Earlier quoted context omitted.
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'm not comparing the Nazi party to our own government. I'm simply giving an example of how easily the term "anyone endangering [country name]'s security" can be abused.
Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?
121–130 of 270 posts
Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?
#122This 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…
From the front page of the new york times: "A federal law enforcement official said he would not be read his Miranda rights, because the authorities would be invoking the public safety exception in order to question him extensively about other potential explosive devices or accomplices and to try to gain intelligence." http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/20/us/boston-marathon-bombing...
And the police will win the case _anyway_ because we got so much evidence on this guy they can win the case in their sleep. So it all won't matter in the long run.
Thats the good thing about the courts. The Police don't decide whether or not they're exercising the Public Safety Exception... the courts do.
Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?
#123You shouldn't care. Because not reading someone under arrest the Miranda warning is constitutionally irrelevant in and of itself. It only acquires relevance if the government seeks to have the statements admitted at trial. 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 vi…
Being read your Miranda rights also serves as an explicit acknowledgement by the state that you have those rights. Most of the time, this isn't really important, but in this case it would have served a very important purpose. The Bush administration systematically created a legal netherworld for people they captured on suspicion of terrorism -- people usually referred to as "enemy combatants". They weren't arrested p…
Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
The public safety exception seems to be for when a Miranda warning would be impractical: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning#Public_safety_... I'm not sure if having a reasonable opportunity to read someone their rights, then choosing not to, is in the spirit of the public safety exception. Public danger alone can't be the reason, since the whole reason for criminal law in the first place is to protect the…
Since this is the first time I can remember hearing of law enforcement announce that Miranda was not given tells me that he's already said something and they're just getting ahead of the cycle by putting the rationale out there.
Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?
#125Because lawmakers are terrified of proper process under our legal system, really says a lot (remember most Senators are lawyers). 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.
Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what's the "public safety exception" about then? We're starting from the position that, absent a public safety concern, the defendant's right to know his rights is greater than the law enforcement interest in not encouraging the defendant to exercise them, and if the cops don't read the Miranda rights then the statements aren't admissible. Now throw in a public safety issue -- the cops have to interrogate this guy…
The public safety exception strikes me as equivalent to the enemy combatant exception - a way to just skirt civil liberties when it seems relevant.
Bear in mind that for his trial (if he doesn't plead guilty) they'll have victim witness testimony from a person who says he saw the suspect perform a bag drop shortly before the bag exploded and blew his legs off; abundant photographic evidence, with probably more to come; whatever forensic evidence they found at the brothers' shared home; and all sorts of other information gathered in the days before he was found and captured. There'll be camera footage from the 7-11 that they held up, testimony from the person they carjacked (to whom they apparently admitted that they were the bombers), forensic evidence from the car, vast amounts of ballistics evidence...I could go on and on.
There is no way that his conviction is going to be pendant on what he says before being mirandized, and the public safety exception is about as justified here as it could ever possibly be - far more so than that in Quarles. That was a guy who allegedly had had a gun and was wearing an empty holster when caught. True, abandoned guns can be dangerous. A bumper variety pack of bombs, which it appears this suspect had and employed on multiple occasions in the last few days, presents a substantially greater risk to public safety.
Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being read your Miranda rights also serves as an explicit acknowledgement by the state that you have those rights. Most of the time, this isn't really important, but in this case it would have served a very important purpose. The Bush administration systematically created a legal netherworld for people they captured on suspicion of terrorism -- people usually referred to as "enemy combatants". They weren't arrested p…
That's some really twisted mental gymnastics there. Torture is bad, because it's torture. It doesn't matter if you're a criminal or a human-monkey. How can they get away with it for so long? At least they didn't say torture is legal "because he's not a white guy", but their logic here is not that far off from that.
Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?
#128Because lawmakers are terrified of proper process under our legal system, really says a lot (remember most Senators are lawyers). 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.
Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?
#129You shouldn't care. Because not reading someone under arrest the Miranda warning is constitutionally irrelevant in and of itself. It only acquires relevance if the government seeks to have the statements admitted at trial. 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 vi…
It only seems weird if you think of Miranda (and various other procedural protections) as a "gotcha" to hinder police efforts, instead of what it is: a way to keep people ignorant of their 5th amendment rights from incriminating themselves. That's the alpha and the omega of Miranda. It's not a search and seizure protection at all, which is why evidence obtained as a result of a Miranda-less interrogation is nonethele…
| which is why evidence obtained as a result of
| a Miranda-less interrogation is nonetheless
| admissible
I don't know. I think that it seems reasonable that if statements obtained by police from a Miranda-less interrogation are inadmissible, then evidence that is a direct result of those statements should be to. The statements and the evidence that is linked to them seem like they are all part of the same package. The only exception I can see here is if there is a reasonable/convincing argument that police would have obtained the evidence eventually without the aid of the suspect's statements.Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's some really twisted mental gymnastics there. Torture is bad, because it's torture. It doesn't matter if you're a criminal or a human-monkey. How can they get away with it for so long? At least they didn't say torture is legal "because he's not a white guy", but their logic here is not that far off from that.
They are also getting away with it because the torture isn't of the "strap electrodes to his genitals" variety, which most people would immediately reject. Stuff like "loud music," "putting a holy book in a toilet," or "make him think he's drowning," don't evoke the same sort of immediate reaction. If the administration were openly performing at "Inquisition" levels of torture, there would be massive public outcry.