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."25 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."26
The Quarles Court made clear that only those questions necessary for the police "to secure their own safety or the safety of the public" were permitted under the public safety exception.
Originally posted by PhysicsAlive
reply to post by benrl
Yes, I understand this and believe me I am torn. However, my main concern is that this "exception" could be abused to allow for extreme and unusual questioning of Tsarnaev under physical and/or psychological duress, without any legal protection for him.
Honestly, I don't know what the right thing is for the feds to do in this case. I started this post because I thought a healthy debate on this topic is appropriate.
A part of me feels that they should in fact question him "under duress" without any protection in order to get whatever information they can, in case they find out info that there might be other attacks coming, or info on bombs that were planted that they haven't discovered yet. However, he is severely injured and even if they aren't "actively" torturing him, etc - if they are questioning him while he is still in a severely injured state, and probably pumped full of all kinds of painkillers and who knows what other drugs in the hospital, this seems to me to be a violation of our basic laws around interrogation.
One question to ask is whether any information he has to give under such duress will be more valuable than protecting our basic freedoms as a highly civilized country, if we violate such freedoms by questioning him in this condition.
The Fifth Amendment provides that "[n]o person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."15 The Fifth Amendment "does not prohibit all incriminating admissions," only those that are "officially coerced selfaccusations…." 16 In Miranda, the Supreme Court "for the first time extended the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination to individuals subjected to custodial interrogation by the police."17 Thus, Miranda created a presumption that "interrogation in custodial circumstances is inherently coercive" and that statements obtained under those circumstances "are inadmissible unless the subject is specifically informed of his Miranda rights and freely decides to forgo those rights."18 Importantly, the Court noted that Miranda warnings were not required by the Constitution, but were prophylactic measures designed to provide protection for the Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination. 19 After providing this explanation of the relationship between the Fifth Amendment and Miranda, the Court explained that Quarles did not claim that his statements were "actually compelled by police conduct which overcame his will to resist."20 Had police officers obtained an involuntary or coerced statement from Quarles in violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, both the statement and the handgun would have been suppressed. 21 And, in this regard, the Court explained that the failure to administer Miranda warnings does not, standing alone, make a confession involuntary in violation of the Constitution.
Originally posted by Tindalos2013
reply to post by PhysicsAlive
I'm sure this kind of thing has been done before, at least in america - seems right and makes me wonder how good our memories are. All the main percentage of MSM is to condition and distort perspective on a constant basis. Sometimes there is a lull but only because the next scene is being set up, fated or not. Suffering sells their approval and the audience claps.edit on 20-4-2013 by Tindalos2013 because: missed typing an 's'
Originally posted by FlyersFan
I didn't know that there was such an exemption.
I have to say .. when I first heard about it this morning, it made me uneasy.
I understand having to find all this guys bombs and such to make things immediately safe.
And I understand that we are at war with terrorists and that he's got helpful info that we need.
But is this guy an enemy combatant or is he an American citizen with Constitutional rights?
Which is it? It's got to be one or the other, right?
I dunno ....
Originally posted by FidelityMusic
NDAA, he's probably already dead.
Originally posted by Thunderheart
Could they have also done this so he doesn't
"lawyer up" before they have a chance to question (torture) him?
queue ACLU in 3...2...1..
Had police officers obtained an involuntary or coerced statement from Quarles in violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, both the statement and the handgun would have been suppressed