I triple dog dare you to read this. TRIPLE DOG I SAY! Abuse of power.....

[Logical]

What many do not realize is that these "exceptions" will be abused. And not always used for the purposes the government sells to the public, who tend to blindly believe it.

here are excrpts, but worth reading the whole article at:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/04/dzhokhar_tsarnaev_and_miranda_rights_the_public_safety_exception_and_terrorism.html

Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will not hear his Miranda rights before the FBI questions him Friday night. He will have to remember on his own that he has a right to a lawyer, and that anything he says can be used against him in court, because the government won’t tell him. This is an extension of a rule the Justice Department wrote for the FBI—without the oversight of any court—called the “public safety exception.”

...........

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.”

..........

And so the FBI will surely ask 19-year-old Tsarnaev anything it sees fit. Not just what law enforcement needs to know to prevent a terrorist threat and keep the public safe but anything else it deemed related to “valuable and timely intelligence.” Couldn’t that be just about anything about Tsarnaev’s life, or his family, given that his alleged accomplice was his older brother (killed in a shootout with police)? There won’t be a public uproar. Whatever the FBI learns will be secret: We won’t know how far the interrogation went. And besides, no one is crying over the rights of the young man who is accused of killing innocent people, helping his brother set off bombs that were loaded to maim, and terrorizing Boston Thursday night and Friday. But the next time you read about an abusive interrogation, or a wrongful conviction that resulted from a false confession, think about why we have Miranda in the first place. It’s to stop law enforcement authorities from committing abuses. Because when they can make their own rules, sometime, somewhere, they inevitably will.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/04/dzhokhar_tsarnaev_and_miranda_rights_the_public_safety_exception_and_terrorism.html

[snappyturtle]

1. I have read explanations for the delay of reading Miranda rights but.....

in my cautious, old brain I still conclude it's a very slippery slope.
God knows we've given up alot all ready....Patriot Acts, etc.

[Logical]

2. Yes, I am surprised the DU is so OK with this. I guess emotions rule this week. n-t

[treestar]

5. The Quarles case was considered by

The Supreme Court of the U.S. both sides briefed and considered carefully. Not an emotional knee jerk reaction.

That case is the law as it stands. It was considered reasonably, with precedent taken into account. Of far greater value than knee jerking from DUers who don't even know about it and haven't read it.

[snappyturtle]

11. I think it caught a lot of us by surprise...I was ignorant of

its existence. I can understand the reasoning for it....
sort of....it's just this nagging feeling about it...that's
all. And, I think Slate is making a good point. We need
to be very vigilant.

[treestar]

16. We do always need to be vigilant

Just that in this case, the issue looks well thought out. Some DUers like to "discover" an abuse and then refuse to consider the further information provided them.

Another thing is cases like this are rare and exotic. The place to worry would be more like the typical drug case - flushing the evidence and so forth (and I do think we need to legalize the drugs, but it is the law as it now stands).

[Logical]

8. Me too. How many more "exceptions" can they come up with? n-t

[haikugal]

3. We have a propagandized populace...

even here on DU. Thanks for this.

[treestar]

4. You are not referring to case law

that describes the status of the law in this country. Nothing is ever perfect, but we at least try to define fairness. The Quarles case is the state of the law. Police failing to live up to it is another story. The public safety exception exists, and here, was consciously chosen. There was no attempt to railroad the suspect. It was reasonable to believe the suspect might have other bombs.

[Logical]

6. You trust them to only question him on public safety stuff? I do not. n-t

[treestar]

15. Picture the scene for a moment

Who would even have the chance to discuss anything else with him?

And his lawyers can challenge the use of anything said then, and indeed they will.

Why would they need to railroad him? They already have film of him putting the backpack down where the bomb was! The evidence against him is strong. They are not railroading an innocent here, trying to get him to admit to things he did not do. Not that cops never do that, but here, they acted professionally.

