• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Public Safety Exemption V Miranda

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
First, as far as Boston goes, the suspect is unable to communicate, so Miranda is useless. Second, they are not violating his rights, they are just not explaining them to him at this time. Third, the interview I heard explained that they don't need him to talk to get the conviction, they just need to be sure what other plan might be in place, such as associates and plots. They would not need to use anything he said to convict him, and if they don't, then there is no issue.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
First, as far as Boston goes, the suspect is unable to communicate, so Miranda is useless. Second, they are not violating his rights, they are just not explaining them to him at this time. Third, the interview I heard explained that they don't need him to talk to get the conviction, they just need to be sure what other plan might be in place, such as associates and plots. They would not need to use anything he said to convict him, and if they don't, then there is no issue.

Then why are they talking about the public safety exception? If they do not intend to use anything he says against him, he does not have to be mirandized and no exception is necessary. It sure sounds to me like they intend to try to use his unmirandized statements against him. I bet they will fail.

That being said, "miranda rights," as defined by the courts, are invented rights, not natural rights (or even legislated privileges). So I don't care about them at all. I am smart enough to exercise the real rights by remaining silent and demanding a lawyer. If some dumb criminal only knows his real rights because a cop honored some invented rights and explained the real rights to him, then he deserves what he gets.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Can you be more specific? Is there a court ruling you have in mind?

There should be no public safety exemption that trumps the right not to self-incriminate.

I don't care about Miranda. Excluding confessions because the police failed to tell someone that they did not have to talk is silly. We have a right to remain silent. We should all be informed enough to know it without having to be told by the police. If one is ignorant of his rights, tough.

While I understand, Eye's attitude, I disagree.

Ignorant people have rights, too. We went all through this a few years ago on this forum regarding timid people. A police officer made fun of people too nervous to exercise their right to withhold consent and remain silent in the face of a pushy cop. That cop's logical absurdity being--when you extend his logic--that timid people don't have rights. First, there is the insanity of thinking people who get easily nervous don't deserve rights because only people who can exercise them deserve them; but, second and more importantly it was a cop who held this view while posting on this forum. Tells you a bit about how easily the government can find a justification to disregard, invalidate, or minimize a right doesn't it?

Regarding Eye's other comments on the Miranda decision, one should just read Miranda v Arizona. The court made it clear it knew coercion still existed. The full warning covers not just the right to silence, but the right to adopt silence at any point, and the right to legal counsel.

Regarding Eye's comment "we should all be informed enough to know it without being told...", the warning includes that anything said can be used against the arrestee. But, did you really know just how comprehensive that statement is before you saw the Professor Duane video about talking to police? I'd heard the Miranda Warning a zillion times on TV since watching Adam 12 as a child, but I still had no idea just how many different ways anything you say can be used against you. Now, ask yourself, how many people have not seen that video? Does Eye really expect vast numbers of people to understand that even the truthful statements of an innocent witness can be used against him?



If you are new to these issues, you can find links to Miranda v Arizona and the Prof Duane video here:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-Your-4th-and-5th-Amendment-Resources-Here!!&


And, if you're still not convinced at how easily government can diminish rights, read Justice Marshall's dissent in Schnekloth vs Bustamonte at the same link.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Public safety exemption? Translation: icy slope covered in machine oil being approached by people wearing Teflon shoes.

Lemme see, where did we hear the public safety argument before? Oh, yes! The Star Chamber Court and the High Commission! Of course, in those days they didn't use the words public safety. Oh, no. Their justification was saving the immortal souls of those jeopardized by heretical teachings. They even justified their actions by saying they were also trying to save the immortal soul of the heretic himself!

Another phrase was peace of the realm. All the public un-safety from civil disturbances they claimed were sure to arise from non-conformity and heresy.

Now, lets think this through just a little bit. We have a government that wrecks the economy regularly, expropriates large amounts of our earnings, and plans on taking even more by driving the national debt to Pluto. And, I'm supposed to believe the government is suddenly all concerned about my health and welfare?
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
People who choose not to learn their rights or who are too timid to exercise them are of little concern to me. They are, to a large extent, responsible for the extent to which the rights of the whole have been eroded. I really don't care what happens to them. Think of it as legal darwinism: survival of the most willing to stand up for themselves.

I loathe "invented rights." They are another reason real rights are being eroded. Through the cheapening of rights (and the making of some of them ridiculous), many learn not to value rights, allowing all rights, invented and real, to fall by the wayside.

The right to be instructed on one's rights is an invented right, along with economic rights, the right to health care, the right to force others to associate with you, the right to a job, the right to a phone, the right to a "living wage," etc. The list goes on and on. Real rights get drowned in the flood of "invented rights."
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
People who choose not to learn their rights or who are too timid to exercise them are of little concern to me. They are, to a large extent, responsible for the extent to which the rights of the whole have been eroded. I really don't care what happens to them. Think of it as legal darwinism: survival of the most willing to stand up for themselves.

