General Discussion

FSogol

(47,626 posts)

14. AFAIK. This came out of a supreme court case where a cop arrested a suspect who had hidden

Fri Apr 19, 2013, 10:13 PM

Apr 2013

his weapon in a supermarket. The cop asked where the gun was and then the gunman's lawyers asked for the case to be thrown out. The supremes said the cop had the right to ask that before miranda-izing (sic?) him since it was for public safety. Sorry, don't remember the name of the case.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

106 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Read him his goddamn Miranda rights. [View all] Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 OP

I agree. Let's just cover all the bases. femmocrat Apr 2013 #1

On MSNBC they said GitRDun Apr 2013 #2

And anything gathered in that 48 hours is potentially inadmissible. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #5

idk GitRDun Apr 2013 #12

How does not reading him the Miranda warning enhance their search for bombs? Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #13

apparently GitRDun Apr 2013 #22

He has to answer questions, or else what? Mariana Apr 2013 #61

He could lawyer up, and remain silent Heather MC Apr 2013 #23

So he could become aware of his rights as an American and choose not to cooperate. That's bad. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #26

Who knows, due process just gets in the way sometimes Heather MC Apr 2013 #33

Due process just gets in the way sometimes? Seriously? Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #36

left out pesky sarcasm tag Heather MC Apr 2013 #40

He can still remain silent. If he asks for a lawyer and he is denied access... Luminous Animal Apr 2013 #27

Thank you. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #30

Well, he is still FREE not to speak. Amonester Apr 2013 #29

Because if he knows of anything set to blow, he can tell. politicat Apr 2013 #44

The person STILL has the right to say nothing. How is this so hard to understand? Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #46

It's the difference between "can" and "may" and has far more to do with evidentiary procedure. politicat Apr 2013 #69

Well, of course... Dorian Gray Apr 2013 #96

So you're saying we should resort to deception? Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #97

How is it deception? Dorian Gray Apr 2013 #98

It's deception if you intentionally withhold informing him of his rights... Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #99

I think you misunderstand... Dorian Gray Apr 2013 #100

No, the exception allows statements to be admissible even if the warning has not been read. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #101

+1, I agree! Logical Apr 2013 #3

The public safety exemption does not last more than 48 hours. FSogol Apr 2013 #4

Please explain to me why such an exemption should apply here. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #7

Him and his brother might have hidden bombs in other places or might have FSogol Apr 2013 #9

And explain to me how that has any connection to the Miranda warning. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #11

See reply #14. Sorry I don't remember the name of the case. n/t FSogol Apr 2013 #15

It's a technicality only. He doesn't have to say a damned thing. But MSNBC says if the helps, it'll freshwest Apr 2013 #73

"Have you planted any more bombs" krawhitham Apr 2013 #16

None of those scenarios apply here. Those revolve around questions asked immediately... Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #25

And are the questions required to be only public safety questions? n-t Logical Apr 2013 #8

AFAIK. This came out of a supreme court case where a cop arrested a suspect who had hidden FSogol Apr 2013 #14

More info krawhitham Apr 2013 #19

Thanks. n/t FSogol Apr 2013 #24

There are no time constraints here. Reading him his rights takes literally seconds. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #20

They might have already asked questions while he was in the boat before he was taken into custody krawhitham Apr 2013 #21

And they can and should use the exception for those questions. Now they should read him the warning. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #28

Except he's probably sedated and on his way to surgery. FSogol Apr 2013 #56

His sedation has nothing to do with the exception argument invoked... Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #60

You don't even understand what Miranda does. Good grief. DevonRex Apr 2013 #59

No, you don't understand Miranda warnings or the rights they express. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #63

LOL. You have no idea to whom DevonRex Apr 2013 #67

I know you don't understand the purpose or power of the warning or rights it expresses. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #68

snicker DevonRex Apr 2013 #82

If you think your appeal to invisible personal authority is going to sway me, you're wrong. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #87

Yes! diabeticman Apr 2013 #6

Wont they just classify him as an "enemy combatant" and not care about his rights? davidn3600 Apr 2013 #10

