34 UNITED STATES V. MOHAMUD In answering this question, we must keep two principles in mind. First, “[s]uppression of evidence . . . has always been our last resort, not our first impulse.” Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 591 (2006); see also Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 237 (2011) (“For exclusion to be appropriate, the deterrence benefits of suppression must outweigh its heavy costs.”); Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331, 347 (2006) (“[T]he exclusionary rule is not a remedy we apply lightly.”). Second, Congress has the power to authorize suppression for statutory violations, as it has done elsewhere in FISA. See 50 U.S.C. §§ 1806(g), 1825(h), 1845(g) (FISA); see also 18 U.S.C. § 2518(10)(a) (Title III wiretap). However, Congress has not mandated suppression as a remedy for late disclosure of a FISA notice, and, indeed, it apparently anticipated the possibility of post-trial notification. See 50 U.S.C. § 1806(e) (providing that a motion to suppress “unlawfully acquired” or nonconforming information “shall be made before the trial . . . unless . . . the person was not aware of the grounds of the motion”). These two principles strongly suggest that automatic suppression is not a required remedy for delayed FISA disclosure. And in any case, Mohamud cannot demonstrate how the late disclosure prejudiced him. As the district court explained, it fully evaluated the § 702-derived evidence as if the motion had been brought before trial. This put Mohamud in the same position he would have been in if the government had provided timely notice. Moreover, the district court found that the late disclosure was not due to “prosecutorial misconduct.” Rather, the government had changed its legal opinion about when evidence could be considered “derived from” § 702 surveillance, performed another review of this case, and