delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Mаy 1950, petitioner was indicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri for purchasing and possessing one grain of heroin. Claiming that thе heroin capsule had been obtained through an unlawful search and seizure, petitioner moved *63 to suppress it. The motion was grantеd, and shortly thereafter, on the Government’s motion, the case against petitioner was dismissed.
In January of 1952, petitioner was again indicted, this time for four other illicit transactions in narcotics. The Government’s case consisted principally of the testimony of two drug addicts who claimed to have procured the illicit stuff from petitioner under the direction of federal agents. The only witness for the defense was the defendant himself, petitioner here. He denied any narcotics dealings with the two Government informers and attributed the testimony against him tо personal hostility.
Early on his direct examination petitioner testified as follows:
“Q. Now, first, Mr. Walder, before we go further in your testimony, I want to you [sic] tell the Court and jury whether, not referring to these informers in this case, but whether you have ever sold any narcotics to anyone.
“A. I have never sold any narcotics to anyone in my life.
“Q. Havе you ever had any narcotics in your possession, other than what may have been given to you by a physician for an ailment?
“A. No.
“Q. Now, I will ask you one more thing. Have you ever handed or given any narcotics to anyone as a gift or in any other manner without the receipt оf any money or any other compensation?
“A. I have not.
“Q. Have you ever even acted as, say, have you acted as a conduit for the purpose of handling what you knew to be a narcotic from one person to another?
“A. No, sir.”
*64
On cross-examination, in response tо a question by Government counsel making reference to this direct testimony, petitioner reiterated his assertion that he had never рurchased, sold or possessed any narcotics. Over the defendant’s objection, the Government then questioned him about the heroin capsule unlawfully seized from his home in his presence back in February 1950. The defendant stoutly denied that any narcotics were taken from him аt that time.
1
The Government then put on the stand one of the officers who had participated in the unlawful search and seizure and also the chemist who had analyzed the heroin capsule there seized. The trial judge admitted this evidence, but carefully charged the jury that it was not to be used to determine whether the defendant had committed the crimes here charged, but solely for the purpose of impеaching the defendant’s credibility. The defendant was convicted, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed, one judge dissenting.
The Government cannot violate the Fourth Amendment
2
— in the only way in which the Government can do anything, namely through its agents — and use the fruits
*65
of such unlawful conduct to secure a conviction.
Weeks
v.
United States, supra.
Nor can the Governmеnt make indirect use of such evidence for its case,
Silverthorne Lumber Co.
v.
United States,
It is one thing to say that the Government cannot make an affirmative use of evidence unlawfully obtained. It is quite another to say that the defendant can turn the illegal method by which evidence in the' Government’s possession was obtained to his own advantage, and provide himself with a shield against contradiction of his untruths. Such an extension оf the Weeks doctrine would be a perversion of the Fourth Amendment.
Take the present situation. Of his own accord, the defendant went beyond a mere denial of complicity in the crimes of which he was charged and made the sweeping claim that he had never dealt in or possessed any narcotics. Of course, the Constitution guarantees a defendant the fullest opportunity to meet the accusation against him. He must be free to deny all the elements of thе case against him without thereby giving leave to the Government to introduce by way of rebuttal evidence illegally secured by it, and therefore not available for its case in chief. Beyond that, however, there is hardly justification for letting the defendant affirmatively resort to рerjurious testimony in reliance on the Government’s disability to challenge his credibility. 3
*66
The situation here involved is to be sharply contrasted with thаt presented by
Agnello
v.
United States,
“And the contention that the evidence of the sеarch and seizure was admissible in rebuttal is without merit. In his direct examination, Agnello was not asked and did not testify concerning the can of cocaine. In cross-examination, in answer to a question permitted over his objection, he said he had never seen it. He did nothing to waive his constitutional protection or to justify cross-examination in respect of the evidence claimed to have been obtained by the search. . . .”269 U. S., at 35 .
The judgment is
Affirmed.
Notes
This denial squarely contradicted the affidavit filed by the defendant in the earlier proceeding, in connection with his mоtion under Rule 41 (e) to suppress the evidence unlawfully seized.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . .”
Cf.
Michelson
v.
United States,
The underlying rationale of the Michelson case also disposes of the evidentiary question raised by petitioner, to wit, “whether defendant’s actual guilt under a former indictment which was dismissed may be proved by extrinsic evidence introduced to impeach him in a prosecution for a subsequent offense.”
Transcript of Record, p. 476,
Agnello
v.
United States,