UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (14) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 1976763  
Subject: Miranda confusion Date: 4/20/2013 12:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I keep seeing reports that the surviving bombing suspect hasn't been read his Miranda warning so the rights don't apply.

That is false. Miranda doesn't confer rights upon the suspect, it merely shows that they know (or should have known) what their rights are before they make a statement. It also isn't read the second the cuffs are slapped on the suspect (like they show on Law and Order all the time) but rather is only required if the person is in custody (not free to leave) and being questioned. If one of those requirements isn't present then there is no need to "Mirandize" the suspect.

However, not reading them Miranda doesn't mean the rights don't apply. They have those rights, they just haven't been told they do and agree to them. You're always free to waive those rights or to exercise them. It isn't like Miranda is some magic incantation that gives you those rights (even though that's how some seem to treat it).

All someone has to do with this "48 hour exemption" is not say anything for 48 hours of custody/interrogation. The clock runs out, they are Mirandized, they ask for a lawyer. It's not too complicated, I think even a 19-year-old can figure it out.
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JoelCairo Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1872151 of 1976763
Subject: Re: Miranda confusion Date: 4/20/2013 2:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Thanks for the clarification.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bufftrainer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1872192 of 1976763
Subject: Re: Miranda confusion Date: 4/20/2013 7:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The 48-hour exemption is case law from an instance when a perp known to be armed was apprehended and immediately asked where his weapon was. He answered and the weapon became evidence against him. A court held that the question was asked in order to address an immediate threat to the public safety, and therefore ok. No questions asked for other purposes prior to Miranda warning are permissible under that precedent. Application of the Miranda exception in this matter seems perfectly appropriate as long as questioning is directed to immediate public safety.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: WuLong Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1872199 of 1976763
Subject: Re: Miranda confusion Date: 4/20/2013 7:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Application of the Miranda exception in this matter seems perfectly appropriate as long as questioning is directed to immediate public safety.
Sigh. So uninformed.

The Justice Department informed the FBI, without approval from Congress or the courts, in October 2010 that it may interrogate a terrorism suspect without a Miranda warning on matters unrelated to an imminent threat if they believe the suspect may provide valuable intelligence... “There may be exceptional cases,” the DOJ memo read, “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.”
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/04/obama-miranda-rig...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bufftrainer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1872286 of 1976763
Subject: Re: Miranda confusion Date: 4/21/2013 7:15 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Sometimes,YuHoo, it's best to research beyond one blog before posting arrogant stupidity. FYI, the Justice Department can issue instructions to law enforcement based on its own interpretation of case law, but when it stretches a point the perp may walk. Were you concerned with that perhaps you'd have done some actual research. Read New York v. Quarles if you can.
http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/crimin...

In the current case federal law enforcement officials are invoking the public safety exception regarding his Miranda rights....
http://abcnews.go.com/politics/t/blogEntry?id=19003595


The strength of the Miranda decision is its clarity in its nearly unwavering protection of a suspect's Fifth Amendment protection against selfincrimination. The commitment to this rule is so strong that the Supreme Court has recognized only one exception to the Miranda rule—the "public safety" exception—which permits law enforcement to engage in a limited and focused unwarned interrogation and allows the government to introduce the statement as direct evidence.


In each of the two cases above, information that came to the attention of the law enforcement officers concerning an immediate threat to safety prompted the officers to ask questions directed at neutralizing the danger. In both cases, the reviewing courts agreed with the officers that the information prompted a public safety concern.

Also see US v. Jones

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforceme...

Trying so hard to look smart doesn't serve you well.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: WuLong Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1872301 of 1976763
Subject: Re: Miranda confusion Date: 4/21/2013 9:49 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Buffy:
Sometimes,YuHoo, it's best to research beyond one blog...

Are you saying that the DOJ did not issue a memo in 2010 saying: “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.”?

Trying so hard to look naive doesn't serve you well.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bufftrainer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1872375 of 1976763
Subject: Re: Miranda confusion Date: 4/21/2013 5:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Are you saying that the DOJ did not issue a memo in 2010 saying...

Do you really need my help reading my post? Did I right that it did not? No, I said case law suggests otherwise. You do know that DOJ doesn't make law, right?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bufftrainer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1872376 of 1976763
Subject: Re: Miranda confusion Date: 4/21/2013 5:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Did I right that it did not?

Right, write, I guess it matters not to someone who doesn't understand what he reads.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PeterRabit Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1872456 of 1976763
Subject: Re: Miranda confusion Date: 4/22/2013 7:17 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Colovion, thanks for explaining this. (Saved me the trouble.)

We see so much nonsense in news stories.

Peter

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wittgenstein Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1872458 of 1976763
Subject: Re: Miranda confusion Date: 4/22/2013 7:36 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Americans have to stop worrying about arcane irrelevant concepts like public safety. Laws basically trump everything.

jz

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ramsfanray Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1872466 of 1976763
Subject: Re: Miranda confusion Date: 4/22/2013 9:39 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I think even a 19-year-old can figure it out.

We are talking about someone that thought set off bombs would accomplish his goals.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: WuLong Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1872506 of 1976763
Subject: Re: Miranda confusion Date: 4/22/2013 12:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Laws basically trump everything.
Sigh.
Laws exist for a reason. The public safety issue ceased to exist the second the kid was taken into custody.

Good grief, John Adams defended the soldiers at the Boston Massacre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre#Trials

It's a moot point anyway. There's hardly a lack of evidence.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1872893 of 1976763
Subject: Re: Miranda confusion Date: 4/24/2013 11:11 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The 48-hour exemption is case law from an instance when a perp known to be armed was apprehended and immediately asked where his weapon was. He answered and the weapon became evidence against him. A court held that the question was asked in order to address an immediate threat to the public safety, and therefore ok. No questions asked for other purposes prior to Miranda warning are permissible under that precedent. Application of the Miranda exception in this matter seems perfectly appropriate as long as questioning is directed to immediate public safety.

Makes sense to me. They asked him if there were any other bombs (or some such) I'm sure. When it comes to the crimes he had already committed they'd have to say the "magic words" first (lol) and they magically become admissible in court.

It's a bit of a silly spectacle, really, but it is what it is. It's the point where any serious investigation involves a video of the suspect being read the rights from a form and initialing them on a time-stamped color video so nobody can turn around and say it didn't happen, was coerced, etc., and that form becomes part of the report forevermore. It's a good form of CYA, but sort of sad it has come to that point too.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1872896 of 1976763
Subject: Re: Miranda confusion Date: 4/24/2013 11:18 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
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,

The danger is that they can interpret it that way all they want, but if a judge disagrees (and that's very likely) then they've utterly destroyed the case. That's a constant problemn for law enforcement... you follow the rules as you understand them/based on prior case law but then a new defense tactic is tried, succeeds and suddenly the rules are changed (retroactively) and what you thought was legal (with good basis!) turns out to have not been. The case is tossed, the prosecution loses, double jeopardy attaches and the bad guy gets off with nada.

The system is most certainly rigged against the prosecution/police in this regard. Is that wrong? When we're talking about protecting rights I'd say that's the right way to do it, though it certainly leads to some bad outcomes. "Better one thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man go to prison" and all that jazz. But law enforcement/the courts will still grumble about it, of course. You would too if you were in their shoes (being held to standards that are constantly changing due to circumstances way outside of your control).

It's fascinating in its own way (or maybe only to history buffs like me!) The rules can even be (and indeed are) very different from Circuit Court to Circuit Court.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (14) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement