If we do not suppress physical evidence in situations of intentional violations of Miranda, we, in essence, undermine the deterrent effect upon which such a decision was based.
The rule argued for by the State would minimize the seriousness of the police misconduct producing the evidentiary fruits, breed contempt for the law, and encourage the type of conduct that Miranda was designed to prevent, especially where the police conduct is intentional, as it was here.
— 25% pro-criminal Justice N. Patrick Crooks
The Court of Appeals surveyed Miranda and its progeny to determine the constitutional status of the Miranda decision.
. . . The Court of Appeals concluded that the protections announced in Miranda are not constitutionally required.
We disagree with the Court of Appeals' conclusion . . .
— 0% pro-criminal Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist