Dunaway v. New York

Mr. Justice Brennan

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We decide in this case the question reserved 10 years ago in Morales v. New York, 396 U. S. 102 (1969), namely, “the question of the legality of custodial questioning on less than probable cause for a full-fledged arrest.” Id., at 106.

I

On March 26, 1971, the proprietor of a pizza parlor in Rochester, N. Y., was killed during an attempted robbery. On August 10, 1971, Detective Anthony Fantigrossi of the *203 Rochester Police was told by another officer that an informant had supplied a possible lead implicating petitioner in the crime. Fantigrossi questioned the supposed source of the lead — a jail inmate awaiting trial for burglary — but learned nothing that supplied “enough information to get a warrant” for petitioner’s arrest. App. 60.1 Nevertheless, Fantigrossi ordered other detectives to “pick up” petitioner and “bring him in.” Id., at 54. Three detectives located petitioner at a neighbor’s house on the morning of August 11. Petitioner was taken into custody; although he was not told he was under arrest, he would have been physically restrained if he had attempted to leave. Opinion in People v. Dunaway (Monroe County Ct., Mar. 11, 1977), App. 116, 117. He was driven to police headquarters in a police car and placed in an interrogation room, where he was questioned by officers after being given the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). Petitioner waived counsel and eventually made statements and drew sketches that incriminated him in the crime.2

At petitioner’s jury trial for attempted robbery and felony murder, his motions to suppress the statements and sketches were denied, and he was convicted. On appeal, both the *204 Appellate Division of the Fourth Department and the New York Court of Appeals initially affirmed the conviction without opinion. 42 App. Div. 2d 689, 346 N. Y. S. 2d 779 (1973), aff’d, 35 N. Y. 2d 741, 320 N. E. 2d 646 (1974). However, this Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of the Court’s supervening decision in Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590 (1975). 422 U. S. 1053 (1975). The petitioner in Brown, like petitioner Dunaway, made inculpatory statements after receiving Miranda warnings during custodial interrogation following his seizure — in that case a formal arrest — on less than probable cause. Brown’s motion to suppress the statements was also denied and the statements were used to convict him. Although the Illinois Supreme Court recognized that Brown’s arrest was unlawful, it affirmed the admission of the statements on the ground that the giving of Miranda warnings served to break the causal connection between the illegal arrest and the giving of the statements. This Court reversed, holding that the Illinois courts erred in adopting a per se rule that Miranda warnings in and of themselves sufficed to cure the Fourth Amendment violation; rather the Court held that in order to use such statements, the prosecution must show not only that the statements meet the Fifth Amendment voluntariness standard, but also that the causal connection between the statements and the illegal arrest is broken sufficiently to purge the primary taint of the illegal arrest in light of the distinct policies and interests of the Fourth Amendment.

In compliance with the remand, the New York Court of Appeals directed the Monroe County Court to make further factual findings as to whether there was a detention of petitioner, whether the police had probable cause, “and, in the event there was a detention and probable cause is not found for such detention, to determine the further question as to whether the making of the confessions was rendered infirm *205 by the illegal arrest (see Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590, supra).” People v. Dunaway, 38 N. Y. 2d 812, 813-814, 345 N. E. 2d 583, 584 (1975).

The County Court determined after a supplementary suppression hearing that Dunaway’s motion to suppress should have been granted. Although reaffirming that there had been “full compliance with the mandate of Miranda v. Arizona,” the County Court found that “this case does not involve a situation where the defendant voluntarily appeared at police headquarters in response to a request of the police . . . .” App. 117. The State’s attempt to justify petitioner’s involuntary investigatory detention on the authority of People v. Morales, 22 N. Y. 2d 55, 238 N. E. 2d 307 (1968)— which upheld a similar detention on the basis of information amounting to less than probable cause for arrest — was rejected on the grounds that the precedential value of Morales was questionable,3 and that the controlling authority was the “strong language” in Brown v. Illinois indicating “disdain for custodial questioning without probable cause to arrest.”4 The County Court further held that “the factual predicate in this case did not amount to probable cause sufficient to support the arrest of the defendant,” that “the Miranda warnings by themselves did not purge the taint of the defend *206 ant’s illegal seizure [,] Brown v. Illinois, supra, and [that] there was no claim or showing by the People of any attenuation of the defendant’s illegal detention,” App. 121. Accordingly petitioner’s motion to suppress was granted. Ibid.

