concurring in the judgment.
“Whatever else it may mean, the right to counsel granted by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments means at least that a person is entitled to the help of a lawyer at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated against him — ‘whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment.’” Brewer v. Williams, 430 U. S. 387, 398 (1977) (emphasis supplied) (quoting Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U. S. 682, 689 (1972) (plurality opinion)). That statement, which does not foreclose the possibility that the right to counsel might under some circumstances attach prior to the formal initiation of judicial proceedings, has been the rule this Court has consistently followed. Today the Court seems to adopt a broader rule, stating that “the right to counsel attaches only at or after the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings against the defendant.” Ante, at 187 (emphasis supplied). Because I believe this statement is unjustified by our prior cases and unnecessary to decide this case, I cannot join the opinion of the Court.
In Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 (1964), this Court squarely held that the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel can attach before formal charges have been filed. Escobedo had been denied access to his lawyer while he was in custody but before any formal charges had been filed. The Court explained:
“The interrogation here was conducted before petitioner was formally indicted. But in the context of this case, that fact should make no difference. When petitioner requested, and was denied, an opportunity to consult with his lawyer, the investigation had ceased to be a *194general investigation of ‘an unsolved crime.’ Petitioner had become the accused, and the purpose of the interrogation was to ‘get him’ to confess his guilt despite his constitutional right not to do so.” Id., at 485 (citation omitted) (quoting Spano v. New York, 360 U. S. 315, 327 (1959) (Stewart, J., concurring)).
The Court added: “It would exalt form over substance to make the right to counsel, under the circumstances, depend on whether at the time of the interrogation, the authorities had secured a formal indictment. Petitioner had, for all practical purposes, already been charged with murder.” 378 U. S., at 486.1
The Court’s dictum concerning the right to counsel is likewise inconsistent with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). There, the Court held that during custodial interrogation the suspect has a right to have counsel present, and that if he cannot afford counsel he is entitled to have counsel appointed to represent him free of charge. See id., at 469-473. The Court recognized that custodial interrogation was the true beginning of adversarial proceedings: “It is at this point that our adversary system of criminal proceedings commences, distinguishing itself at the outset from the inquisitorial system recognized in some countries.” Id., at 477. See also Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U. S. 1, 20 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Dickey v. Florida, 398 U. S. 30, 44 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring); United States v. Oliver, 505 P. 2d 301, 305, n. 12 (CA7 1974).2
*195United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218 (1967), illustrates how Sixth Amendment jurisprudence has turned not on the formal initiation of judicial proceedings but rather on the nature of the confrontation between the authorities and the citizen. The Court began its Sixth Amendment analysis concerning the right to counsel at lineup identifications by noting that “in addition to counsel’s presence at trial, the accused is guaranteed that he need not stand alone against the State at any stage of the prosecution, formal or informal, in court or out, where counsel’s absence might derogate from the accused’s right to a fair trial.” Id., at 226. The Court then reviewed its prior cases and concluded:
“[W]e scrutinize any pretrial confrontation of the accused to determine whether the presence of his counsel is necessary to preserve the defendant’s basic right to a fair trial as affected by his right meaningfully to cross-examine the witnesses against him and to have effective assistance of counsel at the trial itself.” Id., at 227 (emphasis in original).
*196The Court has adhered to this formulation in subsequent cases. See United States v. Henry, 447 U. S. 264, 269 (1980); Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103, 122-123 (1975); Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218, 238-240 (1973); Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U. S., at 9 (plurality opinion). Perhaps most telling is United States v. Ash, 413 U. S. 300 (1973), dealing with the right to counsel at a pretrial photographic identification of the accused as the perpetrator by a Government witness. While Justice Stewart argued that “this constitutional ‘right to counsel attaches only at or after the time that adversary judicial proceedings have been initiated,”’ id., at 322 (opinion concurring in judgment) (quoting Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U. S., at 688 (plurality opinion)), that was not the path the Court took. It acknowledged that “extension of the right to counsel to events before trial has resulted from changing patterns of criminal procedure and investigation that have tended to generate pretrial events that might appropriately be considered part of the trial itself,” 413 U. S., at 310. It concluded that “the test utilized by the Court has called for examination of the event in order to determine whether the accused required aid in coping with legal problems or assistance in meeting his adversary.” Id., at 313.3
*197If the authorities take a person into custody in order to interrogate him or to otherwise facilitate the process of making a case against him, then under the rationale of Escobedo, Miranda, and our other cases, the person is sufficiently “accused” to be entitled to the protections of the Sixth Amendment. In these circumstances, subjecting the uncounseled suspect to questioning or other prosecutorial techniques may present “the high probability of substantial harm identified as controlling in Wade,” Gerstein, 420 U. S., at 123. Thus, when a person is deprived of liberty in order to aid the prosecution in its attempt to convict him, and when the deprivation is likely to have the intended effect, that person is, in my judgment, “an accused.”
