"The Public Safety Exception" - WTF?

[BoyNextDoor]

So what the fuck is the "the public safety exception"?

The kid is a fucking pece of shit but he is a citizen, and he has rights.

 

[kbate]

It means in the case of suspected terrorism, the police/military/cia/local thugs/bartender/anyone who captures the suspect is allowed to take them to the basement and beat them with rubber hoses until they tell everthing they know and since it is a national emergency/public safety issue, the miranda warnings do not apply and the information extracted through torture can be used in court.

It's good to be an American.

 

[Dogma52]

Apparently HomeLand Security would beg to differ!

 

[Squibbs]

So what the fuck is the "the public safety exception"?

The kid is a fucking pece of shit but he is a citizen, and he has rights.

He is a domestic terrorist and they're handling him like a foreign one.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

And we have Sen. Lindsey Graham Tweeting that the bomber ought to be "placed in military custody." Presumably as some sort of combatant?

The fucking kid is probably going to get the death penalty - just like Timothy McVeigh. He is a terrorist - just like Timothy McVeigh. Graham is trying to set a very dangerous precedent and should STFU.

 

[Bert Notorius]

in chicago they would have picked him up in a hearse, not an ambulance.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

He is a domestic terrorist and they're handling him like a foreign one.

Agreed.

 

[phrodeau]

He is a domestic terrorist and they're handling him like a foreign one.

Almost true. They are treating him like a terrorist.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

This is worth a read:

Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

 

[zipman]

He is a domestic terrorist and they're handling him like a foreign one.

Agreed and it's a disgrace.

 

[phrodeau]

Agreed and it's a disgrace.

There would be those crowing every bit as much if an exception hadn't been made for him.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

So what the fuck is the "the public safety exception"?

The kid is a fucking pece of shit but he is a citizen, and he has rights.

An excellent article on the FBI’s website (http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/february2011/legal_digest) discusses the “public safety exception to Miranda warnings” in detail. A summary of the key points in that article follows:

The origin of the public safety exception to Miranda, the case of New York v. Quarles, began in the early morning hours of September 11, 1980. While on routine patrol in Queens, New York, two New York City police officers were approached by a young woman who told them that she had just been raped. She described the assailant as a black male, approximately 6 feet tall, wearing a leather jacket with "Big Ben" printed in yellow letters on the back. The woman told the officers that the man had just entered a nearby supermarket and that he was carrying a gun.

The officers drove to the supermarket, and one entered the store while the other radioed for assistance. A man matching the description was near a checkout counter, but upon seeing the officer, ran to the back of the store. The officer pursued the subject, but lost sight of him for several seconds as the individual turned a corner at the end of an aisle. Upon finding the subject, the officer ordered him to stop and to put his hands over his head. As backup personnel arrived, the officer frisked the man and discovered he was wearing an empty shoulder holster. After handcuffing him, the officer asked where the gun was. The man gestured toward empty milk cartons and said, "The gun is over there." The officer found and removed a loaded handgun from a carton, formally placed the man under arrest, and then read the Miranda rights to him. The man waived his rights and answered questions about the ownership of the gun and where it was purchased.

The state of New York charged the man, identified as Benjamin Quarles, for criminal possession of a weapon. The trial court excluded the statement "The gun is over there," as well as the handgun, on the grounds that the officer did not give Quarles the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona. After an appellate court affirmed the decision, the case was appealed to the New York State Court of Appeals.

[The trial court’s exclusion of the statement and the gun was upheld upon two state appellate reviews, whereupon the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.]

The Supreme Court chose to address whether a public safety exception to Miranda should exist. In this regard, the Court held that: "there is a 'public safety' exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect's answers may be admitted into evidence, and the exception does not depend upon the motivation of the individual officers involved." Thus, according to the Court, without regard to the actual motivation of the individual officers, Miranda need not be strictly followed in situations "in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety."

The Court then applied the facts to the situation confronting them when Quarles was arrested. In the course of arresting Quarles, it became apparent that Quarles had removed the handgun and discarded it within the store. While the location of the handgun remained undetermined, it posed a danger to public safety. In this case, the officer needed an answer to the question about the location of the gun to ensure that its concealment in a public location would not endanger the public. The immediate questioning of Quarles was directed specifically at resolving this emergency. Since the questioning of Quarles was prompted by concern for public safety, the officers were not required to provide Miranda warnings to Quarles first. Therefore, the statement made by Quarles about the location of the handgun was admissible. In addition, because the Court found there was no violation of Miranda, the handgun also was admissible. The Court declined to address whether the handgun would have been suppressed if the statements were found to be inadmissible.

FRAMEWORK OF THE EXCEPTION
The Quarles case provides a framework that police officers can use to assess a particular situation, determine whether the exception is available, and ensure that their questioning remains within the scope of the rule. This framework includes the presence of a public safety concern, limited questioning, and voluntariness.

The Supreme Court also held that the public safety concern required a degree of immediacy which further justified temporarily delaying the Miranda rule's self-incrimination advisement.

Thus, in the Boston Marathon bombing, questions to Tsarnaev as to whether he or his brother have planted other bombs within the Boston area that have yet to detonate or whether he knows of other impending terrorist plots targeting other cities or facilities would likely fall within the exception.

General questions about his training or the history of his radicalization would seem to be less relevant to an imminent public safety concern and might well be outside the parameters of the public safety exception.

Finally, it should be noted that the public safety exception is not dependent on whether a suspect will be tried under the UCMJ or civilian criminal law. Since it was born under the latter procedural rules, there is no reason to believe its operation is forbidden under military law.

This is worth a read:

Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

I posted my above response before I knew you had provided this link. Bazelon"s article is an excellent treatment of the subject as well.