A divided Appellate Division reversed. Although agreeing that the police lacked probable cause to arrest petitioner, the majority relied on. the Court of Appeals’ reaffirmation, subsequent to the County Court’s decision, that “[l]aw enforcement officials may detain an individual upon reasonable suspicion for questioning for a reasonable and brief period of time under carefully controlled conditions which are ample to protect the individual’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.” 61 App. Div. 2d 299, 302, 402 N. Y. S. 2d 490, 492 (1978), quoting People v. Morales, 42 N. Y. 2d 129, 135, 366 N. E. 2d 248, 251 (1977). The Appellate Division also held that even if petitioner’s detention were illegal, the taint of his illegal detention was sufficiently attenuated to allow the admission of his statements and sketches. The Appellate Division emphasized that petitioner was never threatened or abused by the police and purported to distinguish Brown v. Illinois,5 The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s application for leave to appeal. App. 134.

We granted certiorari, 439 U. S. 979 (1978), to clarify the Fourth Amendment’s requirements as to the permissible grounds for custodial interrogation and to review the New York court’s application of Brown v. Illinois. We reverse.

II

We first consider whether the Rochester police violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments when, without probable cause to arrest, they took petitioner into custody, transported *207 him to the police station, and detained him there for interrogation.

The Fourth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961), provides: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause . . . .” There can be little doubt that petitioner was “seized” in the Fourth Amendment sense when he was taken involuntarily to the police station.6 And respondent State concedes that the police lacked probable cause to arrest petitioner before his incriminating statement during interrogation.7 Nevertheless respondent contends that the seizure of petitioner did not amount to an arrest and was therefore permissible under the Fourth Amendment because the police had a “reasonable suspicion” that petitioner possessed “intimate knowledge about a serious and unsolved crime.” Brief for Respondent 10. We disagree.

Before Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), the Fourth *208 Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable seizures of persons was analyzed in terms of arrest, probable cause for arrest, and warrants based on such probable cause. The basic principles were relatively simple and straightforward: The term “arrest” was synonymous with those seizures governed by the Fourth Amendment. While warrants were not required in all circumstances,8 the requirement of probable cause, as elaborated in numerous precedents,9 was treated as absolute.10 The “long-prevailing standards” of probable cause embodied “the best compromise that has been found for accommodating [the] often opposing interests” in “safeguard [ing] citizens from rash and unreasonable interferences with privacy” and in “seek[ing] to give fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community’s protection.” Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 176 (1949). The standard of probable cause thus represented the accumulated wisdom of precedent and experience as to the minimum justification necessary to make the kind of intrusion involved in an arrest “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment. The standard applied to all arrests, without the need to “balance” the interests and circumstances involved in particular situations. Cf. Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523 (1967).

Terry for the first time recognized an exception to the requirement that Fourth Amendment seizures of persons must *209 be based on probable cause. That case involved a brief, on-the-spot stop on the street and a frisk for weapons, a situation that did not fit comfortably within the traditional concept of an “arrest.” Nevertheless, the Court held that even this type of “necessarily swift action predicated upon the on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat” constituted a “serious intrusion upon the sanctity of the person, which may inflict great indignity and arouse strong resentment,” 392 U. S., at 20, 17, and therefore “must be tested by the Fourth Amendment’s general proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Id., at 20. However, since the intrusion involved in a “stop and frisk” was so much less severe than that involved in traditional “arrests,” the Court declined to stretch the concept of “arrest” — and the general rule requiring probable cause to make arrests “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment — to cover such intrusions. Instead, the Court treated the stop-and-frisk intrusion as a sui generis “rubric of police conduct,” ibid. And to determine the justification necessary to make this specially limited intrusion “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment, the Court balanced the limited violation of individual privacy involved against the opposing interests in crime prevention and detection and in the police officer’s safety. Id., at 22-27. As a consequence, the Court established “a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime.” Id., at 27.11 Thus, Terry departed from traditional Fourth Amendment analysis in two respects. *210 First, it defined a special category of Fourth Amendment “seizures” so substantially less intrusive than arrests that the general rule requiring probable cause to make Fourth Amendment “seizures” reasonable could be replaced by a balancing test. Second, the application of this balancing test led the Court to approve this narrowly defined less intrusive seizure on grounds less rigorous than probable cause, but only for the purpose of a pat-down for weapons.

