6 ms·

Jesus people. Read about what the "public safety exception" actually is before going all police-state-paranoid. If the FBI or police try to misuse or abuse the

Jesus people. Read about what the "public safety exception" actually is before going all police-state-paranoid. If the FBI or police try to misuse or abuse the public safety exception to attempt to get Tsarnaev to incriminate himself then they are going to have some fun times in court and get their asses handed to them. I'm skeptical that that's what's happening. I'm also skeptical that he's not been read his rights before being interrogated. Let's keep our heads on straight and avoid operating on incomplete data.

ghayes 14y ago
"Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will not hear his Miranda rights before the FBI questions him Friday night" [id.] This implies he'll be going through a potentially long interrogation with the FBI that may be admittable as evidence, without having been given a Miranda warning. There is definitely something about this application of the "public safety exception", and the stare decisis discussed in the article, that gives cause for concern. We generally prefer citizens to know of their fifth amendment protections prior to a custodial interrogation. The fact he was in possession of a weapon or other armaments in his person should not defeat this aim.
- cube13 14y ago
  >This implies he'll be going through a potentially long interrogation with the FBI that may be admittable as evidence, without having been given a Miranda warning. Any statements before the Miranda warning are inadmissable in court: http://www.volokh.com/2010/05/05/shahzad-and-miranda-rights/ http://www.volokh.com/2010/05/05/shahzad-and-miranda-rights/
  - ghayes 14y ago
    "if the defendant is in possession of information regarding ... exigent circumstances which require protection of the public, the defendant may be questioned without warning and his responses, though incriminating, will be admissible in evidence"[1] The public safety exception allows for some latitude for police to gather admissible information prior to giving a miranda warning. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona
    - eropple 14y ago
      This is correct. However, as I understand it, a defense attorney can throw holy hell to prevent the admission of such statements in court and has a decent chance of winning. They don't need him to say a word to convict him of a staggering number and severity of crimes. I would be surprised if they even bother trying to admit as evidence anything he says during interrogation, and after chatting with a couple of con-law lawyers who all concurred I feel that's a pretty fair guess.
  - jellicle 14y ago
    > Any statements before the Miranda warning are inadmissable in court: That is completely false, and suggests you haven't read anything in this entire thread discussing these issues, including the link you link to.
- JoeAltmaier 14y ago
  Lets remember, this guys is just one guy. They have enough on him to put him away for life, even should he say nothing, ever. Public safety is involved because, lets see, millions of people were locked in their homes, a public curfew was in effect, the dead were piling up, and no one knew how many more bombs or co-conspirators were still at large. They have a duty to learn the full extent of the terrorism, and protect the public, First. Then, worry about prosecuting this one guy's sorry ass.
axus 14y ago
Why even have an exception? Surely public safety is more important than trying to add a confession to all of the other evidence. The exception seems like something that could be abused in other cases. I'd go further, and say that no statements made by an accused person should be admissible in court. That way, you don't give any incentives for coercion.
- e12e 14y ago
  I recommend this Guardian comment on the same subject: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/20/boston-marathon-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-mirnada-rights http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/20/boston-m... I don't think refusing the accused a voice would really help the investigation of most cases, nor the course of justice. But the path the US (and allies, such as Great Britain) have started down is a very dark one.

ghayes 14y ago

"Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will not hear his Miranda rights before the FBI questions him Friday night" [id.] This implies he'll be going through a potentially long interrogation with the FBI that may be admittable as evidence, without having been given a Miranda warning. There is definitely something about this application of the "public safety exception", and the stare decisis discussed in the article, that gives cause for concern. We generally prefer citizens to know of their fifth amendment protections prior to a custodial interrogation. The fact he was in possession of a weapon or other armaments in his person should not defeat this aim.

cube13 14y ago
>This implies he'll be going through a potentially long interrogation with the FBI that may be admittable as evidence, without having been given a Miranda warning. Any statements before the Miranda warning are inadmissable in court: http://www.volokh.com/2010/05/05/shahzad-and-miranda-rights/ http://www.volokh.com/2010/05/05/shahzad-and-miranda-rights/
- ghayes 14y ago
  "if the defendant is in possession of information regarding ... exigent circumstances which require protection of the public, the defendant may be questioned without warning and his responses, though incriminating, will be admissible in evidence"[1] The public safety exception allows for some latitude for police to gather admissible information prior to giving a miranda warning. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona
  - eropple 14y ago
    This is correct. However, as I understand it, a defense attorney can throw holy hell to prevent the admission of such statements in court and has a decent chance of winning. They don't need him to say a word to convict him of a staggering number and severity of crimes. I would be surprised if they even bother trying to admit as evidence anything he says during interrogation, and after chatting with a couple of con-law lawyers who all concurred I feel that's a pretty fair guess.
- jellicle 14y ago
  > Any statements before the Miranda warning are inadmissable in court: That is completely false, and suggests you haven't read anything in this entire thread discussing these issues, including the link you link to.
JoeAltmaier 14y ago
Lets remember, this guys is just one guy. They have enough on him to put him away for life, even should he say nothing, ever. Public safety is involved because, lets see, millions of people were locked in their homes, a public curfew was in effect, the dead were piling up, and no one knew how many more bombs or co-conspirators were still at large. They have a duty to learn the full extent of the terrorism, and protect the public, First. Then, worry about prosecuting this one guy's sorry ass.

axus 14y ago

Why even have an exception? Surely public safety is more important than trying to add a confession to all of the other evidence. The exception seems like something that could be abused in other cases. I'd go further, and say that no statements made by an accused person should be admissible in court. That way, you don't give any incentives for coercion.

e12e 14y ago
I recommend this Guardian comment on the same subject: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/20/boston-marathon-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-mirnada-rights http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/20/boston-m... I don't think refusing the accused a voice would really help the investigation of most cases, nor the course of justice. But the path the US (and allies, such as Great Britain) have started down is a very dark one.