 

[trysail]

On February 4th, 2013, Vladimir Putin addressed the Duma and gave a speech about the tensions with minorities in Russia:

"In Russia live Russians. Any minority, from anywhere, if it wants to live in Russia, to work and eat in Russia, should speak Russian, and should respect the Russian laws. If they prefer Sharia Law, then we advise them to go to those places where that's the state law. Russia does not need minorities. Minorities need Russia, and we will not grant them special privileges, or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how loud they yell 'discrimination'. We better learn from the suicides of America, England, Holland and France, if we are to survive as a nation. The Russian customs and traditions are not compatible with the lack of culture or the primitive ways of most minorities. When this honorable legislative body thinks of creating new laws, it should have in mind the national interest first, observing that the minorities are not Russians.

The politicians in the Duma gave Putin a standing ovation for five minutes.

 

[SinCity_Smitty]

Probably because applauding for anything less than 5 minutes meant a one way ticket to Siberia

 

[muffguy]

On February 4th, 2013, Vladimir Putin addressed the Duma and gave a speech about the tensions with minorities in Russia:





The politicians in the Duma gave Putin a standing ovation for five minutes.

they are just a bunch of right wing extremists

 

[BoyNextDoor]

An excellent article on the FBI’s website (http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/february2011/legal_digest) discusses the “public safety exception to Miranda warnings” in detail. A summary of the key points in that article follows:


I posted my above response before I knew you had provided this link. Bazelon"s article is an excellent treatment of the subject as well.

So would you agree that this FBI guidance is outside the framework provided by Quarles? :

"There may be exceptional cases in which, although all relevant public safety questions have been asked, agents nonetheless conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the government's interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation. [4] In these instances, agents should seek SAC approval to proceed with unwarned interrogation after the public safety questioning is concluded. Whenever feasible, the SAC will consult with FBI-HQ (including OGC) and Department of Justice attorneys before granting approval. Presentment of an arrestee may not be delayed simply to continue the interrogation, unless the defendant has timely waived prompt presentment."

 

[Colonel Hogan]

So would you agree that this FBI guidance is outside the framework provided by Quarles? :

"There may be exceptional cases in which, although all relevant public safety questions have been asked, agents nonetheless conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the government's interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation. [4] In these instances, agents should seek SAC approval to proceed with unwarned interrogation after the public safety questioning is concluded. Whenever feasible, the SAC will consult with FBI-HQ (including OGC) and Department of Justice attorneys before granting approval. Presentment of an arrestee may not be delayed simply to continue the interrogation, unless the defendant has timely waived prompt presentment."

Yes, I would agree with you, and the DOJ is crawling out on a legal limb whose weight bearing limit is most uncertain. However...

If I were a prosecutor and felt that I had sufficient evidence to convict you over and above the information you might provide me with in a protracted, non-Mirandized interrogation, I might continue with that interrogation as a calculated risk, knowing that the information you were giving me could not be used in prosecuting you, but might well be useful to prevent some other crime or prosecute some other defendant.

I might also tempt you with a reduction in charges for your cooperation.

But as soon as you started to "confess" to evidence I need to have admitted in YOUR case, I am going to stop you and Mirandize you post haste.

 

[Ishmael]

He is a domestic terrorist and they're handling him like a foreign one.

And we have Sen. Lindsey Graham Tweeting that the bomber ought to be "placed in military custody." Presumably as some sort of combatant?

The fucking kid is probably going to get the death penalty - just like Timothy McVeigh. He is a terrorist - just like Timothy McVeigh. Graham is trying to set a very dangerous precedent and should STFU.

He's a citizen?????

Ishmael

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

I'm sure they're not waterboarding him yet.

 

[jeninflorida]

I'm sure they're not waterboarding him yet.

I remember when obama said "waterboarding" and that Bush was evil. Obama went on talking about how Seal Team 6 was a murder for hire group under direct orders from Bush

funny, how liberals and socialist get high on that obama juice and forget the past as how waterboarding is cool and fun - as obama is all for it

 

[Byron In Exile]

Anyone who lives in the United States and doesn't know their Miranda rights deserves what they get.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I remember when obama said "waterboarding" and that Bush was evil. Obama went on talking about how Seal Team 6 was a murder for hire group under direct orders from Bush

funny, how liberals and socialist get high on that obama juice and forget the past as how waterboarding is cool and fun - as obama is all for it

You apparently remember things that never happened.

 

[KyleW]

I have no problem with the use of this exception. In the case of terrorism there is a danger that 1. other bombs are out there, and 2. other members of the group or those that sent them are out there.

He WILL be read his rights, they can't go forever without mirandizing him. Once they know in good faith that they have gotten any terrorism info out of him, or that they're not getting anything out of him, he will be read his rights.

He has the right to remain silent no matter what. The kid doesn't HAVE to say shit.

 

[Wrong Element]

My main problem with the "public safety exception" is that it's in the eye of the beholder. You give governments opportunities to withhold people's rights, and they will find a way to justify doing just that.

Even if there was a need for such an exception in the immediate of Tsarnaev's arrest, one would have to think that need would be waning with each minute he's unconscious and thus going without being questioned. Any ticking time bombs would have gone off by now.

Just read the kid his rights. There's no way you can force someone to talk if he's bent on not talking, whether he's Mirandized or not. We don't have the ethics of his home country, something I imagine both of us are happy about.

 

[mercury14]

Some thoughts, not sure if they're accurate so maybe the legal experts here can clarify.

- Until he gets Mirandized no evidence he produces is admissible in court.

- Until he gets Mirandized it's possible that evidence he leads them to could be un admissible in court.

- If he's tried in a military court then they'd have to prove he's a combatant of a foreign power that the US is at war with.