The Miranda exemption lasts 48 hours

[WilliamPitt]

and was used so they could immediately ask him if there are more bombs out there, and if there are any other conspirators running around out there.

He was loose with his brother for days, and as was proven by the multiple bombs they made, the idea that there might be more out there is a pressing concern.

I have no problem with this.

None.

[gateley]

1. Makes sense, and I was surprised (and pleased) to hear about the 48 hour limit.

[Logical]

2. I do. For this guy I am sure it seems fine. But easily abused against someone else. You....

need to remember. Not all the people are guilty.

[WilliamPitt]

5. I am not talking about anyone else.

I am talking about him.

[Logical]

7. LOL, yes, because the law was passed for him. n-t

[WilliamPitt]

9. Actually, it was.

[Logical]

11. You sound like the people saying "In this guys case, I am for the death penalty, but usually not!"

[WilliamPitt]

12. Do I?

Rilly?

Cuz I'm not.

You really make a point of abusing your screen name.

[Logical]

16. Wow, clever. I know, you were for the Miranda warning before you you were against it. I had....

better stop questioning you. You are William Pitt.

[WilliamPitt]

20. And you are Logical.

Sorry, I almost said it with a straight face.

[Logical]

21. I apologize. You are right. I don't want a post locked. n-t

[FarCenter]

18. Not all people are guilty -- but he sure is

There are pictures of him walking to the bombing scene, placing the backpack with the bomb on the sidewalk, looking happy when it goes off, and walking away from the scene without the backpack.

Plus all the subsequent evidence from the exhanges with police and the evidence from their apartment, etc.

What verbal evidence from him do you need? He can confess or not confess -- makes no difference.

[Luminous Animal]

22. So, what? The rule of law should make no distinction. Either it applies to everyone or it applies to

no one.

[FarCenter]

26. The law applies, but is irrelevant if the DA does not need the inadmissible testimony

By not Mirandizing him, what he says may be inadmissible in court according to the law.

But in this situation, the DA doesn't need anything from him. She can make the case without the results of his interrogation.

[cui bono]

38. I think it's not about a confession, but about getting info on other bombs?

Not sure, but that's what seems important since they don't know what he might have left "lying around".

[graham4anything]

27. Actually, the law states what the law states-therefore what they are doing is correct.

And there had to be a reason they stuck around
Most likely they were planning on more and there could be bombs all over the place

They had bombs on their own bodies, and flung some at the police chasing them.

BTW-this all of course wouldn't even be an issue, if they didn't do this to begin with.
They created their own situation.

It wasn't as if they were sunning at the beach minding their own business.

They are haters, killers, and kept the nation terrorized for a week now.

[SidDithers]

28. And the rule of law allows for a 48 hour execption for public safety...

It's not like the DOJ is breaking the law, they're just using a part of it you don't like.

Sid

[cthulu2016]

37. Cite the law

C'mon... cite it. Should be easy.

[SidDithers]

39. ...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=467&invol=649

Sid

[Dorian Gray]

41. Doh!

I don't think you were actually expected to cite it!!!!

[Baitball Blogger]

3. I'm with you Will.

It makes sense that they call it the Public Safety Exemption. (Or so I have read on DU) Time is of the essence to protect lives.

[onehandle]

4. Fine by me. nt

[Barack_America]

6. He's sick enough to argue that he'd have to be read his rights again when he recovers.

If he had been read them already.

[Yavin4]

8. Does this mean that anything he says within these 48 hours cannot be used against him in court?

I don't know the law here. Anyone know?

[WilliamPitt]

10. Probably, but I don't know.

If that's true, the questioners will certainly avoid asking any questions they can't use later. Just "Where are the bombs now?"

[dems_rightnow]

17. Sure it can

That's the reason for the exception.

Miranda is not a requirement- unless you want to use the suspect's statements. If you don't use those, never Mirandizing is A-OK.

The exception now is that they can question him AND use his statements.

[tammywammy]

13. It means it can still be used.

The exemption allows for narrow, limited interrogation. For instance, in this case the public safety exemption would allow for them to question him to see if there are other bombs out there.

[ananda]

30. Yes, but they don't need it.

The case is already made.

[jeff47]

33. Yes, it can be used against him

But the questions must relate to immediate public safety issues. Such as "are there any more bombs?", "where are the bombs?", and "are there any more co-conspirators?"

[mercymechap]

14. Of course not.

Finding out that information is sure more pressing. I just hope if they are able to get some answers from him, that they get the information in time.

[Luminous Animal]

15. Even Mirandized law enforcement can ask. And even without being Mirandized a suspect can

refuse to speak.

I have a question, does the "exception" also mean that the suspect cannot invoke the right to an attorney?

If so, I have deep deep problems with this.

[Chan790]

46. No.

Being Mirandized confers no rights, it merely informs you of them. You have the exact same rights whether Mirandized or not, including the right to request an attorney and the right to remain silent.

[chillfactor]

19. exception to Miranda rule....

