WISEMAN, D.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which BOGGS, C.J., joined. COLE, J. (pp. 562-68), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.
OPINION
THOMAS A. WISEMAN, JR., District Judge.
In this interlocutory appeal, the United States (the “Government”) appeals a decision of the district court suppressing statements made by Defendant-Appellee Nura-din M. Abdi (“Abdi” or “Defendant”) after his warrantless arrest, but prior to his consultation with counsel on December 7, 2003, as well as the physical evidence recovered on the day of his arrest (“derivative evidence”). The district court concluded that the Government had probable cause to support the administrative arrest for alleged violations of immigration laws as set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv). The court, nevertheless, held that the statements and derivative evidence should be suppressed because the objective facts known to the officers, taken together, did not support the Government’s claim that Abdi was an escape risk, and that the arrest therefore violated 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) (authorizing warrantless arrests for immigration violations under specific circumstances).
In this appeal, the Government argues that even assuming it violated 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) by failing to obtain an administrative warrant prior to arresting Abdi, which the Government does not concede,1 the arrest did not violate Abdi’s constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment. Thus, the Government contends that the district court acted improperly by imposing a suppression remedy for a purely statutory violation. Abdi, on the other hand, in urging this court to affirm the district court’s suppression of the statements and derivative evidence, argues that the district court was correct in applying [550]*550the suppression remedy for the warrant-less arrest because it violated 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) and further, that the Government lacked probable cause to arrest him for a felony as required by the Fourth Amendment.2
Because we find that suppression is not an appropriate remedy for violation of the administrative warrant requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), and that Abdi’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by his public warrantless arrest based on probable cause, we conclude that the district court erred when it suppressed Abdi’s statements and the derivative evidence. We therefore REVERSE the district court’s suppression of Abdi’s statements made prior to December 7, 2003 and derivative evidence and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. FACTS
According to the testimony presented at the suppression hearing and the findings of the district court, the essential background facts are as follows. Abdi first came to the Government’s attention in March 2003. At that time, members of the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF)3 learned from Iyman Faris, a known and now convicted member of the Al Qaeda organization who was cooperating with the Government’s investigation,4 that he knew Abdi, had met with him a couple of times, and that during one of their meetings between January and March 2003 in the presence of Faris and another man, Abdi had indicated a desire to “shoot up” a Columbus shopping mall with an AK-47. (Joint Appendix (“JA”) 76-78, 329.)
On April 3, 2003, the FBI interviewed Abdi at his cell phone store about his relationship with Faris and whether he had made the alleged statement. Abdi admitted knowing Faris but denied making the statement Faris attributed to him. (JA 332.) According to Abdi, the agents requested and were granted permission to search his apartment but did not find any weapons. According to the Government, an examination of Faris’ computer sometime in April or May of 2003 revealed that in July 2001 Abdi had sent e-mail correspondence to Faris suggesting he review several websites where he could purchase [551]*551surveillance equipment, such as night-vision goggles, small cameras, and listening devices. Based on this information and the fact that other information Faris had furnished had proven reliable, the agents took Abdi’s alleged threat seriously and opened a formal investigation of Abdi on June 5, 2003. (JA 450-51.) Later that month, law enforcement officers interviewed Mehmet Aydinbelge, another informant, who confirmed the relationship between Faris, Abdi and the third man allegedly present when Abdi made the threats, explaining that the three often met after prayer service at their mosque.
After opening the formal investigation, the FBI began tracking Abdi’s phone calls. According to the Government, between June and November 2003, Abdi placed calls to approximately forty different phone numbers the FBI associated with terrorism-related activities.5 The FBI, which was at this point working in tandem with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), concluded that Abdi was a national security threat and should be arrested. (JA 171.) Although the FBI was the lead investigative agency, the two agencies, officially linked by the JTTF, decided that because Abdi’s actions constituted a violation of immigration law as set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(II), an administrative arrest by ICE pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) would be the most expedient way to disrupt the terrorism threat. (JA 453-54.)
