Jahar will not be read Miranda due to the "Public Safety Exception"

[Tab]

After 44 years, the Miranda decision stands as a monolith in police procedure.1 Its requirements are so well known that the Supreme Court remarked, "Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture."2 And, although the Supreme Court has clarified and refined Miranda over the years, its central requirements are clear.3 Whenever the prosecution seeks in its direct case to introduce a statement made by a suspect while in custody and in response to interrogation, it must prove that the subject was warned of specific rights and voluntarily waived those rights.4 The penalty imposed on the prosecution for failing to prove that the Miranda procedures were properly followed is harsh. While some secondary and limited uses of statements obtained in violation of Miranda are permitted, such statements are presumed to be coerced and cannot be introduced by the prosecution in its direct case.5

The strength of the Miranda decision is its clarity in its nearly unwavering protection of a suspect's Fifth Amendment protection against selfincrimination. The commitment to this rule is so strong that the Supreme Court has recognized only one exception to the Miranda rule—the "public safety" exception—which permits law enforcement to engage in a limited and focused unwarned interrogation and allows the government to introduce the statement as direct evidence.

Recent and well-publicized events, including the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 235 near Detroit, Michigan, on December 25, 2009, and the attempted bombing in New York City's Times Square in May 2010, highlight the importance of this exception.6 Those current events, occurring in a time of heightened vigilance against terrorist acts, place a spotlight on this law enforcement tool, which, although 26 years old, may play a vital role in protecting public safety while also permitting statements obtained under this exception to be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution. In brief, and as discussed in this article, police officers confronting situations that create a danger to themselves or others may ask questions designed to neutralize the threat without first providing a warning of rights. This article discusses the origins of the public safety exception and provides guidance for law enforcement officers confronted with an emergency that may require interrogating a suspect held in custody about an imminent threat to public safety without providing Miranda warnings.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/february2011/legal_digest

The government is invoking this inception in the case of Jahar

On edit: You can now be interrogated without Miranda rights, and you can be interned (e.g.: gitmo) without due process. Of course, it's "special cases", but that seems a very slipper slope to me.

[MichiganVote]

1. Dangerous individual. Imagine what this shithead would be like at 30 instead of 19.

[femmocrat]

2. His name is Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. nt

[tarheelsunc]

8. Legal name, yes. However, he used Jahar on his Twitter and friends called him that. eom

[femmocrat]

10. OK.

I stand corrected, I guess.

[Luminous Animal]

16. Link, please.

[tarheelsunc]

18. Here.

Though it's really just a different way to spell it. He probably used Jahar so people would be more likely to pronounce it correctly.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/this-might-be-djohar-tsarnaevs-actual-twitter-account

Brobible also writes they've reached out to friends of Dzhokar, who confirm he went by the nickname "Johar"

[Logical]

3. Not sure I like this. For this guy it seems fine I know. But can be abused no doubt. n-t

[Life Long Dem]

4. He is in the hospital in serious condition.

Interrogated?

[KittyWampus]

5. It's not a 'slippery slope' at all. It's entirely reasonable.

[TwilightGardener]

6. So the pre-Miranda statements CAN be used against him as evidence, is what I'm seeing.

It's not just to get public-safety related intelligence out of him. Interesting.

[qazplm]

14. If it fits into the exception yes

if not then no, but the reality is they have a ton of evidence against without him saying one word, so concerns about his statements being barred from use may be diminished.

[Luminous Animal]

7. Jahar? Who the fuck is that?

[femmocrat]

12. See post #8.

Didn't know we were calling him by his nick-name now.

[dflprincess]

9. This is wrong

What used to set up apart was that the Constitutional rights applied to everyone no matter how horrible the crime. Just suppose this was a Richard Jewell deal where the wrong guy had taken into custody.

[Tab]

11. Without getting into arguments about the name

I was using the Americanized popularized version as repeated across multiple media outlets... e.g.:

http://www.brobible.com/life/article/dzhokhar-tsarnaevs-twitter-account

[qazplm]

13. Miranda does not keep you from being questioned

all it does is bar use of anything you say or anything learned from what you say.

In a case like this, they can ignore Miranda if they want, learn what they want, and then just make sure that they ONLY use evidence gathered prior to the questioning in order to convict him, which I would imagine they have extensive such evidence.

Now, I don't think that's what they will do simply because you cannot risk not convicting this guy, but there's some middle ground there where they could get some information then Mirandize him later.

[gvstn]

15. CBS had a very interesting explanation

The Public Safety exemption is basically that you don't have to Mirandize and you can ask questions about any imminent risk. ie. "Do you have any more bombs planted?", "Are there others helping you? Do we have to worry about them planting bombs?" etc. Then when it gets to what the suspect did as to his particular crime he has to be mirandized.

I don't know how much is "spin" but put that way it makes sense. You are correct about the slippery slope--I never heard of this exemption. Let's hope we get more discussion about it in the next few days.

[datasuspect]

17. all you will hear is prevarication

and flat out lying.

there is never an exception to a fundamental freedom.

[Mojorabbit]

19. +100 nt

[MotherPetrie]

20. Me too, but let's face it, constitutional protections are only as good as the current government

And all branches of our government have repeatedly demonstrated how veyr little they give a shit for it, especially when they're trying to outdo each other's political posturing.