’s statement resulted from an independent act of free will sufficient to purge the consequences of the illegal arrest. Wong Sun’s statement, however, was deemed admissible. Given the circumstances in which Wong Sun’s statement was obtained, the Court concluded that “the connection between the arrest and the statement had 'become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.’ ” 371 U. S., at 491.

Like most cases in which the admissibility of statements obtained subsequent to an illegal arrest is contested, this case concerns statements more removed than that of Toy from the time and circumstances of the illegal arrest. Petitioner made his first statement some two hours following his arrest, after he had been given Miranda warnings. The Court is correct in noting that no other significant intervening event altered the relationship established between petitioner and the officers by the illegal arrest. But the Court’s conclusion that admission of this statement could be allowed only by overruling Wong Sun rests either on an overly restrictive interpretation of the attenuation doctrine, to which I cannot subscribe, or on its view that the arrest was made for investigatory purposes, a factual determination that I think more appropriately should have been left for decision in the first instance by the state courts.

B

The Court’s rejection in Wong Sun of a “but for” test, reaffirmed today, ante, at 603-604, recognizes that in some circumstances strict adherence to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule imposes greater cost on the legitimate demands of law enforcement than can be justified by the rule’s deterrent purposes. The notion of the “dissipation of the taint” attempts to mark the point at which the detrimental consequences of illegal police action become so attenuated that the deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule no longer justifies its cost. Application of the Wong Sun doctrine will generate fact-specific cases bearing distinct differences as well as similarities, and the question of attenuation inevitably is largely a matter of degree. The Court today identifies the general factors that the trial court must consider in making this determination. I think it appropriate, however, to attempt to articulate the possible relationships of those factors in particular, broad categories of cases.

All Fourth Amendment violations are, by constitutional definition, “unreasonable.” There are, however, significant practical differences that distinguish among violations, differences that measurably assist in identifying the kinds of cases in which disqualifying the evidence is likely to serve the deterrent purposes of the exclusionary rule. Cf. United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338, 347-348 (1974); Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218, 250 (1973) (Powell, J., concurring). In my view, the point at which the taint can be said to have dissipated should be related, in the absence of other controlling circumstances, to the nature of that taint.

That police have not succeeded in coercing the accused’s confession through willful or negligent misuse of the power of arrest does not remove the fact that they may have tried. The impermissibility of the attempt, and the extent to which such attempts can be deterred by the use of the exclusionary rule, are of primary relevance in determining whether exclusion is an appropriate remedy. The basic purpose of the rule, briefly stated, is to remove possible motivations for illegal arrests. Given this purpose the notion of voluntariness has practical value in deciding whether the rule should apply to statements removed from the immediate circumstances of the illegal arrest. If an illegal arrest merely provides the occasion of initial contact between the police and the accused, and because of time or other intervening factors the accused’s eventual statement is the product of his own reflection and free will, application of the exclusionary rule can serve little purpose: the police normally will not make an illegal arrest in the hope of eventually obtaining such a truly volunteered statement. In a similar manner, the role of the Miranda warnings in the Wong Sun inquiry is indirect. To the extent that they dissipate the psychological pressures of custodial interrogation, Miranda warnings serve to assure that the accused’s decision to make a statement has been relatively unaffected by the preceding illegal arrest. Correspondingly, to the extent that the police perceive Miranda warnings to have this equalizing potential, their motivation to abuse the power of arrest is diminished. Bearing these considerations in mind, and recognizing that the deterrent value of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule is limited to certain kinds of police conduct, the following general categories can be identified.

Those most readily identifiable are on the extremes: the flagrantly abusive violation of Fourth Amendment rights, on the one hand, and "technical” Fourth Amendment violations, on the other. In my view, these extremes call for significantly different judicial responses.

