General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Public Safety Exception To Miranda Rule
http://constitutionthursday.com/2013/04/19/the-public-safety-exception-to-miranda-rule/The rule goes back to the case of New York v. Quarles
snip
The basic argument being that not to do so would put the police in an untenable position. They would have to choose between their own safety (or the safety of the public in general) and gathering evidence to convict a criminal (or as some have observed the Constitution is not a suicide pact)
snip
Certainly this is a difficult topic for us to consider. I am a strong supporter of the Bill of Rights and do not wish to give the authorities any more power than needed. But at the same time we cannot put ourselves in a position where we have to choose between two forms of public safety, immediate in terms of the risk and future in terms of letting criminals get away with it.
Sid
treestar
(82,383 posts)People seem often to dismiss that. If the public safety exception is established law, then it can be used. People who don't know these details tend to sweep them aside.
Besides, if he says nothing before he is Mirandized, it is moot. He's in the hospital. It's not like he is babbling all sorts of credible and pertinent information.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)what people fail to realize, is that if he's Mirandized, and says "I want a lawyer", the the police can't ask him anything anymore. The public safety exception recognizes that situations like this may arise. Here is the situation the public safety exception allows the police to avoid:
If he's Mirandized:
Cop: (Reads his Miranda rights)
Suspect: "I want a lawyer"
Cop: "Shit, now we can't ask him if there are any more bombs in the boat. Hope we don't get blown up taking a look"
If he's not Mirandized:
Cop: "Are there any more bombs on the boat? Are there any more bombs out there at all?"
Suspect: "Yes, there's a bomb under the tarp"
Cop: "Shit, now that statement and the bomb can't be used as evidence. Oh well, he may go free, but at least we won't get blown up."
The public safety exception means that LE doesn't have to choose between immediate public safety (getting blown up) and future public safety (dismissal of suspect statements potentially leading to acquittal).
At least that's how I read the explanation in the OP.
Sid
markiv
(1,489 posts)in a court of law
but the knowledge gained could be used to stop an unfolding tragedy
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)they ruled that the evidence gained through questioning under the public safety exception could be admissable.
Or, rather, they ruled that the lower courts improperly threw out evidence that had been gained through pre-Miranda questioning
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=467&invol=649
If I'm reading the caselaw properly, and I'm no lawyer by any stretch of the imagination, the SC, in the majority decision, says that the gun discovered through the non-Miranda questioning of Quarles, and statements following from the discovery of the gun, should not have been excluded during the lower court trials.
Held:
The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the exclusion of respondent's initial statement and the gun because of Officer Kraft's failure to read respondent his Miranda rights before attempting to locate the weapon. Accordingly, it also erred in affirming the exclusion of respondent's subsequent statements as illegal fruits of the Miranda violation. This case presents a situation where concern for public safety must be paramount to adherence to the literal language of the prophylactic rules enunciated in Miranda. Pp. 653-660.
(a) Although respondent was in police custody when he made his statements and the facts come within the ambit of Miranda, nevertheless on these facts there is a "public safety" exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect's answers may be admitted [467 U.S. 649, 650] into evidence, and the availability of that exception does not depend upon the motivation of the individual officers involved. The doctrinal underpinnings of Miranda do not require that it be applied in all its rigor to a situation in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety. In this case, so long as the gun was concealed somewhere in the supermarket, it posed more than one danger to the public safety: an accomplice might make use of it, or a customer or employee might later come upon it. Pp. 655-657.
(b) Procedural safeguards that deter a suspect from responding, and increase the possibility of fewer convictions, were deemed acceptable in Miranda in order to protect the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. However, if Miranda warnings had deterred responses to Officer Kraft's question about the whereabouts of the gun, the cost would have been something more than merely the failure to obtain evidence useful in convicting respondent. An answer was needed to insure that future danger to the public did not result from the concealment of the gun in a public area. P. 657.
(c) The narrow exception to the Miranda rule recognized here will to some degree lessen the desirable clarity of that rule. However, the exception will not be difficult for police officers to apply because in each case it will be circumscribed by the exigency which justifies it. Police officers can and will distinguish almost instinctively between questions necessary to secure their own safety or the safety of the public and questions designed solely to elicit testimonial evidence from a suspect. Pp. 658-659.
58 N. Y. 2d 664, 444 N. E. 2d 984, reversed and remanded.
REHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and WHITE, BLACKMUN, and POWELL, JJ., joined. O'CONNOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, post, p. 660. MARSHALL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN and STEVENS, JJ., joined, post, p. 674.
Sid
bigtree
(85,996 posts)'public safety' is key . . . some debate on what that constitutes, but there doesn't look to be a shred of an argument over the police and government's public safety concerns over the suspect in Boston.
markiv
(1,489 posts)i didnt know the actual practice or rulings
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
jeff47
(26,549 posts)What your describing is not an exemption at all. You're describing the situation if there was no public safety exemption.
There is and exemption. It's narrow - They can't just ask anything. And they have to Mirandize within 48 hours.
The exemption is a reasonable compromise between public safety and suspect's rights, especially since you can't Mirandize someone who's not completely cognizant.
FSogol
(45,481 posts)markiv
(1,489 posts)it got him another trial, but he was convicted anyway, even without the excluded exidence
when he got out of prison, he was in a bar fight in the early 70s and was killed. the suspect was given the miranda warning, remained silent and was not convicted
got this from wikipedia
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...Tsarnev will have a trial in a Federal Court. He will be accorded all the rights of a U.S. citizen...including his choice of legal representation and a trial by jury. If he chooses to tell his story he will have opportunities to do so. Civil safety has and will trump civil liberties...especially if the person in question is trying to kill other citizens. Special effort was made Tsarnaev alive so he can have his day in court...and he will.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)what Miranda Rights are and are not.
randome
(34,845 posts)They could have simply lied and said he was read his Miranda rights. Instead, they are keeping the media apprised of as much information as they can.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You can't just recite the warning and get on with the questioning. The suspect has to understand it.
With more than 1000 rounds fired at the boat, it's pretty likely that he's not in complete control of his faculties at this time. Which means they can't Mirandize him. Yet they have a very good reason to ask questions like "are there more bombs?".