Because Terry involved an exception to the general rule requiring probable cause, this Court has been careful to maintain its narrow scope. Terry itself involved a limited, on-the-street frisk for weapons.12 Two subsequent cases which applied Terry also involved limited weapons frisks. See Adams v. Williams, 407 U. S. 143 (1972) (frisk for weapons on basis of reasonable suspicion); Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106 (1977) (order to get out of car is permissible “de minimis” intrusion after car is lawfully detained for traffic violations; frisk for weapons justified after “bulge” observed in jacket). United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873 (1976), applied Terry in the special context of roving border patrols stopping automobiles to check for illegal immigrants. The investigative stops usually consumed *211 less than a minute and involved “a brief question or two.” 422 U. S., at 880. The Court stated that “ [b] ecause of the limited nature of the intrusion, stops of this sort may be justified on facts that do not amount to the probable cause required for an arrest.” Ibid.13 See also United States v. Martines-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543 (1976) (fixed checkpoint to stop and check vehicles for aliens); Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648 (1979) (random checks for drivers’ licenses and proper vehicle registration not permitted on less than articulable reasonable suspicion).

Respondent State now urges the Court to apply a balancing test, rather than the general rule, to custodial interrogations, and to hold that “seizures” such as that in this case may be justified by mere “reasonable suspicion.”14 Terry and its *212 progeny clearly do not support such a result. The narrow intrusions involved in those cases were judged by a balancing test rather than by the general principle that Fourth Amendment seizures must be supported by the “long-prevailing standards” of probable cause, Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S., at 176, only because these intrusions fell far short of the kind of intrusion associated with an arrest. Indeed, Brignoni-Ponce expressly refused to extend Terry in the manner respondent now urges. The Court there stated: “The officer may question the driver and passengers about their citizenship and immigration status, and he may ask them to explain suspicious circumstances, but any further detention or search must be based on consent or probable cause.” 422 U. S., at 881-882 (emphasis added). Accord, United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, supra, at 567.

In contrast to the brief and narrowly circumscribed intrusions involved in those cases, the detention of petitioner was in important respects indistinguishable from a traditional arrest. Petitioner was not questioned briefly where he was found. Instead, he was taken from a neighbor’s home to a police car, transported to a police station, and placed in an interrogation room. He was never informed that he was “free to go”; indeed, he would have been physically restrained if he had refused to accompany the officers or had tried to escape their custody. The application of the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of probable cause does not depend on whether an intrusion of this magnitude is termed an “arrest” under state law. The mere facts that petitioner was not told he was under arrest, was not “booked,” and would not have had an arrest record if the interrogation had proved fruitless, while not insignificant for all purposes, see Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U. S. 291 (1973), obviously do not make petitioner’s *213 seizure even roughly analogous to the narrowly defined intrusions involved in Terry and its progeny. Indeed, any “exception” that could cover a seizure as intrusive as that in this case would threaten to swallow the general rule that Fourth Amendment seizures are “reasonable” only if based on probable cause.

The central importance of the probable-cause requirement to the protection of a citizen’s privacy afforded by the Fourth Amendment’s guarantees cannot be compromised in this fashion. “The requirement of probable cause has roots that are deep in our history.” Henry v. United States, 361 U. S. 98, 100 (1959). Hostility to seizures based on mere suspicion was a prime motivation for the adoption of the Fourth Amendment, and decisions immediately after its adoption affirmed that “common rumor or report, suspicion, or even ‘strong reason to suspect’ was not adequate to support a warrant for arrest.” Id., at 101 (footnotes omitted). The familiar threshold standard of probable cause for Fourth Amendment seizures reflects the benefit of extensive experience accommodating the factors relevant to the “reasonableness” requirement of the Fourth Amendment, and provides the relative simplicity and clarity necessary to the implementation of a workable rule. See Brinegar v. United States, supra, at 175-176.

In effect, respondent urges us to adopt a multifactor balancing test of “reasonable police conduct under the circumstances” to cover all seizures that do not amount to technical arrests.15 But the protections intended by the Framers could all too easily disappear in the consideration and balancing of the multifarious circumstances presented by different cases, especially when that balancing may be done in the first instance by police officers engaged in the “often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.” Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 14 (1948). A single, familiar standard is essential to *214 guide police officers, who have only limited time and expertise to reflect on and balance the social and individual interests involved in the specific circumstances they confront.16 Indeed, our recognition of these dangers, and our consequent reluctance to depart from the proved protections afforded by the general rule, are reflected in the narrow limitations emphasized in the cases employing the balancing test. For all but those narrowly defined intrusions, the requisite “balancing” has been performed in centuries of precedent and is embodied in the principle that seizures are “reasonable” only if supported by probable cause.

