Miranda Exception: "Voluntariness is the linchpin of the admissibility".
Got up and saw that the Miranda exception was still a hot topic at DU.
I Googled the subject and was surprised that the FBI page was at the top of the list.
Further surprised to find that their page on the exception was so good
It includes detailed information about Miranda like this:
The strength of the Miranda decision is its clarity in its nearly unwavering protection of a suspect's Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination. The commitment to this rule is so strong that the Supreme Court has recognized only one exception to the Miranda rulethe "public safety" exceptionwhich permits law enforcement to engage in a limited and focused unwarned interrogation and allows the government to introduce the statement as direct evidence.
It then details the reason for the exception and how and why it should be used, and this important detail about how it cannot be used. I think most people at DU will find the entire article one of today's best "Good Reads".
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/february2011/legal_digest
Voluntariness
Voluntariness is the linchpin of the admissibility of any statement obtained as a result of government conduct.43 Thus, statements obtained by the government under the public safety exception cannot be coerced or obtained through tactics that violate fundamental notions of due process.44 Here, it is worth mentioning that prior to the Miranda decision, the only test used to determine the admissibility of statements in federal court was whether the statement was voluntarily made within the requirements of the due process clause.45 This test requires that a court review the "totality of the circumstances" to determine whether the subject's will was overborne by police conduct. If a court finds that the questioning of a subject, even in the presence of a situation involving public safety, violated due process standards, the statement will be suppressed.46
dballance
(5,756 posts)Since the state police colonel, the governor and the mayor have all said they believe these were the only two individuals involved in the bombings and they also said there was no other immediate threat (on national TV) - then aren't they blowing away any reason for the public safety exception?
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Once the questions turn from those designed to resolve the concern for safety to questions designed solely to elicit incriminating statements, the questioning falls outside the scope of the exception and within the traditional rules of Miranda.
The exception is limited to time, immediacy, voluntariness, need and scope.
If it is beyond the immediate arrest, not voluntary, not necessary and goes beyond imminent threat, it falls outside the exception.
dballance
(5,756 posts)I obviously wasn't really clear in my post #1 on this thread. What I meant was, why was it used in the first place when all those government agents were saying, coincident with the arrest, that the danger was over?
elleng
(130,126 posts)As to need/immediacy, etc., as there's possibility that other bombs, ieds etc are around, seems that's a good public policy reason to get him to talk now.