Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. If you knew more about interrogation law you'd know that wasn't necessariy true. I'll let you do a little research to learn why that's so, rather than just give you the answer. "Teach a man to fish". Don't worry most people don't know this because a scenario like yours rarely presents itself, thank goodness.
No...it is true. You are getting a non-custodial interview and a custodial interrogation confused. In the "scenario" I gave AND in this particular case, he would be in custody. If you want ANYTHING to hold up (in the now or for future investigation BASED on the information obtained), you would have to had Mirandized him before you went at him.
"I take a look at this individual who has been charged criminally, does that mean he gets his Miranda warnings? The only information we get is if he volunteers it?" Ridge said. "He's not a citizen of this country. He's a terrorist, and I don't think he deserves the full range of protections of our criminal justice system embodied in the Constitution of the United States."
Well, I'm not sure I have a good handle on this one. Are you saying that, because someone is not a U.S. citizen and suspected of terrorism, that they can be taken out back and shot like a mad dog in the street? Let me get this straight, because we have such a pure moral imperative there is no need to give them a trial, or even a semblance of a right to present their side of the story. Ah yes! I think I understand it now. We can lynch them for the same reason we were able to lynch blacks and anyone else who was different back in the "good ole days"! ............. Maybe we ought to re-think this one.
Keep researching and you'll see you're in error. This is investigation 101 stuff. A very basic concept underlies it. As Robert Jackson once said, the constitution is not a suicide pact.
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his
Not being a US citizen, how is this cockroach protected by the constitution?
Keep researching and you'll see you're in error. This is investigation 101 stuff. A very basic concept underlies it. As Robert Jackson once said, the constitution is not a suicide pact.
Okay...let me in on it. That will be easy. Educate me. When is it okay to conduct a custodial interrogation without Miranda if you want anything to hold up (present or future)? I'm not talking an interview where they are free to go. I'm not talking about offered information without solicitation. I'm talking custodial interrogation which would be the case here.
Okay...let me in on it. That will be easy. Educate me. When is it okay to conduct a custodial interrogation without Miranda if you want anything to hold up (present or future)? I'm not talking an interview where they are free to go. I'm not talking about offered information without solicitation. I'm talking custodial interrogation which would be the case here.
Okay, I'll reveal. Custodial versus non-custodial isn't the determinating factor. Check out New York v. Quarles (1984). It's an even much more harmless scenario than yours (a missing gun). No judge in his right mind is going to suppress evidence because the police acted in the interest of public safety, and most certainly not in a nuclear situation such as you describe.
Held: The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the exclusion of respondent's initial statement and the gun because of Officer Kraft's failure to read respondent his Miranda rights before attempting to locate the weapon. Accordingly, it also erred in affirming the exclusion of respondent's subsequent statements as illegal fruits of the Miranda violation. This case presents a situation where concern for public safety must be paramount to adherence to the literal language of the prophylactic rules enunciated in Miranda. Pp. 653-660.
(a) Although respondent was in police custody when he made his statements and the facts come within the ambit of Miranda, nevertheless on these facts 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 availability of that exception does not depend upon the motivation of the individual officers involved. The doctrinal underpinnings of Miranda do not require that it be applied in all its rigor to a situation in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety. In this case, so long as the gun was concealed somewhere in the supermarket, it posed more than one danger to the public safety: an accomplice might make use of it, or a customer or employee might later come upon it. Pp. 655-657.
(b) Procedural safeguards that deter a suspect from responding, and increase the possibility of fewer convictions, were deemed acceptable in Miranda in order to protect the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. However, if Miranda warnings had deterred responses to Officer Kraft's question about the whereabouts of the gun, the cost would have been something more than merely the failure to obtain evidence useful in convicting respondent. An answer was needed to insure that future danger to the public did not result from the concealment of the gun in a public area. P. 657.
(c) The narrow exception to the Miranda rule recognized here will to some degree lessen the desirable clarity of that rule. However, the exception will not be difficult for police officers to apply because in each case it will be circumscribed by the exigency which justifies it. Police officers can and will distinguish almost instinctively between questions necessary to secure their own safety or the safety of the public and questions designed solely to elicit testimonial evidence from a suspect. Pp. 658-659.
Okay, I'll reveal. Custodial versus non-custodial isn't the determinating factor. Check out New York v. Quarles (1984). It's an even much more harmless scenario than yours (a missing gun). No judge in his right mind is going to suppress evidence because the police acted in the interest of public safety, and most certainly not in a nuclear situation such as you describe.
Held: The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the exclusion of respondent's initial statement and the gun because of Officer Kraft's failure to read respondent his Miranda rights before attempting to locate the weapon. Accordingly, it also erred in affirming the exclusion of respondent's subsequent statements as illegal fruits of the Miranda violation. This case presents a situation where concern for public safety must be paramount to adherence to the literal language of the prophylactic rules enunciated in Miranda. Pp. 653-660.
(a) Although respondent was in police custody when he made his statements and the facts come within the ambit of Miranda, nevertheless on these facts 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 availability of that exception does not depend upon the motivation of the individual officers involved. The doctrinal underpinnings of Miranda do not require that it be applied in all its rigor to a situation in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety. In this case, so long as the gun was concealed somewhere in the supermarket, it posed more than one danger to the public safety: an accomplice might make use of it, or a customer or employee might later come upon it. Pp. 655-657.
(b) Procedural safeguards that deter a suspect from responding, and increase the possibility of fewer convictions, were deemed acceptable in Miranda in order to protect the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. However, if Miranda warnings had deterred responses to Officer Kraft's question about the whereabouts of the gun, the cost would have been something more than merely the failure to obtain evidence useful in convicting respondent. An answer was needed to insure that future danger to the public did not result from the concealment of the gun in a public area. P. 657.
(c) The narrow exception to the Miranda rule recognized here will to some degree lessen the desirable clarity of that rule. However, the exception will not be difficult for police officers to apply because in each case it will be circumscribed by the exigency which justifies it. Police officers can and will distinguish almost instinctively between questions necessary to secure their own safety or the safety of the public and questions designed solely to elicit testimonial evidence from a suspect. Pp. 658-659.
I know this case. It's community care taking based on exigency. There was immediate information that there was a gun hidden in the store that someone could have gotten ahold of/got hurt with, and I agree with it (the decision). The problem is that it doesn't apply to every scenario and in very, very few situations in our system. This was immediate. Now...If you are going to argue that all terrorists pose exigent circumstances and Miranda shouldn't apply, then...thanks. We agree and we didn't even know it until now. That's precisely my argument (go back and look-context). We need to be able to question them without affording them their full range of rights without worries based on this (exigency). If I was arguing it in court (the need not to Mirandize terrorists, etc.), this is an example I would use (YOUR example).
Last edited by JDTD2.0; 01-01-2010 at 11:44 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