There's a good chance he will be transported newmember Apr 2013 #80

this is all extralegal datasuspect Apr 2013 #17

Not according to the SCOTUS. Gore1FL Apr 2013 #39

I think he's in worse shape than most realize... zeeland Apr 2013 #18

Miranda readings take a few seconds. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #32

Miranda rights are not in effect for 48 hours Gore1FL Apr 2013 #43

Miranda rights are in effect immediately upon recognition by the suspect. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #45

Take it up with The SCOTUS Gore1FL Apr 2013 #52

I don't think you undertand what you're posting. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #55

Perhaps I understand, perhaps I do not Gore1FL Apr 2013 #62

Point being... zeeland Apr 2013 #90

He may not be in good enough HappyMe Apr 2013 #31

That is not a good excuse to not read him his rights. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #34

reading him his rights is not good enough, he has to understand them krawhitham Apr 2013 #37

So if he is barely HappyMe Apr 2013 #38

If he's not in good enough shape to understand them, then you haven't read him his rights. jeff47 Apr 2013 #77

So that is a separate argument against the effectiveness, not against allowing his rights to be read Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #79

No, it really isn't. jeff47 Apr 2013 #84

They are absolutely separate arguments. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #86

Which part of "suspect must understand" do you not understand? jeff47 Apr 2013 #89

Maybe he is going to die or close to it krawhitham Apr 2013 #35

Not an excuse to not read him his rights. Takes a few seconds. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #41

reading him his rights is not good enough, he has to understand them krawhitham Apr 2013 #49

Yes, and let the courts decide if he was aware of them in the future. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #51

If they do, and he does not acknowledge he understands they can not ask him anything else krawhitham Apr 2013 #54

Where are you getting this "information?" Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #58

Google is your friend krawhitham Apr 2013 #72

If they read him his rights HappyMe Apr 2013 #64

I'm saying that it is prudent and just to read him his rights even if he might not understand. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #66

I'm pretty sure they don't HappyMe Apr 2013 #71

No it is worse krawhitham Apr 2013 #74

It could just as easily be argued that he was not in the right mind to understand... Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #76

That is the "beauty" of the exemption, it does not matter what he understands krawhitham Apr 2013 #81

That's not the purpose of the exemption. It's not there to sneak around his rights... Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #83

Black president and Black AG deny white man constitutional rights HereSince1628 Apr 2013 #42

OBAMA BAD BAD BAD!!!! I knew that it would be a matter of time before someone blamed Liberal_Stalwart71 Apr 2013 #47

I didn't say that did I? I said it's a gift to White Supremacists. HereSince1628 Apr 2013 #48

what an insanely dense post chillfactor Apr 2013 #50

Hey, I get that this challenges the dominant narrative that a terrorist HereSince1628 Apr 2013 #53

Maybe, but I think they know what they're doing ecstatic Apr 2013 #57

Under Yoo woo memos Obama can do ANYTHING as CIC HereSince1628 Apr 2013 #65

Jeff Toobin CNN said Miranda warnings are moot bc they don't need ZRT2209 Apr 2013 #70

Please, give the Boston cops some credit. They obviously know what they are doing. nt Zorra Apr 2013 #75

Never give authority benefit of the doubt when it comes to individual rights. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #78

Inadmissible evidence like "where are the other bombs?" bhikkhu Apr 2013 #85

No, the exception is for questions asked before the warning because of practical restrictions. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #88

You're welcome to your opinion. The one that matters (SCOTUS) says they've got 48 hours. (nt) jeff47 Apr 2013 #91

I happen to think SCOTUS made the wrong choice. Not that that's rare or anything. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #93

There is a procedure in place that allows for 48 hours. randome Apr 2013 #92

As stated upthread, the unconscious argument is separate. If he isn't awake, wait for him to wake up Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #94

Agreed. I've been bitching about this for an hour! Fawke Em Apr 2013 #95

They (not all but too many) watch damn Die-Hard flicks and just love the thrills. Amonester Apr 2013 #102

I don't grieve for Dzhokar Yo_Mama Apr 2013 #105

Your points don't make sense Yo_Mama Apr 2013 #103

I don't think they HAVE to read him his rights, only if kudzu22 Apr 2013 #104

Exactly. Blue_In_AK Apr 2013 #106