What You Need To Know About Why The Boston Bombing Suspect Hasn’t Been Read His Miranda Rights

[ProSense]

What You Need To Know About Why The Boston Bombing Suspect Hasn’t Been Read His Miranda Rights

By Ian Millhiser

<...>

The Public Safety Exemption Is Real

The Supreme Court first held that there is a public safety exemption to Miranda in a 1984 case known as New York v. Quarles. In Quarles a woman told police that a man with a gun raped her, and that he’d run into a nearby grocery store. Police quickly found the suspect within the store, arrested him after a brief chase, handcuffed him, and discovered that he was wearing an empty shoulder holster. Before reading him his rights, an officer asked him where the gun was, and the suspect told the cop where to find it. After retrieving the gun, police then read the suspect his Miranda rights.

Although the Constitution generally forbids law enforcement from interrogating suspects in custody without first reading them their rights, the Court held that a narrow “public safety exemption” permitted the limited questioning that occurred in Quarles. As the Court explained, “procedural safeguards which deter a suspect from responding were deemed acceptable in Miranda in order to protect the Fifth Amendment privilege; when the primary social cost of those added protections is the possibility of fewer convictions, the Miranda majority was willing to bear that cost. Here, had Miranda warnings deterred Quarles from responding 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 Quarles. Officer Kraft needed an answer to his question not simply to make his case against Quarles but to insure that further danger to the public did not result from the concealment of the gun in a public area.”

As the Court emphasized, this exemption is “narrow.” It permits police to ask a limited range of questions for the purpose of removing any imminent threats. It does not permit wide-ranging questions intended to build a case against the suspect.

FBI Guidelines Apply The Public Safety Exemption Aggressively In Terrorism Cases

<...>

The FBI Cannot Indefinitely Delay Reading Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights

Because the public safety exemption is rooted in the “need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety,” it is only temporary. Eventually, it may become clear that no such threats exist (or at least any that Tsarnaev is capable of providing information about). At that point, he must be read his Miranda rights even under the most lax plausible understanding of the exemption. Additionally, if law enforcement wishes to ask Tsarnaev questions geared towards gathering evidence to use against him at trial, they must read him his Miranda rights.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/04/19/1898851/what-you-need-to-know-about-why-the-boston-bombing-suspect-hasnt-been-read-his-miranda-rights/

[madrchsod]

1. much to do about nothing

he knows he refuse to answer without being read his rights. unless they haul him to gitmo or send him on a plane to one of our second world friends he won`t answer any questions.

[morningfog]

17. It doesn't matter if he knows. Without a Miranda warning,

any confession elicited will be inadmissible. There is no knowledge exception to Miranda.

[Barack_America]

2. And please also do not forget that doctors and nurses will be advocating for him...

...and limiting questions until he is ready for them.

[leveymg]

3. Allows questioning off the record - that's the one and only reason in this case.

The question we should be asking is, why?

The answer is obvious, and it has to do with brother Tamarlan's travels to Russia, interest shown in him by multiple parties (agencies, and nations and others) before, during, and after that travel, and most importantly, what the younger brother knew about that.

Gee, that was hard.

[Windy]

4. he will talk. read his twitter feed

He is a 19 year old kid raised in the USA and acted like a USA teen who loved rap music
I think he followed his brother down this path. If he gave up he was afraid he was going to die. Not what you would expect from a someone who truly believed in his warped cause to the core. I think he will talk. He apparently also killed his brother or at least dealt him the death blow when he ran over him. He will talk.

[leveymg]

5. Of course he will, otherwise he would have offed himself.

[Windy]

6. agreed. nt

[Animal Chin]

7. I don't really get the whole Miranda issue in this case

If you don't read him his rights, you can't use his statements against him. But it seems they have oodles of evidence such that their case will depend little on any kind of confession or incriminating statements. Let him talk as much as he wants without his Miranda rights being read. Use the intelligence, but don't use any of it at trial.

[byeya]

10. I agree that there seems to be an air tight case without any statements from the suspect. I

have questions about developing leads from him w/o Miranda because that which follows from the questioning could be said to be fruit from a poisoned tree.
Read him Miranda just to be on the safe side.

[morningfog]

14. Physical evidence and leads from non-Mirandized interrogations are admissible.

Miranda only protects statements. Say you are arrested, not MIrandized and confess to a shooting and say you ditched the gun in a trash can. If the police recover the gun, it can be admitted at trial, but the statements cannot.

[ProSense]

8. ACLU statement:

Statement by ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero on Miranda Rights of Boston Bombing Suspect

The American Civil Liberties Union reacted to the apprehension of the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing and statements from federal officials that he would be questioned without being read his Miranda rights.

“The ACLU shares the public's relief that the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings has been apprehended,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “Every criminal defendant is entitled to be read Miranda rights. The public safety exception should be read narrowly. It applies only when there is a continued threat to public safety and is not an open-ended exception to the Miranda rule. Additionally, every criminal defendant has a right to be brought before a judge and to have access to counsel. We must not waver from our tried-and-true justice system, even in the most difficult of times. Denial of rights is un-American and will only make it harder to obtain fair convictions. Our thoughts remain with the victims of this tragedy and with the entire Boston community.”

http://www.aclu.org/organization-news-and-highlights/statement-aclu-executive-director-anthony-d-romero-miranda-rights

[TomCADem]

9. It is Not Like His Conviction Depends On What He Might Say

The Miranda issue would be relevant if his confession might yield to incriminating evidence that leads to his conviction. However, I am pretty sure that they have more than suffcient evidence to convict him irrespective of what he says.

[ProSense]

11. I suppose the point

"It is Not Like His Conviction Depends On What He Might Say"

...of incriminating oneself could be applicable in certain situations, and that's the objection, but the public safety exception is real. For example, here is a point from Thurgood Marshall's dissent in Quarles:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2722438

[reformist2]

12. We have to remember that Miranda is not in the constitution - it's essentially a court order.

It's not set in stone. We can and should feel free to modify it.

[morningfog]

15. It can only be modified through the courts. It federal common law.

Constitutional law is much stronger than a "court order."

[Old Union Guy]

13. They are going to torture him.

Will that be "no big deal" too?

[morningfog]

16. THey are not going to torture him. What the fuck are you talking about?