Any “signatory officer” within ICE is ordinarily empowered to issue an administrative arrest warrant for violations of immigration law. (JA 173.) See 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a) and 8 C.F.R. § 287.5(c). In order to obtain a standard administrative arrest warrant immigration officers draft and present a charging document known as a “Notice to Appear” (“NTA”), which sets forth the factual and legal basis for the immigration arrest, along with any supporting documents to the signatory officer for review. (JA 177, 183.) However, in cases where the basis for the arrest is a threat to national security, internal ICE policy and procedure require that the national security law division of ICE conduct a probable cause review for legal sufficiency purposes prior to the issuance of either an NTA or an administrative arrest warrant. (JA 175, 179.) In order to facilitate the probable cause review, ICE agents must submit an affidavit or other document, such as a national security declaration, setting forth the factual basis for an administrative arrest based on national security concerns. (JA 173.)
Beginning in October 2003, FBI Senior Supervisory Agent (“SSA”) James Turgal, working with information provided by Special Agent (“SA”) Flowers, began to draft the necessary national security declaration (the “Turgal Declaration”) setting forth the investigative information establishing the probable cause required for an administrative warrant under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2). According to SSA Turgal, probable cause was based on information that Abdi “was associated with a known terrorist organization, that he made a threat to engage in a terrorist act against the United States, and that he incited and/or solicited others to engage in that act.” (JA 74, 142.) The Turgal Declaration was completed shortly after October 28, 20036 and thereafter submitted to the [552]*552FBI Headquarter’s General Counsel’s Office. It then passed to the ICE General Counsel, who was to make the decision on whether to issue an administrative warrant.7
FBI and ICE spent part of October and most of November determining what portion of the Turgal Declaration, a five-page document, was classified, unclassified, declassified, or about to be declassified. (JA 181-83.) The original plan was to arrest Abdi on Thanksgiving day, but because the agencies were unable to resolve the dispute by November 28, 2003, the day after Thanksgiving, and because the agents purportedly feared that Abdi would carry out his alleged plan on the busiest shopping day of the year, the agents arrested Abdi without a warrant of any kind.8 (JA 346-47.)
On Friday, November 28, 2003 at approximately 6:00 a.m., two ICE agents, accompanied by two FBI agents, arrested Abdi as he was leaving his home on his way to morning prayer. After one of the ICE agents read Abdi his Miranda rights, he consented to a search of his residence, vehicle, and business. (JA 186-87.) The agents then took Abdi to the Columbus FBI office where he signed a Miranda waiver. Abdi was interviewed by FBI agents for approximately forty-five minutes, during which he admitted knowing Faris but once again denied making statements to suggest he was going to attack a shopping mall. (JA 351-54.) Later that same day, Abdi was transported to Kenton County Detention Center with instructions that he be denied visitation and telephone communication privileges, except communications with defense counsel. After his first night in Kenton County Detention Center, Abdi was isolated from the general prison population and prohibited outside contact.9 Abdi remained in custody there until December 15, 2003.
According to ICE agents, Abdi was not interviewed again until November 30, 2003. (JA 357.) On that date, the agents took Abdi to the ICE Office in Cincinnati, Ohio where he again signed a Miranda waiver. ICE’s Resident Agent in Charge (“RAC”) Richard Wilkens and ICE Special Agent Robert Medellin then questioned Abdi from 11:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m., with intermittent breaks. (JA 21-22.) Although the FBI Special Agents did not participate in the interview, they remained outside the interview room and listened to the interrogation. Approximately fifteen minutes [553]*553into the interview, Abdi admitted that he falsified his asylum application in its entirety.
At approximately 1:35 p.m., the two FBI Special Agents, believing that they had heard everything that was of interest to them, left the building for lunch. (JA 359-60.) When they returned, sometime around 4:00 p.m., ICE agents had concluded their interview of Abdi. ICE agents informed SA Flowers and SA Corbin that Abdi had admitted to taking part in a conversation with Faris and another man in which Abdi suggested killing Columbus mall-goers with a bomb, not an AK-47 as originally thought. (JA 365.) Due to the gravity of Abdi’s statements, ICE agents had their clerical assistant begin typing a transcript of the agents’ notes of the interview. Between 5:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. the ICE agents, Abdi and the clerical assistant reviewed each page of the transcript and made any necessary corrections. (JA 367.) At approximately 10:00 p.m., Abdi signed each page of the transcribed notes, verifying his statements were true and accurate. (JA 367-68, 530-46.)
Thereafter, Abdi agreed to be interviewed by SA Flowers and SA Corbin concerning the “plots” he had discussed during the ICE interview.10 (JA 367-68.) Abdi signed a third Miranda waiver at 10:40 p.m. and FBI agents interviewed Abdi from 10:45 p.m. until 12:45 a.m. After the interview Abdi was transported back to Kenton County Detention Center. RAC Wilkens and SA Flowers testified that at no point during the day did Abdi ask to see his family or request counsel. (JA 22.)
The next day, December 1, 2003, Abdi signed yet another Miranda waiver and was again interrogated. At 5:35 p.m., nearly eighty-four hours after his initial arrest, SA Medellin served Abdi a Notice of Intent to Terminate Asylum Status (JA 555), a Notice to Appear at Removal Proceedings (JA 548-51), and an administrative warrant (JA 552). Despite the extensive hours spent on the Turgal Declaration, these documents were grounded almost exclusively in the previous day’s admission that Abdi had falsified his asylum application, only peripherally mentioning national security concerns.11
Agents questioned Abdi again on December 2, 3, and 5, 2003, each time presenting Abdi with Miranda waivers that he signed. During the interrogation on December 5, 2003, two different attorneys, both claiming to represent Defendant, contacted SA Medellin. When asked if he wanted to see either attorney, Abdi stated that neither attorney represented him and signed a waiver to that effect. Agents Mirandized and questioned Abdi on December 6 and again on December 7, 2003, when he agreed to take a polygraph test. On December 7, 2003 during the polygraph test, Attorney Douglas Weigle arrived at the interrogation site and claimed that he represented Abdi. At this point, Abdi accepted counsel but, according to SA Flowers, opted to finish his polygraph before meeting with counsel.
Abdi met with Mr. Weigle on December 7, 2003 and at some point afterward, informed the agents that he would continue his Miranda waivers. Abdi, now accompanied by Mr. Weigle, who indicated to the [554]*554agents that he represented Abdi on both immigration and criminal matters, submitted to four more interviews. During these subsequent interviews, which occurred on December 10, 2003, January 6, 2004, January 15, 2004, and February 17, 2004, Mr. Weigle advised Abdi that he should continue his cooperation with investigators. In each of these sessions, Abdi signed a separate Miranda waiver and repeated much of the same information he had previously divulged to the agents. On the basis of these statements and other evidence developed by investigators, Abdi was indicted on June 10, 2004.
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 10, 2004, a grand jury in the Southern District of Ohio returned a four-count indictment against Abdi for various related criminal matters. Count I alleged that Abdi conspired to provide material support to terrorists, knowing and intending that such support was to be used to kill, kidnap, maim, and injure persons, and to damage and destroy property in a foreign country, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339A. Count 2 alleged that Abdi conspired to provide material support and resources to a foreign terrorist organization — A1 Qaeda — in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B. Counts 3 and 4 alleged that Abdi acquired, possessed, or employed false travel documents in order to facilitate an act of intentional terrorism, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a).
On May 18, 2005, Abdi filed a motion styled as a Motion to Suppress All Statements Allegedly Made By Defendant and All Evidence Seized in Violation of the Fourth Amendment. On August 25 and 26, 2005, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the motions. At the hearing the district court concluded that the Government had sufficient evidence to establish probable cause to arrest Abdi as a national security threat as early as September, when the Turgal Declaration was first drafted. (JA 97, 101-02.) Accordingly, the district court focused its inquiry on why, if the Government had probable cause months, weeks, or days before the November arrest and could have gotten a warrant with the unclassified information provided in the Turgal Declaration, the agencies chose not to get a warrant and instead effectuated a warrant-less arrest. (JA 104, 112, 480.) Following the presentation of evidence, the district court characterized the question before it as whether the Government improperly disregarded the “Constitution[al] warrant requirement and the jurisprudence thereunder.” (JA 491-92.)
Based on the evidence presented, the district court agreed that the Government had probable cause to believe that Abdi was a national security risk, as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1182, and therefore, had probable cause to execute an administrative arrest. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(II) (making those aliens who “prepare or plan a teiTorist activity” inadmissible to the United States). However, after a review of “the objective facts within the knowledge of the [arresting] agents,” the district court determined that the Government failed to demonstrate that Abdi was “likely to escape” on the day he was arrested or that exigent circumstances required an immediate arrest without a warrant. (JA 28-31.) Viewing the procurement of a warrant as a constitutional requirement whether “it is an administrative warrant or whether it is a criminal matter” (JA 494), the court characterized the Government’s failure to do so prior to Abdi’s arrest as an “insurmountable issue.” (JA 500.) Therefore, the district court found that Abdi’s arrest by ICE agents without an administrative warrant violated 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), and the subsequent confessions were tainted unless the Government could “demonstrate not only that the confession was voluntary, but also that a suffi[555]*555cient break in the events occurred to undermine the inference that the confession was caused by the Fourth Amendment violation.” (JA 33 (quoting United States v. Crowder, 62 F.3d 782, 786 (6th Cir.1995)).)
