public safety exception to Miranda - Page 2

Bilge_Rat · 04-21-13, 11:58 AM

some thoughts:

1. Miranda rights are the purest expression of "judge made" laws that conservatives are always railing about. Yes, the Constitution contains both a right to counsel and a right against self incrimination, but it was the Supreme Court that decided that this meant both a positive duty on the police to advise suspects of their rights and total exclusion of evidence in case of violation of said rights.

That is not to say that the decision is bad, merely that the Warren court chose the interpretation that was the most protective of suspect's rights and most restrictive on police.

Since Miranda, some legal scholars have argued that Miranda went too far and there should be a "good faith" exception where evidence could still be admissible if the violation of the Miranda rights is inadvertent or based on a technicality.

The Quarles decision was seen as an expression of such a "good faith" exception. i.e. a judge made exception to a judge made right. Since then, as can be seen from the FBI article, Courts have been expanding the scope of the "public safety" exception.

2. In the bombing, there are various reasons why law enforcement would want to delay giving the suspect his "Miranda" rights:

a) get more evidence against him. If it falls under the exception, great, if it does not, they only lose that evidence, so no great risk.

b) more likely, get evidence against other suspects. If suspect A reveals that he is in a plot with B and C, the evidence may not be admissible against A, but it would be against B and C.

WernherVonTrapp · 04-21-13, 12:17 PM

I'm not as familiar as I used to be with Federal Law and the State I was an officer in, usually imposes stricter regulations upon law enforcement than the Federal Government does. Anyway, they are allowed to question him w/o advising him of his Miranda Right if the have cause to believe an imminent threat to the public still exists (US v. Ferguson, 11-3806-cr 2nd Cir. 2012). This potential threat is self evident (e.g., potential for unexploded IEDs and/or their location, coconspirators who may be preparing to harm the public, etc.). The key word here is "imminent threat". Now, I believe it goes without saying that, all this information and "just cause" will have to be shown in court during any trail.
Once (and if) the authorities are satisfied that no imminent threat exists, they will probably advise him of his Miranda rights before questioning him any further. They have more than enough physical evidence against him to charge him with several counts of murder, including his own brother's, not to mention the various terrorism related charges.

Still it will be interesting to see how it all unfolds in court once the attorneys get involved.

Ducimus · 05-01-13, 08:25 AM

I wonder. At what point does one cross the line between, not creating extraneous threads by posting in an existing one, and being a thread necro?
Anyway, I was just watching this, and got a good laugh, but it still makes the point.

Wolferz · 05-01-13, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I wonder. At what point does one cross the line between, not creating extraneous threads by posting in an existing one, and being a thread necro?
Anyway, I was just watching this, and got a good laugh, but it still makes the point.

Leave it to the comedians to point out the circus of the absurd that is our talking heads and heads of state.

What the hey, let's just take everyone's rights away and try the case in the public square Ahhh wait, that's what they're doing now. Mob lynching and a pot luck brunch afterward. BYO Rope.

Ducimus · 05-03-13, 05:33 PM

In related news as it pertains to individual rights or liberties, from the sounds of things, ANY phone call you make can be reviewed.

While, I applaud the efforts to get to the bottom of the Boston bombing, I find myself disconcerted at the idea that any and all conversations I have had with spouse or family members can be reviewed by the government, anytime they choose to do so. They say, they only do this for terrorist cases, but who enforces that policy? I doubt there's much in the way of checks and balances or oversight with this. I think there's a line here that is entirely too fine and narrow to be acceptable.

Moral of the story, watch what you say over ANY digital media. Phone or otherwise. ( Insert any Big brother metaphor's or reference's here. )

04-21-13, 11:58 AM	#16
Bilge_Rat Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: standing watch... Posts: 3,856 Downloads: 344 Uploads: 0	some thoughts: 1. Miranda rights are the purest expression of "judge made" laws that conservatives are always railing about. Yes, the Constitution contains both a right to counsel and a right against self incrimination, but it was the Supreme Court that decided that this meant both a positive duty on the police to advise suspects of their rights and total exclusion of evidence in case of violation of said rights. That is not to say that the decision is bad, merely that the Warren court chose the interpretation that was the most protective of suspect's rights and most restrictive on police. Since Miranda, some legal scholars have argued that Miranda went too far and there should be a "good faith" exception where evidence could still be admissible if the violation of the Miranda rights is inadvertent or based on a technicality. The Quarles decision was seen as an expression of such a "good faith" exception. i.e. a judge made exception to a judge made right. Since then, as can be seen from the FBI article, Courts have been expanding the scope of the "public safety" exception. 2. In the bombing, there are various reasons why law enforcement would want to delay giving the suspect his "Miranda" rights: a) get more evidence against him. If it falls under the exception, great, if it does not, they only lose that evidence, so no great risk. b) more likely, get evidence against other suspects. If suspect A reveals that he is in a plot with B and C, the evidence may not be admissible against A, but it would be against B and C. __________________

04-21-13, 12:17 PM	#17
WernherVonTrapp Admiral Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Now, alot farther from NYC. Posts: 2,228 Downloads: 105 Uploads: 0	I'm not as familiar as I used to be with Federal Law and the State I was an officer in, usually imposes stricter regulations upon law enforcement than the Federal Government does. Anyway, they are allowed to question him w/o advising him of his Miranda Right if the have cause to believe an imminent threat to the public still exists (US v. Ferguson, 11-3806-cr 2nd Cir. 2012). This potential threat is self evident (e.g., potential for unexploded IEDs and/or their location, coconspirators who may be preparing to harm the public, etc.). The key word here is "imminent threat". Now, I believe it goes without saying that, all this information and "just cause" will have to be shown in court during any trail. Once (and if) the authorities are satisfied that no imminent threat exists, they will probably advise him of his Miranda rights before questioning him any further. They have more than enough physical evidence against him to charge him with several counts of murder, including his own brother's, not to mention the various terrorism related charges. Still it will be interesting to see how it all unfolds in court once the attorneys get involved. __________________ "The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." -Miyamoto Musashi ------------------------------------------------------- "What is truth?" -Pontius Pilate

05-03-13, 05:33 PM	#20
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	In related news as it pertains to individual rights or liberties, from the sounds of things, ANY phone call you make can be reviewed. While, I applaud the efforts to get to the bottom of the Boston bombing, I find myself disconcerted at the idea that any and all conversations I have had with spouse or family members can be reviewed by the government, anytime they choose to do so. They say, they only do this for terrorist cases, but who enforces that policy? I doubt there's much in the way of checks and balances or oversight with this. I think there's a line here that is entirely too fine and narrow to be acceptable. Moral of the story, watch what you say over ANY digital media. Phone or otherwise. ( Insert any Big brother metaphor's or reference's here. ) Last edited by Ducimus; 05-03-13 at 05:44 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-01-13, 08:25 AM	#18
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	I wonder. At what point does one cross the line between, not creating extraneous threads by posting in an existing one, and being a thread necro? Anyway, I was just watching this, and got a good laugh, but it still makes the point.