Quote:
Originally Posted by Platapus
My opinion is that if this case is reviewed by the Supreme Court, that the Public Safety Exclusion to Miranda will be judged not applicable in this case.
1. There was no probable cause to presume that there was an imminent threat to public safety. Unlike in U.S. v. Khalil (2000), there was no evidence that there were additional IEDs. Using the fear of additional IEDs to invoke the exclusion should not be allowed. If it were, then it could be applied to any crime where violence is involved. There needs to be some probable cause, as there was in U.S. v. Khalil.
2. There is no indication that there are any living accomplices to this crime. Invoking the exclusion based on the fear that there *might* be an unknown accomplice that *could* commit further acts of violence should not be allowed. If it were, it could be applied to any crime where the police don't know if there is an unknown accomplice.
3. The judicial intent of the exclusion is to mitigate immediate and local threats. Not threats that may occur in distant places at some unknown time in the future. The court cases where the exclusion has been applied all pertained to immediate (temporal) or local (locational) threats of a short duration/limited area. I do not believe the judicial intention of the exclusion was ever intended to be applied to interrogations taken place several days after the arrest. In U.S. v. Khalil, the case that most closely resembles the Boston incident, the exclusion interrogation occurred within hours of the arrest, but in a different location (hospital).
This could be a landmark case. The Public Safety Exclusion to Miranda has always been contentious, but the authorities have used it with restraint. The exclusion has its purpose, but it should not be casually expanded without restraint.
|
This may be the case that makes or breaks this exclusion, but regarding your points, it's speculation. I would think any time there is a mass attack on the civilian population, this exclusion would be in place.
What will be interesting, as in this case, the terrorist can't talk due to injury. I think the time limit of interrogation will be tested.