Skip to main content

View Diary: Manhunt over: Boston Marathon suspect alive, in custody (301 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "Public Safety Exception to Miranda??????" (0+ / 0-)

    WHAT?

    US Citizen, On US Soil, What is an Exception to Miranda??

    Adam B? Anyone??? Miranda is Miranda, isn't it?

    Otherwise, Wouldn't EVERYTHING be an exception to Miranda.. "Well, you may know something about something.."

    •  Like, If someone was busted with Pot.. (0+ / 0-)

      "Well, you may know someone else who at one point in their life smoked Pot.."

    •  Correct, the Quarles exception (11+ / 0-)

      Short version: If the suspect can be reasonably believed to be in possession of information necessary for the protection of public safety, he may be questioned without warning and his responses are admissible even if incriminating.

      The Quarles exception isn't the sort of thing that comes up very often. It is not intended to be a subjective test, and it's flatly inapplicable to most arrests. Believing that a suspect knows something about something isn't enough at all, there must be a reasonable expectation that the suspect has information that, if not obtained by the police, would be a threat to public safety.

      A terrorist with a demonstrated history of tossing IEDs around a major American city while evading arrest is pretty much the walking definition of qualifying for the Quarles exception: Are there more bombers out there? Are there more bombs?

      "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -Douglas Adams

      by Serpents Choice on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 07:33:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Very good explication. (0+ / 0-)

        Fight them to the end, until the children of the poor eat better than the dogs of the rich.

        by raincrow on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 07:37:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you Serpents.. (0+ / 0-)

        Hopefully with this Conservative court it won't grow to my example..

        Why do I smell Slippery Slope though, Maybe it's just me..  

        However, Wouldn't it be better if it WASN"T used against him?  

        Assuming this is the guy (And that seems to be a valid assumption with what we believe we know.. ) isn't there enough to give him a Federal Death Penalty already, or both Federal and MA Life without parole..

        We know how bad the DFH can be.. IF the Court turns further right..

        •  The point of Quarles (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Losty, raincrow, Adam B

          ...isn't that it makes it easier to get evidence against your suspect, it's that, in cases where the exception applies, you need to get your subject to tell you things to keep people safe.

          Even if this guy never says another word in his life, there is so much evidence that you could convict him on 100 different charges, and build a second moon with the leftover evidence.

          They're invoking Quarles in an effort to ensure there aren't any bombs still waiting to explode out there, or a third man waiting to explode them. Quarles just means that, in doing so, they don't lose the right to introduce his answers in court.

          I'm as hesitant to trust our current SCOTUS as you are (about as far as I can throw Scalia, I think). There are a lot of things the court has done, is doing, and will do that are bad. Worry about those things. Quarles is not the slippery slope you're looking for; this is why it exists (much more so, in fact, that the last headliner use of it...)

          "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -Douglas Adams

          by Serpents Choice on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 08:06:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Maybe it's just Because I don't trust them.. (0+ / 0-)

            As far as I can throw Thomas (He's Fatter right??)

            Those 2 questions, and the first one At Least.. IS a given to Public Safety, and if it stops there if the answer is "no." that may be OK..

            It's just I can see that slope of "Pot is Bad, it's A Public Safety Issue, Think of the Children, Person X smokes Pot, so he may know someone who does, and that could harm The Children."  

            If limited to the "Any More bombs lying around.. How about Other people you or your brother gave bombs to"  More than that, and it gets interesting..  

            And think about when he's stable enough (assuming he isn't well enough now...Shot, Shock, Loss of blood..)  And his lawyer walks in.  What's the first thing he says assuming he allows him to answer the " Any More Bombs? question..  after the public safety question is answered, what do you tell your client?  "Not Another Word..."

            •  Really, though, it's not a subjective test (0+ / 0-)

              If you have to jump through a couple hoops to argue that something could maybe kinda be related to public safety, they will laugh you out of the court for claiming the Quarles exception. Pot is not a "public safety" issue in the legal sense of that phrase.

