Page:United States Reports, Volume 542.djvu/663

624 correctly refuses to apply a similar analysis to testimonial fruits.

Although the analysis the plurality ultimately espouses examines the same facts and circumstances that a "fruits" analysis would consider (such as the lapse of time between the two interrogations and change of questioner or location), it does so for entirely different reasons. The fruits analysis would examine those factors because they are relevant to the balance of deterrence value versus the "drastic and socially costly course" of excluding reliable evidence. Nix v. Williams,, 442–443 (1984). The plurality, by contrast, looks to those factors to inform the psychological judgment regarding whether the suspect has been informed effectively of her right to remain silent. The analytical underpinnings of the two approaches are thus entirely distinct, and they should not be conﬂated just because they function similarly in practice. Cf. ante, at 617–618 (, concurring).

The plurality's rejection of an intent based test is also, in my view, correct. Freedom from compulsion lies at the heart of the Fifth Amendment, and requires us to assess whether a suspect's decision to speak truly was voluntary. Because voluntariness is a matter of the suspect's state of mind, we focus our analysis on the way in which suspects experience interrogation. See generally Miranda, 384 U.S., at 455 (summarizing psychological tactics used by police that "undermin[e]" the suspect's "will to resist," and noting that "the very fact of custodial interrogation trades on the weakness of individuals"); id., at 467 ("[I]n custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual's will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely"). Thoughts kept inside a police ofﬁcer's head cannot affect that experience. See Moran v. Burbine,, 422