[Logical]

17. I am not worried about this guy honestly. But the law worries me in not so simple cases. n-t

[treestar]

19. Exactly. The cases we don't hear so much of

Most likely drug possession cases. The public safety is not that much implicated. Maybe kids in a house, saying they have to get the drugs before the kids are somehow injured by them.

The Fourth Amendment warrant requirement has a similar exception - they're going to flush the drugs down the toilet is the most salient example.

[randome]

7. Every law and rule has exceptions.

If they didn't, we would be no better than robots.

[emulatorloo]

10. difficult concept for ideologues.

and Glenn Beck type conspiracy theorists.

[emulatorloo]

9. Speaking of "Drama" and Melodramatic Thread Titles . . .

Besides that, the article has been posted at least 3 times already today.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101661268

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022720628

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022720358

[Logical]

14. Four times now. And still getting replies. Thanks for the bump!! n-t

[Yo_Mama]

12. Except that this editiorial indicts itself

In fact, the article appears to have been written by a person very ignorant about Constitutional law and the protections it affords to persons in police custody

But the next time you read about an abusive interrogation, or a wrongful conviction that resulted from a false confession, think about why we have Miranda in the first place. It’s to stop law enforcement authorities from committing abuses. Because when they can make their own rules, sometime, somewhere, they inevitably will.

When a non-Mirandized interrogation occurs, no court is going to allow a confession elicited in such circumstances to be used in court. Miranda rights prevail and can't be violated by the police, because they are scrutinized in court.

The public safety exception is quite narrow, and would allow prosecutors to place in evidence some types of evidence that otherwise wouldn't be, but not a confession. It is also immediate - you can't retain someone in custody for very long without a lawyer.

The courts, as they should, strongly enforce Miranda rights.

Miranda rights probably also serve to protect arrested persons against police abuse in interrogations, but this suspect is in the hospital. Police are not beating him up or denying him fluids or foods.

Also, the article veers into outright idiocy when it implies that Congress can pass a bill that would limit Miranda rights. Because Miranda rights are based in the Constitution, any such bill could not possibly change them. The Constitution would have to be amended to do that. Here, in article V, is that procedure:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlev

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Remember the "one call" rule? The right to counsel is independent of Miranda rights. Due process rights prevent a person from being held in custody for very long without court intervention or charges. There's a whole host of protections that protect Americans or legal residents and indeed most illegal residents from wanton misbehavior by the police. Within 72 hours after arrest it's going to have to go to court unless it already has and there's an arrest warrant out.

https://www.ohiobar.org/ForPublic/Resources/LawFactsPamphlets/Pages/LawFactsPamphlet-21.aspx

[liberalmuse]

13. I'm not okay with this.

Not in the least. He needs to be treated like any other American citizen and given the same rights. In fact, I'm sick of the word, "Terrorist". It gives criminals more power than they will ever deserve. It's also an excuse to bipass the rule of law, time and time again.

[randome]

18. He IS being treated the same. The 48 hour exemption is well-established case law.

It would apply to anyone in similar circumstances.

[Logical]

20. The point is that maybe it is the wrong. Case law or not. n-t

[randome]

22. Um, yeah, EVERY law COULD be wrong.

Why don't you take a stand? Do you think the exemption is wrong? If so, tell us why.

Otherwise, this entire discussion seems moot.

And before you do that, it seems like the vast majority of us -me included- are just fine with the exemption.

It's been in effect since 1984 so that 'slippery slope' doesn't seem to be going anywhere right now.

[Logical]

23. Because they will always abuse the "safety" aspect. And who gives a shit if a majority....

thinks you are right. Want me to list things throughout US history that the majority thought were ok? LOL!

[liberalmuse]

24. Good.

I'm just expressing my opinion, not that it has any basis in intelligence. In a way, when someone smarter than myself explains it, I "sort" of understand why Miranda laws are suspended due to special circumstances. But not fully.

[gopiscrap]

21. ABUSE OF POWER! I AGREE WITH YOU!!!!

[malaise]

25. Timothy McVeigh had his Miranda rights

that is all