public safety exception to Miranda

Platapus · 04-20-13, 08:28 PM

I am starting a new thread so that the other Boston incident thread does not get derailed.

There is, and will continue to be controversy, concerning the decision to not issue Dzhokar Tsarnaev, a US Citizen, his rights against involuntary self-incrimination, more commonly called his Miranda rights.

The authorities who are choosing not to issue him his Miranda rights are invoking what is called the Public Safety Exception to Miranda. It is quite possible that people here may never have heard of this exception, but it has been valid since 1984 in New York v. Quarles.

The FBI has published a nice article that discusses the Public Safety Exception to Miranda. If anyone is interested in discussing this controversial topic, this article will serve nicely as a baseline understanding.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/pu...1/legal_digest

And for geeks like me who actually like to read SCotUS opinions:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...s/467/649.html

Platapus · 04-20-13, 08:41 PM

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.

frau kaleun · 04-20-13, 08:57 PM

I'm completely unfamiliar with the legal precedents and reasoning behind the decision but FWIW I got a squicky feeling when I heard the report that they were considering not Mirandizing him after taking him into custody. Just on general principles it makes me uncomfortable, besides which if there's any chance that not having done so would lead to an otherwise "clean" conviction being tossed aside on a technicality... I wouldn't like that at all. I say, why take the chance, go by the book right down to the last bit of fine print so there is no doubt that every proper procedure was followed and nothing can be called into question somewhere down the road.

Platapus · 04-20-13, 09:09 PM

Smart criminal investigators will arrange a different investigator to conduct all the interrogations, while other investigators go out and investigate the case.

The records are kept separate. Then if any of the interrogation is ruled inadmissible, the fact that the field investigators did not have access to it, will make it easier to have the field evidence admissible. Often Law Enforcement does not have that luxury.

The bottom line is that anything recovered during an interrogation before Miranda warnings has been issued is generally ruled inadmissible as direct evidence. Very special cases of res gestae are some of the exemptions.

If you can get a conviction without using any non-mirandized evidence, then the fact that you did not mirandize a defendant is not a problem. You only need to issue Miranda warnings when you intend to use statements during interrogation as evidence in the case.

Sneaky prosecutors have tried to take advantage of this, but usually it backfires upon appeal.

In this case, perhaps there is no intention to ever formally take this individual to trial. Unfortunately, under the current legal situation, there may be venues to simply throw this US Citizen in a military prison and claim that he is an "enemy combatant". In that case, Miranda goes out the door.

This is why I strongly oppose classifying US Citizens as "enemy combatants" for the purpose of imprisoning them without a trial.

This guy may be a scumbag, and probably is. But as a US Citizen, he still has his constitutional rights even though we may hate his guts.

ETR3(SS) · 04-20-13, 10:09 PM

BINGO! I'm glad in all this hatred and quick judgment I'm not the only one that went "wait a sec..wtf?" I made a couple comments on FB about it and was quickly flamed as a liberal supporting a muslim president.

swamprat69er · 04-20-13, 11:18 PM

Let me ask this; The authorities don't read him his rights, what happens if he shuts up and doesn't say anything at all. No name, no address, nothing at all. What can they do? Certainly not beat it out of him.

I'm just asking, that's all.

em2nought · 04-20-13, 11:21 PM

Maybe they just wanted a reason to send him back to Putin.

GoldenRivet · 04-21-13, 01:16 AM

There *was* an imminent threat to public safety and the clause *is* applicable in this case.

Why?

The authorities had to ensure that he is not part of a larger cell or that additional bombings or attacks were not in the works or already in place hidden elsewhere that had yet to be discovered.

Betonov · 04-21-13, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by em2nought

Maybe they just wanted a reason to send him back to Putin.

Now thats worse than waterboarding

Schroeder · 04-21-13, 04:34 AM

This can become a very slippery slope....

Oberon · 04-21-13, 04:45 AM

They really have to do things as by the book as possible here, the last thing you want to happen is for the proceedings to be mucked up because someone didn't dot their i or cross their t, the general public will be annoyed at the money that will be spent on this case anyway, so any more that's spent through delays is just going to inflame public opinion.

Jimbuna · 04-21-13, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

There *was* an imminent threat to public safety and the clause *is* applicable in this case.

Why?

The authorities had to ensure that he is not part of a larger cell or that additional bombings or attacks were not in the works or already in place hidden elsewhere that had yet to be discovered.

Well that is my initial understanding.

Ducimus · 04-21-13, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

This is why I strongly oppose classifying US Citizens as "enemy combatants" for the purpose of imprisoning them without a trial.

This guy may be a scumbag, and probably is. But as a US Citizen, he still has his constitutional rights even though we may hate his guts.

Same here. Reclassifying US citizens (scumbag though they may be), is a scary thing. This goes hand in hand with "politics of fear" and the ever increasing erosion of our civil rights.

While I personally would love nothing more then to kick the scumbag's teeth in with an old steel toe work boot, he is a citizen, and as thus is entitled by right, to due process. Just because we my hate the guys guts, doesn't change that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schroeder

This can become a very slippery slope....

Indeed.

As an aside, there's already a couple videos on this issue. That talk about this very issue.

I've posted this guys videos on the gun rights issue. Again, he makes a good point.

I found this gal awhile ago on youtube. She makes a point, but has fun doing it.

Oh yeah. I've definately turned Libertarian. Then again, maybe I always was but didn't realize it. Meh. Anway, my final thought on this subject:

the constitution and the bill of rights is the supreme law of the land, it is the very framework upon which our country is built. As such it trumps anything our politicians want or say. We can't just pick and choose which parts we like and discard the parts we don't. We have to abide by it 100%, else our entire framework looses integrity, and things goes spiraling downward the slippery slope out of control. Or, In metaphor, If America was likened to a building that was severely damaged by disaster, you don't go about trying to repair the building by cutting away at it's structural support with a torch or beating on it with a sledgehammer. We want to save and repair the building, not make it fall down.