I would require the clearest indication of attenuation in cases in which official conduct was flagrantly abusive of Fourth Amendment rights. If, for example, the factors relied on by the police in determining to make the arrest were so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable, or if the evidence clearly suggested that the arrest was effectuated as a pretext for collateral objectives, cf. United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218, 237, 238 n. 2 (1973) (Powell, J., concurring), or the physical circumstances of the arrest unnecessarily intrusive on personal privacy, I would consider the equalizing potential of Miranda warnings rarely sufficient to dissipate the taint. In such cases the deterrent value of the exclusionary rule is most likely to be effective, and the corresponding mandate to preserve judicial integrity, see United States v. Peltier, ante, p. 531; Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433, 450 n. 25 (1974), most clearly demands that the fruits of official misconduct be denied. I thus would require some demonstrably effective break in the chain of events leading from the illegal arrest to the statement, such as actual consultation with counsel or the accused’s presentation before a magistrate for a determination of probable cause, before the taint can be deemed removed, see Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103 (1975); cf. Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U. S. 356, 365 (1972); Parker v. North Carolina, 397 U. S. 790, 796 (1970).

At the opposite end of the spectrum lie “technical” violations of Fourth Amendment rights where, for example, officers in good faith arrest an individual in reliance on a warrant later invalidated or pursuant to a statute that subsequently is declared unconstitutional, see United States v. Kilgen, 445 F. 2d 287 (CA5 1971). As we noted in Michigan v. Tucker, supra, at 447: “The deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule necessarily assumes that the police have engaged in willful, or at the very least negligent, conduct which has deprived the defendant of some right.” In cases in which this underlying premise is lacking, the deterrence rationale of the exclusionary rule does not obtain, and I can see no legitimate justification for depriving the prosecution of reliable and probative evidence. Thus, with the exception of statements given in the immediate circumstances of the illegal arrest' — a constraint I think is imposed by existing exclusionary-rule law — I would not require more than proof that effective Miranda warnings were given and that the ensuing statement was voluntary in the Fifth Amendment sense. Absent aggravating circumstances, I would consider a statement given at the station house after one has been advised of Miranda rights to be sufficiently removed from the immediate circumstances of the illegal arrest to justify its admission at trial.

Between these extremes lies a wide range of situations that defy ready categorization, and I will not attempt to embellish on the factors set forth in the Court’s opinion other than to emphasize that the Wong Sun inquiry always should be conducted with the deterrent purpose of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule sharply in focus. See ALI Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure, Art. 150, p. 54 et seq. and Commentary thereon, p. 375 et seq. (Prop. Off. Draft 1975). And, in view of the inevitably fact-specific nature of the inquiry, we must place primary reliance on the “learning, good sense, fairness and courage” of judges who must make the determination in the first instance. Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338, 342 (1939). See ante, at 604 n. 10.

c

On the facts of record as I view them, it is possible that the police may have believed reasonably that there was probable cause for petitioner’s arrest. Although the trial court conducted hearings on petitioner’s motion to suppress and received his testimony and that of the arresting officers, its inquiry focused on determining whether petitioner’s statements were preceded by adequate Miranda warnings and were made voluntarily. The court did not inquire into the possible justification, actual or perceived, for the arrest. Indeed, numerous questions addressed to the circumstances of the arrest elicited the State’s objection, which was sustained. App. 14-15. The Illinois Supreme Court’s consideration of the factual basis for its ruling similarly failed to focus on these relevant issues or to rest in any meaningful sense on the factors set forth in the Court’s opinion today. After determining that the officers lacked probable cause for petitioner’s arrest, the Illinois court concluded simply that examination of the record persuaded it that “the giving of Miranda warnings . . . served to break the causal connection between the illegal arrest and the giving of the statements.” 56 Ill. 2d 312, 317, 307 N. E. 2d 356, 358 (1974).

I am not able to conclude on this record that the officers arrested petitioner solely for the purpose of questioning, ante, at 605; see also ante, at 606 (White, J., concurring in judgment). To be sure, there is evidence suggesting, as the Court notes, an investigatory arrest. The strongest evidence on that point is the inconclusive testimony by the arresting officers themselves. But the evidence is conflicting. Responding to questions as to what they told petitioner upon his arrest, the officers testified he was advised that the arrest was for investigation of murder. Responding to more pointed questions, however, one of the arresting officers stated that he informed petitioner that he was being arrested for murder. See App. 16.

