Read him his goddamn Miranda rights.

[Gravitycollapse]

For at least two essential reasons

1. He's an American who possesses that right for good reason.

2. The last thing we need is inadmissible evidence because he wasn't read his rights.

[femmocrat]

1. I agree. Let's just cover all the bases.

Plus I don't want to hear the talking heads blathering about this ad nauseum.

[GitRDun]

2. On MSNBC they said

they have to read him his rights in 48 hours.

[Gravitycollapse]

5. And anything gathered in that 48 hours is potentially inadmissible.

[GitRDun]

12. idk

From what they described, it is supposed to allow them the latitude to find out about additional bombs, etc.

[Gravitycollapse]

13. How does not reading him the Miranda warning enhance their search for bombs?

[GitRDun]

22. apparently

he cannot remain silent for 48 hours, has to answer questions.

[Mariana]

61. He has to answer questions, or else what?

How, exactly, would they force someone to answer questions who wishes not to do so?

[Heather MC]

23. He could lawyer up, and remain silent

i just learned the tonight. Their is a public safety exemption. They can question him about more bombs for 48 hours

[Gravitycollapse]

26. So he could become aware of his rights as an American and choose not to cooperate. That's bad.

If that is the case, why bother having the warning at all?

[Heather MC]

33. Who knows, due process just gets in the way sometimes

At least they have to Mirandize him in 48 hours. Although I am not sure when the 48 hour clock begins. Because right now he has lost a lot of blood

[Gravitycollapse]

36. Due process just gets in the way sometimes? Seriously?

This is why we can't have nice things.

[Heather MC]

40. left out pesky sarcasm tag

[Luminous Animal]

27. He can still remain silent. If he asks for a lawyer and he is denied access...

then this "exemption" stinks.

[Gravitycollapse]

30. Thank you.

[Amonester]

29. Well, he is still FREE not to speak.

I mean, I bet he will not say a word anyway.

And since Obama did end the cheney/bush torture, he can keep his mouth shut.

[politicat]

44. Because if he knows of anything set to blow, he can tell.

So here's the hypothetical on how it's supposed to work: person suspected of being an accomplice to a kidnapping is taken into custody. LE believes person knows where the hostage is. If no Miranda, then person can be questioned about and tell where the hostage is. This information can then be used for the public safety, but not as evidence. (However, if the hostage is rescued, then the hostage can testify to that and it becomes a wash.)

With Miranda, the person has the right to clam up and say nothing at all.

However, there is a very narrow window with regards to the exemption -- I've read 24 hours; it may be 48 hours since the 2006 alteration.

[Gravitycollapse]

46. The person STILL has the right to say nothing. How is this so hard to understand?

Not reading someone the Miranda warning doesn't magically mean they have no right to keep quiet.

[politicat]

69. It's the difference between "can" and "may" and has far more to do with evidentiary procedure.

It's also the difference between a clue and evidence.

The Miranda warning has far more to do with what information the prosecution has access to, and how it can be used. Statements made without the presence of an attorney or prior to the Miranda warning are harder for the prosecutor to use at trial because they're legally hearsay. (I.e. Joe can admit to a murder before his Miranda warning, but that admission is not evidence. It's a clue, and can be used for a judge to issue a search warrant, but can't be used by the prosecution. If he admits to a murder after the Miranda, then that's evidence and available to the prosecution.) In this case, an admission of a bomb would allow LE to acquire and dispose of it, and admission of accomplices would allow probable cause warrants to be issued, but that information would not be of much use to the prosecution when we get to trial. Both sides give up a little (prosecution may lose some confession data; defendant may point LE at some incriminating evidence) but they also gain (prosecution may get harder evidence in the form of DNA or communication records; defendant doesn't get additional charges added) and public safety or national security are maintained.

IANAL, just a former kid who grew up in Arizona who had a civics teacher who had a passion for the Miranda warning and the case that created it. It was a good way to learn how the Bill of Rights is put into action.

[Dorian Gray]

96. Well, of course...

but maybe if they have less fear of being prosecuted bc of what they say, they'll be more open about stuff.

It seems like a slim chance, but it's still a chance worth taking.

[Gravitycollapse]

97. So you're saying we should resort to deception?

[Dorian Gray]

98. How is it deception?

Most american citizens know that miranda rights should be read? If they aren't for the reason of public safety, I'm sure it's pointed out by the cops... so that the person knows that if they give info, it won't be used against them.... so that they can help solve a crime in which someone might die....

I would assume that it's all pretty up front there.

What am I missing?

[Gravitycollapse]

99. It's deception if you intentionally withhold informing him of his rights...

because you want him to give answers.