              And honestly, I have no idea what I'd do in his lawyer's shoes. Well, yes, I do. I'd ask why the hell I'm there, since I'm not licensed to practice! But, honestly, in a case like this, where there is essentially infinite physical evidence against the suspect, such extraordinary scrutiny that there's no real chance of procedural errors, and immense animus due to the heinous nature of the crime, the best bet is probably to be as cooperative as possible -- throw anyone else involved under the bus, admit everything you know, and hope that you're convincing as an "unwitting and unwilling pawn in a horrible scheme", which I suspect is at least a little accurate (although those pictures of him smiling are going to make that a hard play, too...). Then you hope you can bargain the sentencing down from "execution or oubliette" territory, somehow.

              "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -Douglas Adams

              by Serpents Choice on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 08:47:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  If his lawyer has come in ... (0+ / 0-)

              ... then you're already post-Miranda, because part of Miranda is reminding the suspect of his right to have one present.

    •  I'm not a lawyer (by a long ways!), but I (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      drmah

      understand that he's been taken into custody--not arrested.

      Given the fact of his potentially life threatening injuries (to say nothing of the possible risks he may have faced if "the general public" had gotten to him), it seems reasonable if LE said he was being held/treated for his own protection.

      Obviously questioning him before advising him of his rights would be a bad move on many level.

      I, too, would like to hear from people who know more about this than I do.

      It matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once well done is done forever. Henry David Thoreau, in Civil Disobedience

      by Had Enough Right Wing BS on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 07:38:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No warning needed regardless of formal status (2+ / 0-)

        The idea behind the Quarles "public safety" exception to the Miranda rule is basically the idea that your rights end when the expression of those rights brings harm to others.

        You have the right to free speech, guaranteed by the first amendment ... but you do not have the right to incite violence or to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, to use traditional examples.

        The Quarles exception is one of the limits of the fifth amendment. You have the right to avoid self-incrimination, but you do not maintain that right when your silence would present a direct threat to public health and safety. Obviously, that's a pretty high standard to meet, and this exception to the Miranda rule is very rarely applied. But are there more bombs out there? is inarguably across that bright line.

        Or TL;DR: This is no way will interfere with his prosecution. At all.

        "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -Douglas Adams

        by Serpents Choice on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 07:50:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Would the Quarles exception also apply to (0+ / 0-)

          a situation where a serious communicable disease could be spread via either casual contact or even proximity?

          Just as my neighbor doesn't have a right to expose me to small pox as a protest against city taxes, all of our rights have to be balanced against the harm we may do to others, depending on how we may choose to exercise them.

          The standards to infringe on people's rights should be high, but some limits (rarely applied) are all that stands between us and chaos.

          It matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once well done is done forever. Henry David Thoreau, in Civil Disobedience

          by Had Enough Right Wing BS on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 06:11:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  No, wait. (0+ / 0-)

          You have the right to avoid self-incrimination even when it threatens public safety, but the police don't have to remind you of that right's existence at that moment.

      •  There is no difference (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Had Enough Right Wing BS

        If he weren't shot to pieces and had the physical ability to walk out the door of the city jail, he would NOT be free to go, and if he is not free to go, he is ARRESTED. Settled federal law, but I don't have the name of the case at hand right now. There is no difference between "in custody," "detained," and "arrested" if you are not free, or feel you are not free, to walk away.

        Fight them to the end, until the children of the poor eat better than the dogs of the rich.

        by raincrow on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 08:47:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I thought LE could *detain* a person for some (0+ / 0-)

          period of time--for questioning of a general nature--without placing them under formal arrest.

          I had never before heard of the Quarles exception, which is cited above. It seems both practical and reasonable.

          Not to be too dramatic, but the suspect would likely have been in serious danger had people known where he was. As a target for revenge he might have placed many others at risk.

          I'm not sure that the police can't stop me, for driving too fast say, without arresting me. If I saw lights in the rear view mirror I wouldn't be free to continue on indefinitely. Doing so would create a far greater likelihood that I would be arrested (as I think of it).

          It seems as if leaving the definition of what constitutes an arrest to the interpretation of each individual would be Constitutionally vague.

          All of my wondering aside, I can't believe LE would hold, or especially question, this suspect without advising him of his rights. Too much down-side, against very little to be gained.

          It matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once well done is done forever. Henry David Thoreau, in Civil Disobedience

          by Had Enough Right Wing BS on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 05:57:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Here (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jan4insight, raincrow

      http://www.fbi.gov/...

      If he was still conscious, they may have asked him questions about whether there were any other bombs still out there, things of that nature. They would not have asked him any questions about the Marathon bombing without reading him his rights.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site