Public safety exception

The Miranda rule is not, however, absolute. An exception exists in cases of "public safety". This limited and case-specific exception allows certain unadvised statements (given without Miranda warnings) to be admissible into evidence at trial when they were elicited in circumstances where there was great danger to public safety.[8]

The public safety exception derives from New York v. Quarles, a case in which the Supreme Court considered the admissibility of a statement elicited by a police officer who apprehended a rape suspect who was thought to be carrying a firearm. The arrest took place in a crowded grocery store. When the officer arrested the suspect, he found an empty shoulder holster, handcuffed the suspect, and asked him where the gun was. The suspect nodded in the direction of the gun (which was near some empty cartons) and said, "The gun is over there". The Supreme Court found that such an unadvised statement was admissible in evidence because "n a kaleidoscopic situation such as the one confronting these officers, where spontaneity rather than adherence to a police manual is necessarily the order of the day, the application of the exception we recognize today should not be made to depend on post hoc findings at a suppression hearing concerning the subjective motivation of the police officer".[9] Thus, the jurisprudential rule of Miranda must yield in "a situation where concern for public safety must be paramount to adherence to the literal language of the prophylactic rules enunciated in Miranda". The rule of Miranda is not, therefore, absolute and can be a bit more elastic in cases of public safety.[8]

8. Stigall, Dan E. (2009). Counterterrorism and the Comparative Law of Investigative Detention. Amherst, NY: Cambria. ISBN 978-1-60497-618-2.
9.New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984).

[Trascoli]

23. I hope the US govt

shuts down these terrorist websites soon. They show how to make bombs!!! WTF?

[jtuck004]

43. Or you can go to the library and get a copy of the Anarchist Cookbook.

Burning books - or web sites - is never a solution. Because they aren't they problem.

[BainsBane]

24. I see no point not giving it

It's not like anyone who has watched a cop show doesn't know he has those rights. Why compromise a prosecution or evidence? Unless perhaps he was too weak to receive the warning.

[graham4anything]

29. From the way they describe him, he might be dying. Serious wound to the neck 20 hours ago

heavy blood loss.

Makes me sad to think, if they could save him, why couldn't they save John Lennon?

[BainsBane]

31. trauma medicine has improved over the past 30 yrs

[cui bono]

40. "They" may not have wanted to.

The U.S. govt was threatened enough by him to try to deport him.

http://www.amazon.com/U-S-vs-John-Lennon/dp/B00005JP9L/ref=sr_1_3?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1366429264&sr=1-3&keywords=the+u.s.+vs.+john+lennon

[Kennah]

25. Read NEW YORK v. QUARLES, 467 U.S. 649 (1984)

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/467/649.html

[Historic NY]

32. From the photos medically he dosen't appear to be cognizant...

of much of anything.

[XRubicon]

34. I think this was amateur hour... there is nothing left to investigate...

[madinmaryland]

35. Too bad we could not apply that to Dick Cheney or *. Just to have

24 hours with Cheney to find out what the fuck they did would be worth more than anything these two little kids did in Boston.

[Enrique]

36. link? n/t

[caseymoz]

42. Seldom has there been a case this serious

where they didn't have to ask any questions to get a conviction.

[pmorlan1]

44. Expanded Miranda Exemption

Excellent piece in Slate on this issue.

Snip>

Holder started talking about a bill to broadly expand the exception to Miranda a few months later. Nothing came of that idea, but in October of 2010, Holder’s Justice Department took it upon itself to widen the exception to Miranda beyond the Supreme Court’s 1984 ruling. “Agents should ask any and all questions that are reasonably prompted by an immediate concern for the safety of the public or the arresting agents,” stated a DoJ memo to the FBI that wasn’t disclosed at the time. Again, fine and good. But the memo continues, “there may be exceptional cases in which, although all relevant public safety questions have been asked, agents nonetheless conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the government's interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation.”
Who gets to make this determination? The FBI, in consultation with DoJ, if possible. In other words, the police and the prosecutors, with no one to check their power.

]

I have a BIG problem with the expanded version.

[link:http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/04/dzhokhar_tsarnaev_and_miranda_rights_the_public_safety_exception_and_terrorism.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_share_chunky|

[Chan790]

47. You do realize the expansion doesn't actually change what is admissible in court...

right?

It changes the amount of risk the DoJ is willing to take that all statements will be ruled inadmissible by a court as not falling under the exemption in favor of collecting more actionable information upfront.

[pmorlan1]

48. The Courts are no Friend to Miranda

Are you talking about the courts that practically roll over for the government when they mention the word "terrorist" or "national security"? Considering how courts have acted since 911 and considering the current makeup of the Supreme Court I wouldn't count on them sticking to the narrow public safety exception created by the Rehnquist Court. We will more than likely be treated to a version of pre 911 and post 911 thinking.

Greenwald wrote a piece on this issue after you and I posted. Take a look.

Snip>

Leave aside how misleading and misinformed this defense is: the DOJ's policy, as documented, is to go well beyond that 1984 "public safety" exception and the DOJ clearly intends to do so here. It's just so telling how this doctrine, in the age of Obama, has been transformed from hated right-wing assault on Miranda rights to something liberals now celebrate and defend even in its warped and expanded version as embraced by the Obama DOJ. Just 30 years ago, Quarles was viewed as William Rehnquist's pernicious first blow against Miranda; now, it's heralded by MSNBC Democrats as good, just and necessary for our safety, even in its new extremist rendition. That's the process by which long-standing liberal views of basic civil liberties, as well core Constitutional guarantees, continue to be diluted under President Obama in the name of terrorism. Just compare the scathing denunciation of this Miranda exception by Marshall, Brennan and Stevens to the MSNBC cheers for it in its enlarged form.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/20/boston-marathon-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-mirnada-rights

[MOTRDemocrat]

45. Neither do I. The "slippery slope" fallacy is overused by ideologues. nt

[librechik]

49. was that regular hours or Tom Delay trying to pass Medicare part D hours?

cuz it's wednesday and the guy still has no lawyer.