After a review of the facts, the district court found that the taint of the unlawful arrest sufficiently dissipated after Abdi met with counsel on December 7, 2003. Accordingly, on September 12, 2005, the district court issued an order and opinion granting in part and denying in part Abdi’s motion to suppress, holding that all statements made by Abdi to law enforcement authorities after his arrest on November 28 and prior to meeting with his attorney on December 7, 2003, as well as the derivative evidence, were suppressed. (JA 18.)
On September 15, 2005, the district court issued a supplemental opinion and order clarifying its September 12 order, specifically stating that the court was suppressing the various items of physical evidence obtained on the day of Abdi’s arrest in connection with consent searches of his home, vehicle, and business, as well as an item obtained through an inventory of the contents of his wallet, on the same basis as it suppressed his statements. (JA 42-43.) The court also clarified that evidence which was seized on the date of his arrest, but not searched until later pursuant to a federal warrant, was not suppressed in light of the warrant obtained after his arrest. (JA 43.) The Government’s timely appeal followed.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
In reviewing a ruling concerning a motion to suppress, this court reviews the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Hammond, 351 F.3d 765, 770 (6th Cir.2003). Whether the police had probable cause to arrest is a question of law and is therefore reviewed de novo. United States v. Combs, 369 F.3d 925, 937 (6th Cir.2004). A district court’s factual finding is clearly erroneous if “the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Oliver, 397 F.3d 369, 374 (6th Cir.2005) (internal quotations omitted). However, this court gives considerable deference to the district court’s credibility determinations. Id. at 374.
B. Suppression For A Statutory Violation
We turn first to the Government’s claim that even if the district court was correct in concluding that the Government violated 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) when it arrested Abdi without a warrant, there is no basis for application of the exclusionary rule. The Government contends that the warrantless public arrest was based on probable cause, and that absent a specific reference in the statute to a suppression remedy, the district court’s application of the exclusionary rule was not appropriate. Abdi asserts that the source of the Government’s authority to make a warrantless arrest for immigration violations is contained in the statute and, that by violating the statute, the Government arrested him without legal authority. Accordingly, Abdi contends that the suppression sanction was warranted. We therefore consider whether the Government’s violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) alone required the suppression of Abdi’s statements and the derivative evidence.
The exclusionary rule is a judicially fashioned remedy aimed at deterring constitutional violations, the application of which is appropriate when the Constitution or a statute requires it. Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 2669, 2680, 165 L.Ed.2d 557 (2006); United [556]*556States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741, 754-55, 99 S.Ct. 1465, 59 L.Ed.2d 733 (1979); United States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505, 524, 94 S.Ct. 1820, 40 L.Ed.2d 341 (1974) (in the absence of Fourth Amendment violation, suppression remedy depends upon provisions of the statute); United States v. Ware, 161 F.3d 414, 424-25 (6th Cir.1998). It is well-settled that “[sjuppression of evidence ... has always been our last resort, not our first impulse,” and the exclusionary rule is only applicable “where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served.” Hudson v. Michigan, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 2159, 2163, 165 L.Ed.2d 56 (2006) (citation omitted).
Although exclusion is the proper remedy for some violations of the Fourth Amendment, there is no exclusionary rule generally applicable to statutory violations. Rather, the exclusionary rule is an appropriate sanction for a statutory violation only where the statute specifically provides for suppression as a remedy or the statutory violation implicates underlying constitutional rights such as the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. See Sanchez-Llamas, 126 S.Ct. at 2679-682 (finding that suppression is not an appropriate remedy for violation of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention); United States v. Donovan, 429 U.S. 413, 432 n. 22, 97 S.Ct. 658, 50 L.Ed.2d 652 (1977) (denying exclusion for violation of wiretapping statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2518); Ware, 161 F.3d at 424 (6th Cir.1998) (“statutory violations, absent underlying constitutional violations, are generally insufficient to justify imposition of the exclusionary rule”); United States v. Meriwether, 917 F.2d 955, 960 (6th Cir.1990) (holding that government violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act do not warrant suppression of evidence).