Armistead · 04-21-13, 11:08 AM

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.

Stealhead · 04-21-13, 11:48 AM

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.

I agree especially with #2 if they do this once it basically allows them to do it again under nearly any circumstance where violence occurred or is possible.

I see this as a very slippery slope.

When you allow the government to openly choose when to make exceptions to the law of the land you are asking for trouble.Anyone that trusts they will only do it under the "correct" circumstances is foolish.

04-20-13, 08:28 PM	#1
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,360 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	public safety exception to Miranda I am starting a new thread so that the other Boston incident thread does not get derailed. There is, and will continue to be controversy, concerning the decision to not issue Dzhokar Tsarnaev, a US Citizen, his rights against involuntary self-incrimination, more commonly called his Miranda rights. The authorities who are choosing not to issue him his Miranda rights are invoking what is called the Public Safety Exception to Miranda. It is quite possible that people here may never have heard of this exception, but it has been valid since 1984 in New York v. Quarles. The FBI has published a nice article that discusses the Public Safety Exception to Miranda. If anyone is interested in discussing this controversial topic, this article will serve nicely as a baseline understanding. http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/pu...1/legal_digest And for geeks like me who actually like to read SCotUS opinions: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...s/467/649.html __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

04-20-13, 09:09 PM	#4
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,360 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	Smart criminal investigators will arrange a different investigator to conduct all the interrogations, while other investigators go out and investigate the case. The records are kept separate. Then if any of the interrogation is ruled inadmissible, the fact that the field investigators did not have access to it, will make it easier to have the field evidence admissible. Often Law Enforcement does not have that luxury. The bottom line is that anything recovered during an interrogation before Miranda warnings has been issued is generally ruled inadmissible as direct evidence. Very special cases of res gestae are some of the exemptions. If you can get a conviction without using any non-mirandized evidence, then the fact that you did not mirandize a defendant is not a problem. You only need to issue Miranda warnings when you intend to use statements during interrogation as evidence in the case. Sneaky prosecutors have tried to take advantage of this, but usually it backfires upon appeal. In this case, perhaps there is no intention to ever formally take this individual to trial. Unfortunately, under the current legal situation, there may be venues to simply throw this US Citizen in a military prison and claim that he is an "enemy combatant". In that case, Miranda goes out the door. This is why I strongly oppose classifying US Citizens as "enemy combatants" for the purpose of imprisoning them without a trial. This guy may be a scumbag, and probably is. But as a US Citizen, he still has his constitutional rights even though we may hate his guts. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

04-20-13, 10:09 PM	#5
ETR3(SS) Ocean Warrior Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Between test depth and periscope depth Posts: 3,021 Downloads: 175 Uploads: 16	BINGO! I'm glad in all this hatred and quick judgment I'm not the only one that went "wait a sec..wtf?" I made a couple comments on FB about it and was quickly flamed as a liberal supporting a muslim president. __________________ USS Kentucky SSBN 737 (G) Comms Div 2003-2006 Qualified 19 November 03 Yes I was really on a submarine.

04-20-13, 11:18 PM	#6
swamprat69er Aceydeucy Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ontario,Canada Posts: 1,889 Downloads: 11 Uploads: 0	Let me ask this; The authorities don't read him his rights, what happens if he shuts up and doesn't say anything at all. No name, no address, nothing at all. What can they do? Certainly not beat it out of him. I'm just asking, that's all. __________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ That which does not kill us, makes us stronger. We the willing, led by the unsure, have done so much with so little, for so long, that we are now qualified to do anything with nothing.

04-20-13, 11:21 PM	#7
em2nought Ocean Warrior Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 3,485 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Maybe they just wanted a reason to send him back to Putin. __________________ em2nought is ecstatic garbage!

04-20-13, 08:41 PM	#2
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,360 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

04-20-13, 08:57 PM	#3
frau kaleun Rear Admiral Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Skyri--oh who are we kidding, I'm probably at Lowe's. Again. Posts: 12,706 Downloads: 168 Uploads: 0	I'm completely unfamiliar with the legal precedents and reasoning behind the decision but FWIW I got a squicky feeling when I heard the report that they were considering not Mirandizing him after taking him into custody. Just on general principles it makes me uncomfortable, besides which if there's any chance that not having done so would lead to an otherwise "clean" conviction being tossed aside on a technicality... I wouldn't like that at all. I say, why take the chance, go by the book right down to the last bit of fine print so there is no doubt that every proper procedure was followed and nothing can be called into question somewhere down the road.

04-21-13, 01:16 AM	#8
GoldenRivet Subsim Aviator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 8,726 Downloads: 146 Uploads: 0	There was an imminent threat to public safety and the clause is applicable in this case. Why? The authorities had to ensure that he is not part of a larger cell or that additional bombings or attacks were not in the works or already in place hidden elsewhere that had yet to be discovered. __________________

04-21-13, 04:34 AM	#10
Schroeder Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Banana Republic of Germany Posts: 6,170 Downloads: 62 Uploads: 0	This can become a very slippery slope.... __________________ Putting Germ back into Germany.

04-21-13, 04:45 AM	#11
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	They really have to do things as by the book as possible here, the last thing you want to happen is for the proceedings to be mucked up because someone didn't dot their i or cross their t, the general public will be annoyed at the money that will be spent on this case anyway, so any more that's spent through delays is just going to inflame public opinion.