Five constitutional issues raised by the Boston Marathon case

[ErikJ]

Five constitutional issues raised by the Boston Marathon case

1. MIRANDA WARNINGS

At the forefront is the debate about the living suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and his Fifth Amendment right to receive a Miranda warning before questioning from federal investigators.

Constitution Daily contributor Lyle Denniston put the debate in context with his analysis for us today.

“From all that officials involved in the investigation in Boston have said, it may well be that they have such overwhelming evidence to support prosecution that they have little need to get Tsarnaev to confess and can focus, instead, on finding out what he may know–if anything–about other threats or accomplices,” Denniston says.........................

2. THE DEATH PENALTY

Another issue that came up almost immediately after Tsarnaev’s capture was if he would be eligible for the death penalty if federal prosecutors decide to seek it in the case.

Massachusetts doesn’t have the death penalty, but Tsarnaev will be tried in a federal court.......................

3. UNREGISTERED GUNS

There were also reports on Monday that Tsarnaev and his brother, Tamerlan, were using unregistered guns in their fatal assault on an MIT police officer and other law enforcement members.

The brothers reportedly had a stockpile of ammunition and exchanged hundreds of rounds of fire with police officers.

Massachusetts already has one of the strictest sets of gun laws in the country—in fact, the Brady Campaign ranks the state as the fourth-strictest when it comes to gun laws in America.

4. IMMIGRATION

The Tsarnaev brothers’ immigration status is crossing over into the debate about immigration currently in Congress.

Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley is arguing the Boston Marathon case will bolster the argument for immigration reform, while Senator Marco Rubio says the incident has no bearing on the immigration debate..........................

5. PRIVACY

The issue of privacy has come up in several facets of the investigation. The suspects were identified through federal and local investigators examining extensive video and still-image footage obtained from private security cameras..........................

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/04/five-constitutional-issues-raised-by-the-boston-marathon-case/?utm_source=Constitution+Daily&utm_campaign=643f61fd76-ConDaily_RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email

[NCTraveler]

1. Very interesting list.

It really does bring into play numerous constitutional issues that are currently in play. Although I don't understand the one about guns. They were unregistered, which is illegal. The laws that make that illegal have been found to be constitutional. I am for stronger gun regulations, just pointing this out. It can all be pretty thought provoking.

[onenote]

2. Constitutional issues? I don't think so.

Maybe the Miranda question if it comes up that the prosecution wants to use information obtained in questioning that is alleged to exceed the boundaries of the public safety exception. But otherwise, the consititutionality of questioning Tsarnaev is not really in doubt.

As for the other issues: the constitutionality of the death penality is not seriously in question; the fact that they used unregistered guns and had a stockpile of ammunition -- what constitutional issues does that raise? Immigration? Yes, there is some blowback on the legislative debate over immigration reform but how is it a constitutional issue? And the use of thermal imaging to "search" the boat, even assuming it didn't come under any one of a number of exceptions to the general prohibition against warrantless searches, would only be an issue if the owner of the boat didn't consent to the search. A guy that breaks into your boat doesn't have a right to object if the boat is searched without a warrant.

[dballance]

3. Also on Privacy

When you're in a public place like a public sidewalk you really can't assume there is any right to privacy for you or your actions. So what if "private" cameras took pictures that were handed over to authorities? Doesn't really matter does it? I doubt there's a legal distinction between private cameras and cameras wielded by authorities in a public place. Authorities have long used video and stills from ATM cameras and from security cameras in "private" commercial businesses in criminal prosecutions. I'm thinking law around that is pretty well settled by now.