446 U.S. 620 (1980)
Respondent James Havens, an attorney from Fort Wayne, Indiana, and John McLeroth boarded a flight from Lima, Peru, to Miami, Florida.1
Upon arrival in Miami, customs officers searched McLeroth and discovered cocaine sewn into makeshift pockets in a T-shirt he wore under his outer clothing.2 McLeroth implicated Havens, who had already cleared customs and was arrested.3 Officers seized and searched Havens' luggage without a warrant, finding a T-shirt with pieces cut out that matched those sewn onto McLeroth's T-shirt.4 The T-shirt and other items from the search were suppressed before trial on Havens' motion.5
Both men were charged in a three-count indictment.6 McLeroth pleaded guilty to one count and testified against Havens at trial, stating that Havens had supplied the altered T-shirt and sewed the pockets shut.7 Havens took the stand in his defense and denied any involvement in smuggling cocaine.8 On direct examination, Havens testified that he did not engage in wrapping or taping activities with McLeroth.9
During cross-examination, the government asked Havens whether he had a size 38-40 medium T-shirt with swatches missing in his luggage when passing through customs, and Havens denied it.10 On rebuttal, a government agent testified that the T-shirt had been found in Havens' suitcase and that Havens had claimed the T-shirts belonged to McLeroth.11 The T-shirt was admitted into evidence over objection, with the jury instructed to consider it only for impeaching Havens' credibility.12 Havens was convicted of importing, conspiring to import, and intentionally possessing cocaine.13 The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the conviction.14 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.15
Whether evidence suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful search and seizure may nevertheless be used to impeach a defendant's false trial testimony, given in response to proper cross-examination, where the evidence does not squarely contradict the defendant's testimony on direct examination?16
A defendant's statements made in response to proper cross-examination reasonably suggested by the defendant's direct examination are subject to otherwise proper impeachment by the government. This holds even though the evidence has been illegally obtained and is inadmissible on the government's direct case.
Yes. Havens took the stand in his own defense and on direct examination denied any involvement in smuggling cocaine as well as any engagement in wrapping or taping activities with McLeroth.17 The government's cross-examination questions about whether Havens had a size 38-40 medium T-shirt with swatches missing in his luggage when passing through customs were reasonably suggested by that direct testimony.18 The suppressed T-shirt was admitted on rebuttal solely to impeach Havens' denial on cross-examination that he had possessed such a T-shirt.19
Evidence suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful search and seizure may be used to impeach a defendant's false trial testimony given in response to proper cross-examination reasonably suggested by the defendant's direct examination.
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Mr. Justice Marshall And Joined In Part I By Mr. Justice Stewart And Mr. Justice Stevens
Justice Brennan dissents from the majority's expansion of impeachment use of illegally seized evidence.20 He contends that the ruling departs from Agnello by permitting the government to use its power of cross-examination to lay the predicate for introducing illegally seized evidence.21
Brennan maintains that defendants will be compelled to forgo testifying on their own behalf to avoid the admission of suppressible evidence.22 He further argues that the incremental balancing approach undermines constitutional protections by treating Fourth Amendment guarantees as mere policy incentives rather than fundamental rights.23 Brennan warns that the decision erodes the exclusionary rule's deterrent function and the integrity of the judicial process.24