I loathe "invented rights." They are another reason real rights are being eroded. Through the cheapening of rights (and the making of some of them ridiculous), many learn not to value rights, allowing all rights, invented and real, to fall by the wayside.

The right to be instructed on one's rights is an invented right, along with economic rights, the right to health care, the right to force others to associate with you, the right to a job, the right to a phone, the right to a "living wage," etc. The list goes on and on. Real rights get drowned in the flood of "invented rights."

Huh!?!

Who said anyone had a right to be instructed in their rights? Miranda is not about a right to be instructed in rights. Miranda rights is a term encompassing the rights discussed in Miranda, not a right to receive the Miranda Warning. Miranda is about the government playing fair and the courts trying to curb abuses.

Separately, I'm not sure what you're talking about with regard to "economic rights". Certainly people have economic rights. They include the right to contract, the property rights in their earnings, and the right to sound money. Since you listed economic rights with spurious rights, I'm guessing you meant some spurious angle with economic rights, but for the life of me I can't imagine what it is.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Let's stay above board in the discussion, or I'll just move on.

I am not disputing the right to remain silent. That is simply another way of expressing the right not to self-incriminate. A cursory reading of everything I wrote in this thread will clearly establish that I am making that point.

What I am disputing is the artificial right, created in Miranda, to be informed of one's rights before (even voluntary) statements can be used against them. If you wish to discuss with me, discuss what I am saying and not some invented crap.

Moving on until and unless honest discussion of what I am actually saying returns.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
This is a whole lotta hooblah

over nothing.

Miranda warnings are required when a suspect is both

A) In custody

and

B) being questioned about the crime they're in custody for....

despite what you may watch on Law & Order miranda WARNINGS (not rights, those rights existed long before Ernesto Miranda got in a jam) are not required just because you're under arrest. do you think that the boston bomber was being questioned at the same time the swat team was pealing him out of someone's boat? probably not! is a confession the only evidence they have on the suspect? No!

so therefore, it doesn't matter if he were read warnings or not! and even if he were questioned, only the coerced statements would be subject to suppression! All other evidence stands!

therefore, this whole thing is a news spun hooblah over nothing!
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Let's stay above board in the discussion, or I'll just move on.

I am not disputing the right to remain silent. That is simply another way of expressing the right not to self-incriminate. A cursory reading of everything I wrote in this thread will clearly establish that I am making that point.

What I am disputing is the artificial right, created in Miranda, to be informed of one's rights before (even voluntary) statements can be used against them. If you wish to discuss with me, discuss what I am saying and not some invented crap.

Moving on until and unless honest discussion of what I am actually saying returns.

What? Are you getting started already with accusations of dishonesty? After one post?

I am taking issue exactly with what you said--artificial right created in Miranda to be informed of one's rights. So, there's no dishonesty here, except maybe your own evasion.

I ask again. Who said there is a right to be informed of your rights? Where is it written? I didn't see it in this thread. Its not in Miranda--I've read that several times. So, where?

I think you made this one up yourself, accidentally lumping Miranda under other non-rights. But, I'm willing to be wrong.

Besides yourself, who said Miranda created a right to be informed of your rights?
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
What? Are you getting started already with accusations of dishonesty? After one post?

I am taking issue exactly with what you said--artificial right created in Miranda to be informed of one's rights. So, there's no dishonesty here, except maybe your own evasion.

I ask again. Who said there is a right to be informed of your rights? Where is it written? I didn't see it in this thread. Its not in Miranda--I've read that several times. So, where?

I think you made this one up yourself, accidentally lumping Miranda under other non-rights. But, I'm willing to be wrong.

Besides yourself, who said Miranda created a right to be informed of your rights?

The Supreme Court said...

And unlike eye95 I agree with their reasoning entirely

(a) The atmosphere and environment of incommunicado interrogation as it exists today is inherently intimidating and works to undermine the privilege against self-incrimination. Unless adequate preventive measures are taken to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice. Pp. 445-458.
(b) The privilege against self-incrimination, which has had a long and expansive historical development, is the essential mainstay of our adversary system and guarantees to the individual the "right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will," during a period of custodial interrogation [384 U.S. 436, 437] as well as in the courts or during the course of other official investigations. Pp. 458-465.
(c) The decision in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 , stressed the need for protective devices to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege. Pp. 465-466.
(d) In the absence of other effective measures the following procedures to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege must be observed: The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. Pp. 467-473.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
The purpose of the constitution is to constrain government to a defined role. (It has failed miserably, but that's a topic for another time...)

The purpose fo the bill of rights is to constrain government actions pertaining to individual liberty.

Miranda is not "judicial activism", because it does not change the constitution, nor invent rights found neither within the document nor in common law. The case sets standards that remind both government and individuals that the government is constrained from doing certain things; it strengthens a right specifically mentioned named in the constitution.

This is the opposite of Terry and other cases that weaken 4A protections; those could truly be called judicial activism, because they reduce individual rights.
 
