Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: No Miranda rights for now for bombing suspect [View all]frazzled
(18,402 posts)32. It's been constitutional since 1980: Public Safety Exemption (New York v. Quarles)
The Miranda rule is not, however, absolute. An exception exists in cases of "public safety". This limited and case-specific exception allows certain unadvised statements (given without Miranda warnings) to be admissible into evidence at trial when they were elicited in circumstances where there was great danger to public safety.[8]
The public safety exception derives from New York v. Quarles, a case in which the Supreme Court considered the admissibility of a statement elicited by a police officer who apprehended a rape suspect who was thought to be carrying a firearm. The arrest took place in a crowded grocery store. When the officer arrested the suspect, he found an empty shoulder holster, handcuffed the suspect, and asked him where the gun was. The suspect nodded in the direction of the gun (which was near some empty cartons) and said, "The gun is over there". The Supreme Court found that such an unadvised statement was admissible in evidence because "n a kaleidoscopic situation such as the one confronting these officers, where spontaneity rather than adherence to a police manual is necessarily the order of the day, the application of the exception we recognize today should not be made to depend on post hoc findings at a suppression hearing concerning the subjective motivation of the police officer".[9] Thus, the jurisprudential rule of Miranda must yield in "a situation where concern for public safety must be paramount to adherence to the literal language of the prophylactic rules enunciated in Miranda". The rule of Miranda is not, therefore, absolute and can be a bit more elastic in cases of public safety.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning#Public_safety_exception
The public safety exception derives from New York v. Quarles, a case in which the Supreme Court considered the admissibility of a statement elicited by a police officer who apprehended a rape suspect who was thought to be carrying a firearm. The arrest took place in a crowded grocery store. When the officer arrested the suspect, he found an empty shoulder holster, handcuffed the suspect, and asked him where the gun was. The suspect nodded in the direction of the gun (which was near some empty cartons) and said, "The gun is over there". The Supreme Court found that such an unadvised statement was admissible in evidence because "n a kaleidoscopic situation such as the one confronting these officers, where spontaneity rather than adherence to a police manual is necessarily the order of the day, the application of the exception we recognize today should not be made to depend on post hoc findings at a suppression hearing concerning the subjective motivation of the police officer".[9] Thus, the jurisprudential rule of Miranda must yield in "a situation where concern for public safety must be paramount to adherence to the literal language of the prophylactic rules enunciated in Miranda". The rule of Miranda is not, therefore, absolute and can be a bit more elastic in cases of public safety.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning#Public_safety_exception
They need to ask him if there are any more IEDs planted, and where; and whether there are any co-conspirators out there. The pre-Miranda period will be limited. And he WILL be tried in a regular court of law, by the Justice Department, not the military. Did you not listen to the President's statement tonight?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
123 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Did Dzhokhar and Tamerlane Tsarnaev care about the Constitutional rights....
LovingA2andMI
Apr 2013
#5
In this case I agree with you. I cried over that little boy....crying right now. n/t
SylviaD
Apr 2013
#122
I feel a wave of patriotism coming over me. Guess I'd better go out and shop!
RufusTFirefly
Apr 2013
#24
Yeah, fuck the Constitutiion! As W said it's just a piece of paper. And, thank Jeebus, our wonderful
kath
Apr 2013
#22
Not unconstitutional at all. The only prohibition is using what was said during custodial
24601
Apr 2013
#4
Propably why the official described the public safety exception and then said, "...and to try
24601
Apr 2013
#75
You are asking TWO questions, use of pre Miranda to impeachment a Witness AND use for other purposes
happyslug
Apr 2013
#87
Would be helpful to know if they were coached in their bomb-making and event planning...
JudyM
Apr 2013
#13
In the interest of neutralizing any imminent threats from others in their group, if there is a group
JudyM
Apr 2013
#123
And Barak Hussein Obama for walking down the same path. It is his fucking call...
Purveyor
Apr 2013
#29
I think you will find extreme exigent circumstances here allowing questioning around other possible
RBInMaine
Apr 2013
#15
It's been constitutional since 1980: Public Safety Exemption (New York v. Quarles)
frazzled
Apr 2013
#32
So basically they need some time to torture him........Obama is no better than bush on civil rights
bowens43
Apr 2013
#35
If that does indeed happen (which I don't think it will), and THEN he gets to have his day in court?
Volaris
Apr 2013
#51
It isn't about that--it's about getting him to talk about where he got his bomb making help.
MADem
Apr 2013
#68
I stand with the administration to make the decisions necessary for public safety.
MOTRDemocrat
Apr 2013
#54