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sanchez-Llamas, rejecting the application of the exclusionary rule to violations of the Vienna Convention, supports our holding that application of the judicially created exclusionary rule to a statutory or treaty-based violation is only appropriate in cases where: (1) the evidence arose directly out of the statutory violation and the statute or treaty itself mandates suppression, or (2) the violation implicates important Fourth or Fifth Amendment interests. 126 S.Ct. at 2680-81. See also United States v. Chaparro-Alcantara, 226 F.3d 616, 621-22 (7th Cir.2000) (finding that “the rights protected by the Vienna Convention are equivalent to the rights protected by a statute because treatises and statutes have been held by the Supreme Court to be ‘on the same footing’ with each other under the Constitution” and holding “[w]e cannot attach the judicially created remedy of suppression to the Vienna Convention without some explicit support from the treaty itself’). Accordingly, to hold that suppression is the necessary consequence for failure to obtain an administrative warrant or satisfy the exceptions to the warrant requirement under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), we must find the suppression remedy in the text of the statute.
Immigration agents are permitted, by statute, to make warrantless arrests under certain circumstances.12 However, [557]*557it is clear that nothing in the text of 8 U.S.C. § 1357 provides an independent statutory remedy of suppression for failing to obtain an administrative warrant. Accordingly, we find that the district court erred in reading such a remedy into the statute. Meriwether, 917 F.2d at 960; Chaparro-Alcantara, 226 F.3d at 622. Because the statute authorizing ICE agents to arrest persons for immigration violations, like the Vienna Convention, by its terms, does not require the application of the exclusionary rule to violations of the statute, we hold that the district court erred in suppressing Abdi’s statements and the derivative evidence based on the Government’s failure to comply with the statute.13
C. Suppression Under the Fourth Amendment
Having determined that the district court erred when it applied an exclusionary remedy for the Government’s violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), we must also consider whether Abdi’s warrantless arrest was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. We begin our Fourth Amendment analysis with the Government’s argument that we should reverse the district court’s suppression of Abdi’s statements and the derivative evidence, regardless of whether the arrest violated 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), because the arrest was conducted in a public place and supported by probable cause, and therefore the Government was not required to obtain a warrant to comply with the Fourth Amendment.14
The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures ....” U.S. Const, amend. IV. “It is a well-settled principle of constitutional jurisprudence that an arrest without probable cause constitutes an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” Ingram v. City of Columbus, 185 F.3d 579, 592-93 (6th Cir.1999) (internal citation omitted). However, a warrantless arrest by a law officer is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment where the arrest is in public and there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed. United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 417-24, 96 S.Ct. 820, 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976). “To determine whether an officer had probable cause to arrest an individual, we examine the events leading up to the arrest, and then decide ‘whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable ... officer, amount to’ probable cause.” Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371, 124 S.Ct. 795, 157 L.Ed.2d 769 (2003) (quoting Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 [558]*558L.Ed.2d 911 (1996)), quoted in United States v. Romero, 452 F.3d 610, 615-16 (6th Cir.2006). The issue in this case is whether, based on the information known at the time of the arrest, a reasonable JTTF agent could conclude that there was probable cause to believe that Abdi committed the crime of providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations, a felony under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B.
The district court found that the Government had probable cause to execute an administrative arrest based on the information provided by the FBI and set forth in the Turgal Declaration. Specifically, the district court found the facts establishing probable cause included: (1) the statement by Faris, a self-confessed AI Qaeda operative, that Abdi told him he intended to “shoot up a mall” with an automatic weapon; (2) ascertainment of information from Faris’ computer indicating Abdi had sent him e-mails in 2001 about surveillance equipment that could be purchased; (3) independent corroboration that Abdi had relationships with known terrorists; and (4) telephone activity from Abdi’s phone number to approximately forty other numbers connected to FBI terrorism cases. (JA 101-02.) The briefs do not challenge the district court’s finding that, by the time Abdi was arrested, the Government had probable cause to believe he was a national security risk as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1182. (JA 28, 74, 101-02, 171, 216, 480, 487.) Rather, Abdi contends that the Government did not have probable cause to believe he was a felon and that the arrest therefore violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment.15 Abdi’s argument misconstrues the law.