I join the Court’s judgment because I agree that respondents’ detention in the Administrative Detention Unit (ADU) did not serve an accusatorial function. Under relevant regulations, respondents could be kept in the ADU simply because of the security risk they posed.4 After hearings, *198prison administrators had concluded that respondents likely had murdered fellow inmates. Under such circumstances there can be no doubt that concern for the welfare of other inmates or respondents themselves fully justified administrative detention entirely apart from its relation to an ongoing criminal investigation. See Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U. S. 460, 473-476 (1983). Indeed, there is no finding in either of these consolidated cases that respondents were placed in the ADU at the behest of prosecutorial authorities or in order to aid prosecutorial efforts, nor is there a finding that their detention facilitated the investigation of the two murders at issue.5 On this record there is no reason to believe that the segregation of suspected murderers from the general prison population either was intended to or had the effect of facilitating a criminal investigation rather than simply serving legitimate institutional policies.
Accordingly, while I find no Sixth Amendment violation in this case, to the extent that the Court purports to formulate a *199rule broader than necessary to decide the case before it, I cannot join its opinion.
See also 378 U. S., at 487, n. 6 (“The English Judges’ Rules also recognize that a functional rather than a formal test must be applied and that, under circumstances such as those here, no special significance should be attached to formal indictment”). Indeed, the rule the majority seems to embrace is similar to the rule advocated in dissent in Escobedo. See id., at 493-494 (Stewart, J., dissenting).
To say, as did the Court in Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719 (1966), that the “prime purpose” of Escobedo and Miranda was “to guarantee full effectuation of the privilege against self-incrimination,” 384 U. S., *195at 729, is merely to state a central rationale for attachment of the right to counsel prior to the formal commencement of the adversary process; it in no way contradicts the proposition that the Sixth Amendment can apply prior to the initiation of judicial proceedings. Escobedo elaborates:
“It is argued that if the right to counsel is afforded prior to indictment, the number of confessions obtained by the police will diminish significantly, because most confessions are obtained during the period between arrest and indictment, and ‘any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances.’ This argument, of course, cuts two ways. The fact that many confessions are obtained during this period points up its critical nature as a ‘stage when legal aid and advice’ are surely needed. The right to counsel would indeed be hollow if it began at a period when few confessions were obtained. There is necessarily a direct relationship between the importance of a stage to the police in their quest for a confession and the criticalness of that stage to the accused in his need for legal advice. Our Constitution, unlike some others, strikes the balance in favor the right of the accused to be advised by his lawyer of his privilege against self-incrimination.” 378 U. S., at 488 (footnotes and citations omitted).
Contrary to the majority’s intimations, the cases it cites ante, at 187-188, do not indicate that a majority of the Court has embraced the broad rule suggested by the majority’s dictum. The statement in Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U. S. 682 (1972), that the right to counsel “attaches only at or after the time that adversary judicial proceedings have been initiated,” id., at 688 (plurality opinion), was not joined by a majority. Similarly, The Chief Justice’s opinion in United States v. Mandujano, 425 U. S. 564, 581 (1976) (plurality opinion), was not joined by a majority of the Court. Estelle v. Smith, 451 U. S. 454, 469-470 (1981), and Moore v. Illinois, 434 U. S. 220, 226-227 (1977), merely describe what the Kirby plurality had required for the Sixth Amendment to attach, and held that the plurality’s test was satisfied. In neither case did the Court have occasion to consider whether the right to counsel could ever attach prior to the point identified by the Kirby plurality. As the quotation supra, at 193, demonstrates, Brewer v. Williams, 430 U. S. 387 (1977), left this issue open.
The relevant regulation indicates that respondents could be placed in the ADU while a criminal investigation is pending because they pose a threat to themselves or others:
“The Warden may also place an inmate in administrative detention when the inmate’s continued presence in the general population poses a serious threat to life, property, self, staff, or other inmates or to the security or orderly running of the institution and when the inmate:
“(1) Is pending a hearing for a violation of Bureau regulations;
“(2) Is pending an investigation of a violation of Bureau regulations;
“(3) Is pending investigation or trial for a criminal act. . . .” 28 CFR § 541.22(a) (1983).
The Court of Appeals construed the Bureau of Prisons’ regulations to permit detention for disciplinary purposes for no more than 90 days. See 704 F. 2d 1116,1124-1125 (CA9 1983) (en bane). Assuming that construction is correct, the fact that respondents’ detention after that point was not disciplinary does not mean it was therefore accusatory. To the contrary, the applicable regulation states: “Administrative detention is to be used only for short periods of time except where an inmate needs long-term protection ... , or where there are exceptional circumstances, ordinarily tied to security or complex investigative concerns.” 28 CFR § 541.22(c)(1) *198(1983) (emphasis supplied). Thus, the regulation permits continued detention for security reasons alone. Finally, even if respondents’ detention was in violation of the regulations, that does not establish that the detention, even if improper, had the purpose or effect of facilitating the criminal investigation.
Justice Marshall disagrees with this view of the record, relying on the District Court’s statement that respondents Mills and Pierce’s confinement to the ADU “was neither a form of prison discipline nor an attempt to ensure prison security,” see post, at 200 (dissenting opinion). However, the District Court did not denominate this statement as a “finding of fact,” but rather as a “conclusion of law.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 47a-48a. The only factual predicate to this conclusion, indeed the only fact the District Court found with respect to the purpose and effect of respondents’ segregation, was that the Bureau of Prisons’ usual policies “would have required the [respondents’ release back into the general prison population or their transfer to a more secure facility within the first few months after their ADU commitment,” id., at 43a. For the reasons stated in n. 4, supra, this finding is insufficient as a matter of law to support the Court of Appeals’ judgment.