General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I dare you to read this. [View all]Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)The Miranda warning is just about ensuring that the suspect knows that he has rights against self-incrimination, as granted in the Constitution.
The police have always retained the right to question a suspect in custody without reading him/her the Miranda warning, but the constitutional protection is that statements a suspect makes, and evidence derived from those statements, are almost certainly not going to be admissible in a court of law.
The minimal Miranda warning tells the suspect that he/she may remain silent, that if he/she says anything it may be used against him/her in court, that the suspect has the right to speak with an attorney, and that the suspect has the right to have an attorney present during questioning.
Well, the cops have a mixed interest in some cases. They want to get information to protect the public against further repercussions, which may include questioning the suspect about other perpetrators, and they want to fully document the case and generate the evidence which can be used to prosecute the suspect. A lawyer's interest in our constitutional system is sole - it is directed toward protecting the suspect's rights. Therefore the cops may choose to ask some questions without the Miranda warning in order to develop a wider case.
The public safety exception is quite limited, but it does allow police to ask certain immediate questions in order to forestall possible additional danger to others AND permits the prosecution later to introduce such statements or evidence produced by such statements in court.