[Dorian Gray]

100. I think you misunderstand...

any answers he gives now won't be able to convict him in any trial. If they still haven't mirandized him, they're trying to find info that will protect the public. Prevent future bombings/find associates/etc. Mirandizing him is about protecting his rights in a future trial. he still doesn't have to answer that. As an American resident/citizen, I'm sure he's aware he won't be compelled to answer anything.

[Gravitycollapse]

101. No, the exception allows statements to be admissible even if the warning has not been read.

Regardless, the whole point of requiring a Miranda warning is because it is not legally presumed that suspects are aware of their rights.

[Logical]

3. +1, I agree!

[FSogol]

4. The public safety exemption does not last more than 48 hours.

After they are assured they are no more bombs, they'll read him his rights.

[Gravitycollapse]

7. Please explain to me why such an exemption should apply here.

[FSogol]

9. Him and his brother might have hidden bombs in other places or might have

some accomplices still on the loose.

[Gravitycollapse]

11. And explain to me how that has any connection to the Miranda warning.

[FSogol]

15. See reply #14. Sorry I don't remember the name of the case. n/t

[freshwest]

73. It's a technicality only. He doesn't have to say a damned thing. But MSNBC says if the helps, it'll

mitigate the severity of charges.

He may have a lot to say; and if he decides to not talk, Miranda or no, the effect is the same.

Unless you contend right here and now that he's going to be tortured to make him talk, it's irrelevant in the long run and doesn't take anything from him.

EOM.

[krawhitham]

16. "Have you planted any more bombs"

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

[Gravitycollapse]

25. None of those scenarios apply here. Those revolve around questions asked immediately...

following apprehension. Not where an officer makes a conscious decision to simply deny reading the Miranda warning to an individual clearly in custody.

[Logical]

8. And are the questions required to be only public safety questions? n-t

[FSogol]

14. AFAIK. This came out of a supreme court case where a cop arrested a suspect who had hidden

his weapon in a supermarket. The cop asked where the gun was and then the gunman's lawyers asked for the case to be thrown out. The supremes said the cop had the right to ask that before miranda-izing (sic?) him since it was for public safety. Sorry, don't remember the name of the case.

[krawhitham]

19. More info

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

[FSogol]

24. Thanks. n/t

[Gravitycollapse]

20. There are no time constraints here. Reading him his rights takes literally seconds.

The court case brought to SCOTUS had to do with a question asked before Miranda rights were read simply by circumstance. They didn't continue to deny him his reading afterwards.

[krawhitham]

21. They might have already asked questions while he was in the boat before he was taken into custody

[Gravitycollapse]

28. And they can and should use the exception for those questions. Now they should read him the warning.

[FSogol]

56. Except he's probably sedated and on his way to surgery.

When he wakes up tomorrow or the next day, a FBI agent will read him his rights.

[Gravitycollapse]

60. His sedation has nothing to do with the exception argument invoked...

But is a product of the situation. A completely different argument. If he is unconscious, wait until he wakes up and read him his rights.

[DevonRex]

59. You don't even understand what Miranda does. Good grief.

FBI agent: Anything you do/say can be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand? (Short Miranda)

Tsaraev nods.

FBI agent: Now, where did you hide the bombs? Is anybody working with you?

Tsaraev: ...

Two hours later a BOOM heard in the distance. Accomplices set bombs off in student housing.

[Gravitycollapse]

63. No, you don't understand Miranda warnings or the rights they express.

You seem to have the belief that not reading him his rights means he has no rights. That's absurd. He still has the right to remain silent even if they never read him the Miranda warning.

[DevonRex]

67. LOL. You have no idea to whom

you're speaking.

[Gravitycollapse]

68. I know you don't understand the purpose or power of the warning or rights it expresses.

Who you are outside of that fact is incidental.

[DevonRex]

82. snicker

[Gravitycollapse]

87. If you think your appeal to invisible personal authority is going to sway me, you're wrong.

[diabeticman]

6. Yes!

[davidn3600]

10. Wont they just classify him as an "enemy combatant" and not care about his rights?

[newmember]

80. There's a good chance he will be transported

out of the country.

The Patriot act should scare the hell out of us.
And it's going to get worse.

[datasuspect]

17. this is all extralegal

it will be conducted in a shadow justice system that operates in contradiction to the US Constitution and places a suspect outside of the protection of the traditional legal system.

[Gore1FL]

39. Not according to the SCOTUS.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=467&invol=649

[zeeland]

18. I think he's in worse shape than most realize...

they are going to pump as much info from him as they can
and reading him his Miranda Rights would hinder that. That
Footage CNN just played with the guns blazing did not sound
like there was much interest in taking him alive. The robot
they used to remove the boat tarp could have placed Tear gas
In the bost to force him. I hope he survives, but I doubt he
will.