Moreover, other evidence of record indicates that the police may well have believed that probable cause existed to think that petitioner committed the crime of which he ultimately was convicted. As the opinion of the Illinois Supreme Court reveals, petitioner had been identified as an acquaintance of the deceased, and the police had been told that petitioner was seen in the building where the deceased lived on the day of the murder. 56 Ill. 2d, at 315, 307 N. E. 2d, at 357. It is also plain that the investigation had begun to focus on petitioner. For example, the police had gone to the trouble of obtaining a bullet that petitioner had fired in an unrelated incident for the purpose of comparing it with the bullets that killed the victim. App. 20. The officers also obtained petitioner’s photograph prior to seeking him out, and the circumstances of petitioner’s arrest indicate that their suspicions of him were quite pronounced.

The trial court made no determination as to whether probable cause existed for petitioner’s arrest. The Illinois Supreme Court resolved that issue, but did not consider whether the officers might reasonably, albeit erroneously, have thought that probable cause existed. Rather than decide those matters for the first time at this level, I think it preferable to allow the state courts to reconsider the case under the general guidelines expressed in today’s opinions. I therefore would remand for reconsideration with directions to conduct such further factual inquiries as may be necessary to resolve the admissibility issue.

       The brother, however, when asked at the trial whether any of the victim’s family suggested to the police that petitioner was possibly responsible for the victim's death, answered: “Nobody asked.” App. 74.

       There is no assertion here that he did not understand those rights.

       It was stipulated at the trial that if expert testimony were taken, it would be to the effect that the bullet eventually was ascertained to be a “wiped bullet,” that is, that its sides were “clean and therefore it was not ballistically comparable to any other bullets, specifically the bullets taken from the body of the deceased, Roger Corpus.” Tr. 543.

       In response to questions from Mr. Crilly, Brown stated that he was employed at E. I. Guffman Company in Niles, 111., and that he was a punch press operator, App. 97, whereas he later conceded that he worked at Arnold Schwinn Bicycle Company and had never worked at any other place. Id., at 63. He also remarked in the Crilly statement that he had completed three years of high school, id., at 96, whereas later he conceded that he “never went to high school.” Id., at 58.

       Members of the Court on occasion have indicated disenchantment with the rule. See, e. g., Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 490 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring); id., at 492 (Burger, C. J., dissenting in part and concurring in part); id., at 493 (Black, J., concurring and dissenting); id., at 510 (White, J., concurring and dissenting); Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, 411 (1971) (Burger, C. J., dissenting). Its efficacy has been subject to some dispute. United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338, 348 n. 5 (1974). See Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, 218 (1960).

       The Miranda warnings in no way inform a person of his Fourth Amendment rights, including his right to be released from unlawful custody following an arrest made without a warrant or without probable cause.

       A great majority of the commentators have taken the same position. See, e. g., Pitler, “The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” Revisited and Shepardized, 56 Calif. L. Rev. 579, 603-604 (1968); Ruffin, Out on a Limb of the Poisonous Tree: The Tainted Witness, 15 U. C. L. A. L. Rev. 32, 70 (1967); Comment, 1 Fla. St. L. Rev. 533, 539-540 (1973); Note, Admissibility of Confessions Made Subsequent to an Illegal Arrest: Wong Sun v. United States Revisited, 61 J. Crim. L. 207, 212 n. 58 (1970); Comment, Scope of Taint Under the Exclusionary Rule of the Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, 114 U. Pa. L. Rev. 570, 574 (1966). But see Comment, Voluntary Incriminating Statements Made Subsequent to an Illegal Arrest — A Proposed Modification of the Exclusionary Rule, 71 Dick. L. Rev. 573, 582-583 (1967).

       See United States v. Owen, 492 F. 2d 1100, 1107 (CA5), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 965 (1974); Hale v. Henderson, 485 F. 2d 266, 267-269 (CA6 1973), cert. denied, 415 U. S. 930 (1974); United States v. Fallon, 457 F. 2d 15, 19-20 (CA10 1972); Leonard v. United States, 391 F. 2d 537, 538 (CA9 1968); Pennsylvania ex rel. Craig v. Maroney, 348 F. 2d 22, 29 (CA3 1965),

       See United States v. Edmons, 432 F. 2d 577 (CA2 1970). See also United States ex rel. Gockley v. Myers, 450 F. 2d 232, 236 (CA3 1971), cert. denied, 404 U. S. 1063 (1972); United States v. Kilgen, 445 F. 2d 287, 289 (CA5 1971).