“An arresting officer’s state of mind, except for the facts that he knows, is irrelevant to the existence of probable cause.” Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 153, 125 S.Ct. 588, 160 L.Ed.2d 537 (2004), citing Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 812-13, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996). Thus, despite Abdi’s argument to the contrary, it is constitutionally irrelevant that the ICE officers’ reason for arresting him was their belief that he was in violation of immigration laws, and not that he was a felon. There is no question that, at the time of Abdi’s arrest, the arresting officers possessed all of the information contained in the Turgal Declaration, and that the information was sufficient to establish probable cause to believe that Abdi was a national security risk. Specifically, the Government alleges that at the time of his arrest Abdi was barred from admission to the United States on three grounds:
(1) membership in a foreign terrorist organization in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(V);
(2) engaging in terrorist activity by threatening the use of a firearm in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(I) and 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iii)(V) and (VI); and
(3) planning, inciting and soliciting terrorist activity with intent to cause death or serious bodily harm in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(I)-(III) and (V).
[559]*559As the Government points out, virtually the same conduct is embraced by 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, one of the criminal statutes under which Abdi was subsequently indicted. Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 2339B makes it a crime to provide material support or resources to designated terrorist organizations and provides in pertinent part:
Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any terms of years or for life. To violate this paragraph, a person must have knowledge that the organization is a designated terrorist organization (as defined in subsection (g)(6)), that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act), or that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorism
18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(l). Based on a review of the immigration statute, which constituted the predicate for Abdi’s arrest, and 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, under which Abdi was charged, we believe that there is substantial identity between the two statutes and agree with the district court that the Turgal Declaration, setting out the Government’s case, “reeks of probable cause.”16 (JA 487.)
As the Supreme Court has repeatedly explained, the “[s]ubjective intent of the arresting officer, however it is determined ..., is simply no basis for invalidating an arrest. Those are lawfully arrested whom the facts known to the arresting officers give probable cause to arrest.” Deven-peek, 543 U.S. at 154-55, 125 S.Ct. 588; see Whren, 517 U.S. at 813, 116 S.Ct. 1769 (constitutional reasonableness of traffic stop does not depend on actual motivations of the individual officers involved). Therefore, all that matters is whether the arresting officers possessed knowledge of evidence sufficient to establish probable cause that Abdi was engaged in the commission of a felony at the time of his public war-rantless arrest. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 598, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980) (distinguishing between war-rantless arrests in homes and in public); Watson, 423 U.S. at 423-24, 96 S.Ct. 820 (declining to “transform this judicial preference [for a warrant] into a constitutional rule when the judgment of the Nation and Congress has for so long been to authorize warrantless public arrests on probable cause .... ”).
The Supreme Court has made it clear that there is no requirement “that the offense establishing probable cause must be ‘closely related’ to, and based on the same conduct as, the offense identified by the arresting officer at the time of arrest .... ” Devenpeck, 543 U.S. at 153, 125 S.Ct. 588. Yet, the substantial identity between the immigration statute and criminal statute in this case further supports our holding that the district court considered the facts before it and found, albeit not expressly in its opinion, that the Government had probable cause to believe that [560]*560Abdi was a member of a terrorist organization, had made a threat to engage in an act against the United States, and had solicited others to engage in that act. (JA 95-102.) Because we find that the district court properly concluded that Abdi’s arrest was based on probable cause that he was in violation of immigration laws set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv), which also constitute felony offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B,17 and the arrest was made in public,18 we conclude that no violation of the Fourth Amendment resulted from the warrantless arrest. Payton, 445 U.S. 590-92, 100 S.Ct. 1371; Watson, 432 U.S. at 423, 97 S.Ct. 2399. Therefore, we hold that Abdi’s constitutional rights were not implicated by his warrantless arrest and application of the exclusionary rule is inappropriate. Accordingly, the district court erred in granting Abdi’s motion to suppress based on the Fourth Amendment.19
[561]*561IV. CONCLUSION
In sum, we find that 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) does not provide an independent statutory remedy for suppression based on violations of the administrative warrant requirement and that the Government’s warrantless public arrest of Abdi based on probable cause did not violate or implicate Abdi’s Fourth Amendment rights. Therefore, we hold that the dis[562]*562trict court erred when it applied the exclusionary rule and suppressed Abdi’s statements and the derivative evidence. For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.