[Gravitycollapse]

32. Miranda readings take a few seconds.

[Gore1FL]

43. Miranda rights are not in effect for 48 hours

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=467&invol=649

[Gravitycollapse]

45. Miranda rights are in effect immediately upon recognition by the suspect.

[Gore1FL]

52. Take it up with The SCOTUS

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=467&invol=649

[Gravitycollapse]

55. I don't think you undertand what you're posting.

That case deals with exceptions to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before statements are obtained. It has nothing to do with the legal imposition of such rights once the suspect recognizes the existence of such rights.

[Gore1FL]

62. Perhaps I understand, perhaps I do not

My explanation seems to be consistent with observation to this point, based on the reporting I've seen. I am certainly open to new data if you can provide it.

[zeeland]

90. Point being...

If he is not read his Miranda Rights, nothing he states can be used in court
during trial. But, the information they collect can be used in dealing with
similar cases in the future and possibly lead to to further arrests. Once they
read him his rights, provided he is awake and coherent, he can refuse to
answer questions they need to understand in dealing with future cases.

[HappyMe]

31. He may not be in good enough

shape to even understand and agree with Miranda.

[Gravitycollapse]

34. That is not a good excuse to not read him his rights.

[krawhitham]

37. reading him his rights is not good enough, he has to understand them

[HappyMe]

38. So if he is barely

conscious and cannot really understand what is being said to him --- you would be good with that?

[jeff47]

77. If he's not in good enough shape to understand them, then you haven't read him his rights.

Doesn't matter if you recite the words. If he's not sufficiently cognizant you haven't read him his rights.

Reports are they fired something like 1000 rounds into the boat. I really doubt he's in good enough shape to understand the Miranda warning.

[Gravitycollapse]

79. So that is a separate argument against the effectiveness, not against allowing his rights to be read

.

[jeff47]

84. No, it really isn't.

Miranda requires that the police read the rights and the suspect understand them.

Reciting the two sentences doesn't magically make you able to ask any question. The suspect has to understand those sentences and indicate that they understand.

Because of this, the police have to operate within the public safety exception even if they gave him the Miranda warning. It is literally impossible to satisfy Miranda until he's in better medical shape.

[Gravitycollapse]

86. They are absolutely separate arguments.

And I will say again, not reciting the warning doesn't mean none of the rights are retained.

[jeff47]

89. Which part of "suspect must understand" do you not understand?

It's really not a tough concept.

[krawhitham]

35. Maybe he is going to die or close to it

If he almost bleed out he might not understand his Miranda rights

"Do you understand the rights I have just read to you"

He he is drifting in and out of conscious he would not understand what is going on, but he could still tell them where he planted more bombs

[Gravitycollapse]

41. Not an excuse to not read him his rights. Takes a few seconds.

Do it and move on with the questioning.

[krawhitham]

49. reading him his rights is not good enough, he has to understand them

Simple concept

the court required that the warnings contain at least the same level of information as it set out in its ruling and that the warnings be meaningful for the suspects. Therefore, suspects are asked if they understand their rights and are required to say yes before an officer can begin questioning

http://resources.lawinfo.com/en/articles/criminal-law/federal/miranda-rights-the-who-what-where-when-and-wh.html


They are not waiting for him to acknowledge he understands Miranda before asking about more bombs and partners

[Gravitycollapse]

51. Yes, and let the courts decide if he was aware of them in the future.

But right now, read him his goddamn Miranda rights.

[krawhitham]

54. If they do, and he does not acknowledge he understands they can not ask him anything else

[Gravitycollapse]

58. Where are you getting this "information?"

[krawhitham]

72. Google is your friend

I already posted one link in this thread

[HappyMe]

64. If they read him his rights

and he wasn't able to understand, that would be okay then?

Then if that came out later, you would still be good with that. No complaining that he did not understand the Miranda at the time?

[Gravitycollapse]

66. I'm saying that it is prudent and just to read him his rights even if he might not understand.

That the argument that we shouldn't worry on the chance that he might not is ridiculous.

[HappyMe]

71. I'm pretty sure they don't

have people just out of law school handling this.

[krawhitham]

74. No it is worse

If you give him his Miranda warning and he does not understand but yet you ask more question and get answers, those answers can not be used against him in court, PERIOD. That would be a violation of his Miranda Rights

You use the public safety exemption, get the info needed for public safety, wait until he is better and can understand, then you give him his Miranda warning

[Gravitycollapse]

76. It could just as easily be argued that he was not in the right mind to understand...

that he was incriminating himself under any capacity or knowledge.

[krawhitham]

81. That is the "beauty" of the exemption, it does not matter what he understands

Does not matter if he is right mind to understand

Whatever he says can be used


You might not like the law (I don't) but that is how it works

[Gravitycollapse]

83. That's not the purpose of the exemption. It's not there to sneak around his rights...

It's there to exempt questions asked before the opportunity to read the warning because of practical restrictions.

This does not apply to the "ticking time bomb" scenario so often appealed to by our previous administration.