       Our approach relies heavily, but not excessively, on the “learning, good sense, fairness and courage of federal trial judges.” Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338, 342 (1939).

       The situation here is thus in dramatic contrast to that of Wong Sun himself. Wong Sun’s confession, which the Court held admissible, came several days after the illegality, and was preceded by a lawful arraignment and a release from custody on his own recognizance. 371 U. S., at 491.

       The fact that Brown had made one statement, believed by him to be admissible, and his cooperation with the arresting and interrogating officers in the search for Claggett, with his anticipation of leniency, bolstered the pressures for him to give the second, or at least vitiated any incentive on his part to avoid self-incrimination. Cf. Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U. S. 85 (1963).

       Detective Lenz had been a member of the Chicago police force for 14 years and a detective for 12 years. App. 6. Detective Nolan had been a detective on the force for 5% years. Id., at 87.

       Each of these guarantees provides an independent ground for suppression of statements and thus may make it unnecessary in many cases to conduct the inquiry mandated by Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963).

       Toy gave a second statement under circumstances similar to those in Wong Sun’s case. The Court did not, however, rule as to the admissibility of this statement, finding instead that it lacked corroboration and was therefore insufficient to support Toy’s conviction. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S., at 488-491.

       1 note that this resolution might have the added benefit of encouraging the police to seek a warrant whenever possible. Cf. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103, 113 (1975), and sources cited therein.

       The majority of the statements cited by the Court are the officers’ responses to questions inquiring as to what the officers told petitioner upon arresting him and thus are only indirectly relevant to the issue whether the officers might reasonably have thought they then had sufficient evidence to support a probable-cause determination. Moreover, as noted above, that evidence is contradictory. In only two instances during the trial did the inquiry relate more directly to whether the officers arrested petitioner for questioning. App. 83, 94. The officers’ responses to those questions tend to support the Court’s conclusion. In view of the weight of the contrary evidence, however, I think that the matter should be considered in the first instance by the state courts.

       Petitioner’s motion to suppress alleged that the police lacked reasonable grounds for believing that he committed a crime. But the testimony at the hearing focused primarily on the issue of the adequacy of the Miranda warnings and the voluntariness of petitioner’s statements. At the close of the hearing the trial court ruled, without elaboration or findings of fact, that the statements were admissible. Id., at 65. Conceivably the trial court thought that probable cause existed to support the arrest. The State argued this point unsuccessfully on appeal. Equally possible, the trial court might have determined that the probable-cause issue was a close one and that, viewing the totality of the circumstances with that fact in mind, the statement should be admitted.

       The Solicitor General has filed a memorandum as amicus curiae in which he urges the Court to remand the case for further factual hearings, cf. Morales v. New York, 396 U. S. 102 (1969). I concur in the Court’s rejection of this suggestion, agreeing that the record is adequate to allow us to rule on the major issue — whether advice of Miranda rights constitutes a per se attenuation of the taint of an illegal arrest in all cases. I do not agree, however, that the record is adequate for the Court to rule, in addition, that there was insufficient attenuation of taint in this case.

       Petitioner’s second statement, corroborative of the first, was given more than six hours after his arrest and some five hours after the initial statement. During this time petitioner — cooperating with the police — had made two trips away from the police headquarters in search of Claggett, whom he had identified as his confederate in the murder. This second statement was given to an assistant state’s attorney who again had informed petitioner of his Miranda rights. The Court deems this statement to be the fruit of the first one and thus excludable along with it.
      I also would leave the question of admissibility of this statement to the lower Illinois courts. Of course, if the first statement were ruled admissible under the general guidelines articulated in today’s opinion, it would follow that the second statement also would be admissible. In any event, the question whether there was sufficient attenuation between the first and second statements to render the second admissible in spite of the inadmissibility of the first presents a factual issue which, like the factual issue underlying the possible admissibility of the first statement, has not been passed on by the state courts.