As politicians and commentators square off over terrorism defendants like Faisal Shahzad, the alleged Times Square bomb plotter, being read their Miranda rights an important point is often missed. The United States Supreme Court has carved out a critical exception to the iconic legal rule that is often overlooked, but very important in cases like this. During a press conference at the Justice Department the FBI's Deputy Director John Pistole mentioned that the 30 year old naturalized American citizen from Pakistan was questioned pursuant to the public safety exception to the Miranda rule and that he provided authorities with valuable information. Pistole also explained that Shahzad continued his cooperation even after he was read his rights. Shahzad's charges in federal district court in Manhattan relate to terrorism and use of a weapon of mass destruction.
One of the most widely known Supreme Court cases in American history, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) set forth the rule that a criminal suspect in custody must be advised of his rights once interrogation commences. The 5-4 landmark decision issued June 13, 1966 was one of a string of criminal procedure reforms handed down under the stewardship of liberal Chief Justice Earl Warren -- appointed by Republican President Eisenhower over a decade earlier. Ernesto Miranda's conviction for rape was overturned because he was not properly informed of his rights before confessing to his crime. After being retried Miranda was convicted and four years after his release was stabbed to death. Once apprehended one of the suspects in his death was read a "Miranda warning." The Miranda due process rights inform a suspect of their right to remain silent, that anything they say may be adversely used, and that they have a right to an attorney.
Almost twenty years after Miranda the United States Supreme Court under the more conservative leadership of Chief Justice Warren Burger reined in Miranda for the first time by carving the public safety exception. In New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984), the High Court held that in limited circumstances where legitimate concerns about public safety exist, evidence and statements are admissible in a subsequent trial even when a suspect is not informed of his Miranda rights. In Quarles an armed rape suspect fled into a supermarket where he ditched his gun. Upon capture by the NYPD he was found to have an empty shoulder holster and was asked where his gun was. The court held that a public safety exception existed because the abandoned gun was a danger to the public.
As discussion about who should get Miranda rights intensifies, the exception as much as the rule should also carve the parameters of the debate.
Follow Brian Levin, J.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/proflevin
Wajahat Ali: Against Terror, Our Liberty Is Our Best Defense
I worry that fear and divisive rhetoric will undermine the mutual trust and cooperation that has been painstakingly built over the past two years between American Muslims and law enforcement agencies.
Peter G. Miller: Times Square Bombing -- A Repeat of History
We can't be cowed by terrorists, whether motivated by insanity, politics or religion.
Daniel Levin: The Time Square Vendors: The Real Hero vs. Jack Bauer
While the surveillance scene of the Times Bomb Square seems plucked from a modern thriller, the heroes do not.
http://philiptortora.blogspot.com/2010/05/forget-miranda-rights-punishment-phase.html
I suspect that some of the public figures who have objected to police "informing" people of their "rights" are really advocating denying them these rights. I feel a chill wind of Authoritarianism (at best) in the air. I could use another word but it's highly over used. I think my meaning is clear..
And these people want to lead the country?
I'm glad cool heads were in charge of this one. A Job well done.
Conservative political activists have sold you the Brooklyn Bridge of constitutional interpretation.
Just because there's a preponderance of evidence does not entitle law enforcement or the judicial system to ignore the individual's rights and summarily convict them.
Are the 5th and 6th amendments an obstacle too?
Obliging law enforcement to make suspects aware of their Constitutional rights protects all of us against possible coersion.
Besides, there have been other rulings in the last 40 years that have tempered Miranda to where it is not as onerous as people think it was originally.
or the quality of their insurance goes down, or if the cost of their care goes up, you and Obama are at fault. Finallly, something you can't blame Bush for."
I don't remember anyone promising that health care reform would end inflation. Typical Right wing non logic.
James Madison was very competent and gave us the perfect tool for dealing with this.
Article III Section III of the constitution:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
How hard could it be to find 2 people who saw this man in that vehicle on that day?
Side note:
Even for so heinous a crime, the constitution expressly prohibits the government from stealing the property of the accused and if a conviction is secured they can but can only hold the property until the person dies. Then the property goes to the criminal's heirs.
He will not be charged with treason though.
Wouldn't want to alarm the people with the realization that war is a 2 way street.
Or does this proposal only apply to non-American-born terrorists?
Why,is it the Republicans when in charge, become RETHUGS,they TRAMPLE all over
LAWS,but when not,THEY ARE ALL FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND RULE OF LAW?
What I don't understand is WHY AREN'T THERE ENOUGH INTELLIGENT PEOPLE IN
THIS COUNTRY,THAT CAN SEE THROUGH THIS?DOES ANYONE IN AMERICA READ
ANYMORE OR JUST LISTEN AT WHAT THE PEOPLE THEY BELIEVE ARE TELLING
THE TRUTH,SAY.