[HereSince1628]

42. Black president and Black AG deny white man constitutional rights

What a gift to the white supremacists.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

47. OBAMA BAD BAD BAD!!!! I knew that it would be a matter of time before someone blamed

the President!

[HereSince1628]

48. I didn't say that did I? I said it's a gift to White Supremacists.

[chillfactor]

50. what an insanely dense post

[HereSince1628]

53. Hey, I get that this challenges the dominant narrative that a terrorist

has coming whatever terrible thing he gets.

I just find it incredibly like Dick Cheney.

[ecstatic]

57. Maybe, but I think they know what they're doing

Just a hunch...

[HereSince1628]

65. Under Yoo woo memos Obama can do ANYTHING as CIC

It doesn't mean they KNOW what they are doing will lead to good outcomes.

There is a difference.

[ZRT2209]

70. Jeff Toobin CNN said Miranda warnings are moot bc they don't need

a statement from the suspect in order to build the case, given all the evidence.

For what it's worth.

[Zorra]

75. Please, give the Boston cops some credit. They obviously know what they are doing. nt

[Gravitycollapse]

78. Never give authority benefit of the doubt when it comes to individual rights.

[bhikkhu]

85. Inadmissible evidence like "where are the other bombs?"

I think the reason for the public safety exception is to allow people to answer immediate questions like that without concern for incriminating themselves.

I'd guess there is plenty of admissible evidence already.

[Gravitycollapse]

88. No, the exception is for questions asked before the warning because of practical restrictions.

For instance, questions asked immediately upon apprehension might fall under the exception as they were practically necessary for the prevention of some clear and present danger.

The suspect has been in custody for more than 2 hours. The exception should no longer apply.

[jeff47]

91. You're welcome to your opinion. The one that matters (SCOTUS) says they've got 48 hours. (nt)

[Gravitycollapse]

93. I happen to think SCOTUS made the wrong choice. Not that that's rare or anything.

[randome]

92. There is a procedure in place that allows for 48 hours.

Who are you to say that 2 hours is enough?

What if he's unconscious for those 2 hours?

[Gravitycollapse]

94. As stated upthread, the unconscious argument is separate. If he isn't awake, wait for him to wake up

I am not necessarily arguing the legality of the 48 hour allowance. I'm arguing the ethics.

[Fawke Em]

95. Agreed. I've been bitching about this for an hour!

You're No. 2 is wrong, though. It WOULD be admissible under the damn Patriot Act, which is why they aren't doing it.

They send this child-man to GITMO, then we're done.

I grieve for Martin AND Dzhokhar.

WTF is happening with our young men?

[Amonester]

102. They (not all but too many) watch damn Die-Hard flicks and just love the thrills.

They think the overblown violence is funny.

[Yo_Mama]

105. I don't grieve for Dzhokar

He chose this.

I saw someone comment about sociopaths earlier on DU, and I think that person pegged it.

Dzhokar attended a party on Wednesday night (two nights ago) and was reported to be "relaxed" by one of his fellow students. This is a not a person who falls into the normal range of human behavior. He may have been a truly nice kid, but now he's a mass-murdering adult who deserves no sympathy.

[Yo_Mama]

103. Your points don't make sense

First, the Miranda rule still applies for evidence they want to get from him to admit on trial, and the public safety exception is completely and very abnormally evident in this case.

Second, they don't need any of his evidence to convict. If the guy never says a word, they've got a spectacularly tight case already.

But they do have a problem with potential other munitions and other components somewhere. So what he says about that won't be directly admissible, but they don't care. They don't want unexploded bombs sitting around somewhere, or kids wandering into a cache of gunpowder somewhere. No judge anywhere is going to find it unreasonable if they ask him if there were other bombs, if he had confederates, and if there are bomb components sitting around somewhere in a residential neighborhood.

As for the evidence:
They have video of him at the bomb site. They have ID from the guy who saw one of the guys put down the bomb, and is missing lower extremities. A jury will find that evidence very convincing.

They have apparently surveillance video of the hit on the MIT cop. They have the statement and ID from the carjacked guy, to whom they said that they were the bombers.

You have the shoot out and the use of a similar bomb as those used in the Marathon explosions, just to tie it up even tighter. Then you have capture on locus with wounds to prove again that he was in the car, and since they found bloodstains in the car that can be DNA matched (which was how they knew he was wounded), you have a hard and fast tie to the car and those attacks on the cops.

How could the case be more substantiated? It's already carved in stone. You have confession to the carjacking victim, for heaven's sake!

Is there any jury anywhere that wouldn't convict?

[kudzu22]

104. I don't think they HAVE to read him his rights, only if

they want to question him and use his statements against him. I'd say they have plenty of evidence without needing to ask him a damned thing.

[Blue_In_AK]

106. Exactly.

I am concerned about the inadmissible evidence thing, as well.