Moreover, two important decisions since Terry confirm the conclusion that the treatment of petitioner, whether or not it is technically characterized as an arrest, must be supported by probable cause. Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U. S. 721 (1969), decided the Term after Terry, considered whether fingerprints taken from a suspect detained without probable cause must be excluded from evidence. The State argued that the detention “was of a type which does not require probable cause,” 394 U. S., at 726, because it occurred during an investigative, rather than accusatory, stage, and because it was for the sole purpose of taking fingerprints. Rejecting the State’s first argument, the Court warned:

“[T]o argue that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to the investigatory stage is fundamentally to misconceive the purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Investigatory seizures would subject unlimited numbers of innocent persons to the harassment and ignominy incident to involuntary detention. Nothing is more clear than that the Fourth Amendment was meant to prevent wholesale intrusions upon the personal security of our *215 citizenry, whether these intrusions be termed ‘arrests’ or ‘investigatory detentions.’ ” Id., at 726-727.

The State’s second argument in Davis was more substantial, largely because of the distinctions between taking fingerprints and interrogation:

“Fingerprinting involves none of the probing into an individual’s private life and thoughts that marks an interrogation or search. Nor can fingerprint detention be employed repeatedly to harass any individual, since the police need only one set of each person’s prints. Furthermore, fingerprinting is an inherently more reliable and effective crime-solving tool than eyewitness identifications or confessions and is not subject to such abuses as the improper line-up and the ‘third degree.’ Finally, because there is no danger of destruction of fingerprints, the limited detention need not come unexpectedly or at an inconvenient time.” Id., at 727.

In Davis, however, the Court found it unnecessary to decide the validity of a “narrowly circumscribed procedure for obtaining” the fingerprints of suspects without probable cause— in part because, as the Court emphasized, “petitioner was not merely fingerprinted during the . . . detention but also subjected to interrogation.” Id., at 728 (emphasis added). The detention therefore violated the Fourth Amendment.

Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590 (1975), similarly disapproved arrests made for “investigatory” purposes on less than probable cause. Although Brown’s arrest had more of the trappings of a technical formal arrest than petitioner’s, such differences in form must not be exalted over substance.17 *216 Once in the police station, Brown was taken to an interrogation room, and his experience was indistinguishable from petitioner’s. Our condemnation of the police conduct in Brown fits equally the police conduct in this case:

“The impropriety of the arrest was obvious; awareness’ of the 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.’ . . . 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.” Id., at 605.

See also id., at 602.

These passages from Davis and Brown reflect the conclusion that detention for custodial interrogation — regardless of its label — intrudes so severely on interests protected by the Fourth Amendment as necessarily to trigger the traditional safeguards against illegal arrest. We accordingly hold that the Rochester police violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments when, without probable cause, they seized petitioner and transported him to the police station for interrogation.

Ill

There remains the question whether the connection between this unconstitutional police conduct and the incriminating statements and sketches obtained during petitioner’s illegal detention was nevertheless sufficiently attenuated to permit the use at trial of the statements and sketches. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963); Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338 (1939); Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385 (1920).

The New York courts have consistently held, and petitioner does not contest, that proper Miranda warnings were given and that his statements were “voluntary” for purposes of the Fifth Amendment. But Brown v. Illinois, supra, settled that *217 “[t]he exclusionary rule, . . . when utilized to effectuate the Fourth Amendment, serves interests and policies that are distinct from those it serves under the Fifth,” 422 U. S., at 601, and held therefore that “Miranda warnings, and the exclusion of a confession made without them, do not alone sufficiently deter a Fourth Amendment violation.” Ibid.

“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. . . . 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.” Id., at 602.

Consequently, although a confession after proper Miranda warnings may be found “voluntary” for purposes of the Fifth Amendment,18 this type of “voluntariness” is merely a “threshold requirement” for Fourth Amendment 'analysis, 422 U. S., at 604. Indeed, if the Fifth Amendment has been violated, the Fourth Amendment issue would not have to be reached.

