What is the purpose and flagrancy of the police interrogation technique used to coerce a defendant into giving a false confession?

Finally, "the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct" (Brown v. Illinois, supra, 422 U.S. 590 at p. 604, 95 S.Ct. 2254 at p. 2262) are totally in defendant's favor. That "[t]he illegality here ... had a quality of purposefulness" (id. at p. 605, 95 S.Ct. at p. 2262) cannot be denied. That its purpose was intended to reduce defendant's resistance to the interrogating officers' desire for a confession is likewise beyond dispute. That purpose was effected by a persistent disregard of defendant's constitutional right to remain silent and not incriminate himself. With respect to flagrancy, this is a glaring example of police misconduct.