Last edited:

Logan 5

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2012
Messages
696
Location
Utah
I don't see the exemption being an issue, generally. There will always be exceptions, but it's not something to really be concerned about that I can see.
It'll be on a case by case review if anything.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Soon we'll be like Canada .. who just poo-poo'ed the right to have a lawyer present during questioning because its too much of a hassle -- it hampers questioning. (It sure does! hahaha - stupid canadians - we should kick them out of the union)
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
In spite of bringing a dead thread back to life being considered somewhat poor form, unless exigent circumstances make linking back to it impractical, this allows the opportunity to once agai raise the issue of just what "public safety" means when looking at the exemption.

In brief, and as discussed in this article, police officers confronting situations that create a danger to themselves or others may ask questions designed to neutralize the threat without first providing a warning of rights

With the notion of officer safety moving more and more towards "I'm going home in one piece no matter what else happens" there is IMHO less and less imperative created by an imminent threat being considered. In the case cited in the referenced article, a handgun wass tossed into a container where, theoretically, anybody later passing by might find it and then, depending on prediliction might use it for nefarious or deadly purposes. No mention was made of the old-time police technique of lookin and poking into nearby places where a discarded weapon might be. The suspect having been detained and restrained and the presence of backup officers would have allowed the cordoning off of the area and a search being made. Instead, a claim of "officer and public safety" is made and the suspect interrogated without first advising him of his right to avoid self incrimination.

With Miranda having entered the popular culture to the extent that little children playing cops & robbers Mirandize each other (usually getting it correct word for word) it is somewhat amazing that suspected criminals are not aware of the right. But let's face it - the emotional/mental stress of being placed in custodial arrest and restraint may somewhat scramble their thinking and ability to remember basic civics. All of which is, really, a distraction from the issue at hand.

The "public safety" exemption was first articulated in truely exigent circumstances, such as the capture of a kidnapper but the location of the kidnap victim unknown. The apocrophyl scenario involves a kidnapper who has already announced their victim is buried with a limited amount of air, or a bomber who states the device will go off within a short time but the location of the bomb is unknown. In order to save the life of the kidnap victim the police need to discover where they are buried before the air runs out. In order to either evacuate an area less than the entire city or to try to defuse the bomb its location needs to become known. Because the perp tossed his handgun when running from the cops in an attempt to avoid the more serious charge of committing the offense while armed does not carry the immediacy of need to discover where the handgun is located.

But if we can claim "public or officer safety" in order to save us from doing actual work - - -.

stay safe.
 

Logan 5

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2012
Messages
696
Location
Utah
In spite of bringing a dead thread back to life being considered somewhat poor form, unless exigent circumstances make linking back to it impractical, this allows the opportunity to once agai raise the issue of just what "public safety" means when looking at the exemption.
Gee, my not-so-sincere apologies then. I don't live on the internet, and I do not reside in this forum. Sometimes I may be here for a few hours each day and sometimes I may not be back for a month or longer. I suppose if you don't appreciate my input you can always close the threads after a certain time has passed (I am a moderator on another website, and that is what we had to do so we could manage the spam issues).

With the notion of officer safety moving more and more towards "I'm going home in one piece no matter what else happens" there is IMHO less and less imperative created by an imminent threat being considered. In the case cited in the referenced article, a handgun wass tossed into a container where, theoretically, anybody later passing by might find it and then, depending on prediliction might use it for nefarious or deadly purposes. No mention was made of the old-time police technique of lookin and poking into nearby places where a discarded weapon might be. The suspect having been detained and restrained and the presence of backup officers would have allowed the cordoning off of the area and a search being made. Instead, a claim of "officer and public safety" is made and the suspect interrogated without first advising him of his right to avoid self incrimination.

With Miranda having entered the popular culture to the extent that little children playing cops & robbers Mirandize each other (usually getting it correct word for word) it is somewhat amazing that suspected criminals are not aware of the right. But let's face it - the emotional/mental stress of being placed in custodial arrest and restraint may somewhat scramble their thinking and ability to remember basic civics. All of which is, really, a distraction from the issue at hand.

The "public safety" exemption was first articulated in truely exigent circumstances, such as the capture of a kidnapper but the location of the kidnap victim unknown. The apocrophyl scenario involves a kidnapper who has already announced their victim is buried with a limited amount of air, or a bomber who states the device will go off within a short time but the location of the bomb is unknown. In order to save the life of the kidnap victim the police need to discover where they are buried before the air runs out. In order to either evacuate an area less than the entire city or to try to defuse the bomb its location needs to become known. Because the perp tossed his handgun when running from the cops in an attempt to avoid the more serious charge of committing the offense while armed does not carry the immediacy of need to discover where the handgun is located.

But if we can claim "public or officer safety" in order to save us from doing actual work - - -.

stay safe.
In some cases they have to be asked did they place themselves in a location or situation that was not required to complete their job? Can they take a man into custody and justify interrogating him without mirandizing him? What is it that doing such interrogations will accomplish that they cannot accomplish when the suspect is mirandized? So somehow taking advantage of a suspect's ignorance of his rights is paramount?
 
Top