Beyond this threshold requirement, Brown articulated a test designed to vindicate the “distinct policies and interests of the Fourth Amendment.” Id., at 602. Following Wong Sun, the Court eschewed any per se or “but for” rule, and identified the relevant inquiry as “whether Brown’s statements were obtained by exploitation of the illegality of his arrest,” 422 U. S., at 600; see Wong Sun v. United States, supra, at 488. Brown’s, focus on “the causal connection between the illegality and the confession,” 422 U. S., at 603, reflected the two policies behind the use of the exclusionary rule to effec *218 tuate the Fourth Amendment. When there is a close causal connection between the illegal seizure and the confession, not only is exclusion of the evidence more likely to deter similar police misconduct in the future, but use of the evidence is more likely to compromise the integrity of the courts.

Brown identified several factors to be considered “in determining whether the confession is obtained by exploitation of an illegal arrest [: t]he temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession, the presence of intervening circumstances, . . . and, particularly, the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.... And the burden of showing admissibility rests, of course, on the prosecution.” Id., at 603-604.19 Examining the case before it, the Court readily concluded that the State had failed to sustain its burden of showing the confession was admissible. In the “less than two hours” that elapsed between the arrest and the confession “there was no intervening event of significance whatsoever.” Ibid. Furthermore, the arrest without probable cause had a “quality of purposefulness” in that it was an “expedition for evidence” admittedly undertaken “in the hope that something might turn up.” Id., at 605.

The situation in this case is virtually a replica of the situation in Brown. Petitioner was also admittedly seized without probable cause in the hope that something might turn up, and confessed without any intervening event of significance.20 Nevertheless, three members of the Appellate Division purported to distinguish Brown on the ground that the police did not threaten or abuse petitioner (presumably putting aside his illegal seizure and detention) and that the police *219 conduct was “highly protective of defendant’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.” 61 App. Div. 2d, at 303, 402 N. Y. S. 2d, at 493. This betrays a lingering confusion between “voluntariness” for purposes of the Fifth Amendment and the “causal connection” test established in Brown. Satisfying the Fifth Amendment is only the “threshold” condition of the Fourth Amendment analysis required by Brown. No intervening events broke the connection between petitioner’s illegal detention and his confession. To admit petitioner’s confession in such a case would allow “law enforcement officers to violate the Fourth Amendment with impunity, safe in the knowledge that they could wash their hands in the ‘procedural safeguards’ of the Fifth.” 21

Reversed.

Me. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

See opinion in People v. Dunaway (Monroe County Ct., Mar. 11, 1977), App. 116-117. An informant had reportedly told the other detective that one James Cole had said that he and someone named “Irving” had been involved in the crime. The informant did not know “Irving’s” last name, but had identified a picture of petitioner Dunaway from a police file. After hearing this information, Fantigrossi interviewed Cole, who was in jail pending an indictment for burglary. Cole denied any involvement in the crime, but stated that he had been told about it two months earlier by another inmate, Hubert Adams. According to Cole, Adams had mentioned that his younger brother, Ba Ba Adams, had told him that he and a fellow named “Irving,” also known as “Axelrod,” had been involved in the crime.

See 61 App. Div. 2d 299, 301, 402 N. Y. S. 2d 490, 491 (1978). The first statement was made within an hour after Dunaway reached the police station; the following day he made a second, more complete statement.

We granted certiorari in Morales and noted that “[t]he ruling below, that the State may detain for custodial questioning on less than probable cause for a traditional arrest, is manifestly important, goes beyond our subsequent decisions in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), and Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40 (1968), and is claimed by petitioner to be at odds with Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U. S. 721 (1969).” Morales v. New York, 396 U. S. 102, 104-105 (1969). Nevertheless, inadequacies in the record led us to remand for further development and to reserve the issue we decide today for a record that “squarely and necessarily presents the issue and fully illuminates the factual context in which the question arises.’’ Id., at 105. On remand, the New York courts determined that Morales had gone to the police voluntarily. People v. Morales, 42 N. Y. 2d 129, 137-138, 366 N. E. 2d 248, 252-253 (1977).

App. 118; see Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S., at 602, 605.

61 App. Div. 2d, at 303-304, 402 N. Y. S. 2d, at 493. Two of the five members of the court dissented on this issue. Id., at 304, 402 N. Y. S. 2d, at 493 (Denman, J., concurring); id., at 305, 402 N. Y. S. 2d, at 494 (Cardamone, J., dissenting).

“It must be recognized that whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has 'seized’ that person.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 16 (1968). Respondent contends that petitioner accompanied the police voluntarily and therefore was not “seized.” Brief for Respondent 7-9. The County Court found otherwise, App. 117, quoted supra, at 205; and the Appellate Division treated the case as an involuntary detention justified by reasonable suspicion. See 61 App. Div. 2d, at 302-303, 402 N. Y. S. 2d, at 492. See also ALI, Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure § 2.01 (3) and commentary, p. 91 (Tent. Draft No. 1, 1966) (request to come to police station “may easily carry an implication of obligation, while the appearance itself, unless clearly stated to be voluntary, may be an awesome experience for the ordinary citizen”).

Both the County Court and the Appellate Division'found that the police lacked probable cause, and respondent does not question those findings here. See 61 App. Div. 2d, at 302, 402 N. Y. S. 2d, at 492; App. 120, citing Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 (1969); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108 (1964).

See, e. g., Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294 (1967) (hot pursuit); United States v. Watson, 423 U. S. 411 (1976) (felony arrests in public places).

“Probable cause exists where ‘the facts and circumstances within their [the officers’] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that’ an offense has been or is being committed [by the person to be arrested].” Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 175-176 (1949), quoting Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 162 (1925). See generally 2 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment 436-480 (1978).

See Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103, 111-112 (1975); Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963).

The Court stressed the limits of its holding: the police officer’s belief that his safety or that of others is in danger must be objectively reasonable — based on reasonable inferences from known facts — so that it can be tested at the appropriate time by “the more detached, neutral scrutiny of a judge,” 392 U. S., at 21, 27; and the extent of the intrusion must be carefully tailored to the rationale justifying it.

Terry specifically declined to address “the constitutional propriety of an investigative 'seizure’ upon less than probable cause for purposes of 'detention’ and/or interrogation.” Id., at 19 n. 16. Mr. Justice White, in a concurring opinion, made these observations on the matter of interrogation during an investigative stop:

“There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets. Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. However, given the proper circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to me the person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation.” Id., at 34.

“[B] ecause of the importance of the governmental interest at stake, the minimal intrusion of a brief stop, and the absence of practical alternatives for policing the border, we hold that when an officer’s observations lead him reasonably to suspect that a particular vehicle may contain aliens who are illegally in the country, he may stop the car briefly and investigate the circumstances that provoke suspicion.” 422 U. S., at 881.

The factors that respondent would consider relevant in its balancing test, and the scope of the rule the test would produce, are not completely clear. The Appellate Division quoted two apparently different tests from the Court of Appeals opinion in People v. Morales, 42 N. Y. 2d 129, 366 N. E. 2d 248 (1977):

“£[L]aw enforcement officials may detain an individual upon reasonable suspicion for questioning for a reasonable and brief period of time under carefully controlled conditions which are ample to protect the individual’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights’ (42 NY2d, at p. 135). '“[A] policeman’s right to request information while discharging his law enforcement duties will hinge on the manner and intensity of the interference, the gravity of the crime involved and the circumstances attending the encounter” ’ (42 NY2d, at p. 137, quoting from People v. De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 219).” 61 App. Div. 2d, at 302, 402 N. Y. S. 2d, at 492.

Then, in characterizing the ease before it, the Appellate Division suggested yet a third “test”:

“[T]his case involves a brief detention for interrogation based upon reasonable suspicion, where there was no formal accusation filed against defend *212 ant and where great public interest existed in solving a brutal crime which had remained unsolved for a period of almost five months.” Id., at 303, 402 N. Y. S. 2d, at 492.

See n. 14, supra.

While the rule proposed by respondent is not entirely clear, the Appellate Division cited with approval a test that would require an officer to weigh before any custodial interrogation “the manner and intensity of the interference, the gravity of the crime involved and the circumstances attending the encounter.” See n. 14, supra.

The officers drew their guns, informed Brown that he was under arrest, and handcuffed him. But Brown, unlike petitioner, was not a teenager; and the police had a report that he possessed a pistol and had used it on occasion, 422 U. S., at 594. The police in this case would have resorted to similar measures if petitioner had resisted being taken into custody. App. 117.

But see Westover v. United States, 384 U. S. 436, 494-497 (1966) (decided with Miranda v. Arizona).

See generally, 3 LaFave, supra n. 9, at 630-638; Comment, 25 Emory L. J. 227, 239-244 (1976); Comment, 13 Houston L. Rev. 753, 763-770 (1976).

The cases are even parallel in that both Brown and petitioner made subsequent statements, see n. 2, supra; Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S., at 595-596, which in each case were “clearly the result and the fruit of the first.” Id., at 605, and n. 12.

Comment, 25 Emory L. J. 227, 238 (1976).