31–40 of 270 posts
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
It's just another example of how far our nation has fallen in a relatively short period of time.
I've heard of this "public safety exception" before: In 1941 Adolf Hitler ordered a directive intended to suppress members of the resistance. It was called Nacht und Nebel ("Night and Fog"). People suspected of "offenses against the Reich" would disappear without any trace. Who could be considered suspect? "anyone endangering German security" (die deutsche Sicherheit gefährden).
The public safety exception is a very specific exception. Let's say you're a cop who just caught a guy who has rigged a building with bombs and you ask him where the bombs are and how to disarm them. If he tells you and incriminates himself before being mirandized that's still kosher. That's the public safety exception. Period.
If you ask him "why did you do this", and you haven't mirandized him yet and he confesses right then but recants later, you dun fucked up.
This article is ridiculous. It starts with the assertion "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will not hear his Miranda rights before the FBI questions him Friday night." How do we or the author know this, is he assuming this is common practice, has FBI mentioned that they won't read him Miranda? Second, I was expecting him to mention a case where the police or FBI didn't read the rights to what turned out to be a non-threat/wrong acc…
What I'm more curious about is whether or not he still has those rights even if they weren't read to him. I would assume he does no?
Discussing the similar case of Faisal Shahzad, who attempted to bomb Times Square, Orin Kerr, a law professor who is an expert on the 4th Amendment wrote:
"Importantly, though, it would not have violated Shahzad’s constitutional rights to not read him his Miranda rights. A lot of people assume that the police are required to read a suspect his rights when he is arrested. That is, they assume that one of a person’s rights is the right to be read their rights. It often happens that way on Law & Order, but that’s not what the law actually requires. Under Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003), it is lawful for the police to not read a suspect his Miranda rights, interrogate him, and then obtain a statement that would be inadmissible in court. Chavez holds that a person’s constitutional rights are violated only if the prosecution tries to have the statement admitted in court. See id. at 772-73. Indeed, the prosecution is even allowed to admit any physical evidence discovered as a fruit of the statement obtained in violation of Miranda — only the actual statement is excluded. See United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004). So while it may sound weird, it turns out that obtaining a statement outside Miranda but not admitting it in court is lawful."
Oops, link: http://www.volokh.com/2010/05/05/shahzad-and-miranda-rights/
I've heard of this "public safety exception" before: In 1941 Adolf Hitler ordered a directive intended to suppress members of the resistance. It was called Nacht und Nebel ("Night and Fog"). People suspected of "offenses against the Reich" would disappear without any trace. Who could be considered suspect? "anyone endangering German security" (die deutsche Sicherheit gefährden).
This is a bullshit comparison. The public safety exception is a very specific exception. Let's say you're a cop who just caught a guy who has rigged a building with bombs and you ask him where the bombs are and how to disarm them. If he tells you and incriminates himself before being mirandized that's still kosher. That's the public safety exception. Period. If you ask him "why did you do this", and you haven't miran…
I guess all rights can have restrictions in this country except gun ownership.
Several Senators have insisted he should NOT be mirandized a couple days after voting down background-checks for all gun sales. I don't understand how they can not implode from their lack of consistency.
This article is ridiculous. It starts with the assertion "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will not hear his Miranda rights before the FBI questions him Friday night." How do we or the author know this, is he assuming this is common practice, has FBI mentioned that they won't read him Miranda? Second, I was expecting him to mention a case where the police or FBI didn't read the rights to what turned out to be a non-threat/wrong acc…
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/20/us/boston-marathon-bombing...