April 15, 2013 has become one of those days that we all remember where we were just before 3 p.m. EST. It was a Monday, so I had cable news on as I worked, but like many people, my first inkling that something terrible had happened came from my Twitter feed, as I watched various people and then news outlets tweet that bombs had gone off at the finish of the Boston marathon. As I continued to follow the story, not wanting to believe that this had happened, speculation was rampant as to who could have done such a thing and why.
Days later, after a massive manhunt, we found out who: Dzhokar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Tamerlan was killed in the manhunt, Dzhokar was captured alive. Dzhokar Tsarnaev is a U.S. citizen, with constitutional rights. When he was captured, he was not read his Miranda rights immediately, as the government invoked the public safety exception to the Miranda rule. This post examines Miranda and the public safety exception, and some potential implications of the invocation of that exception.
Everybody who’s ever watched a cop show or film knows some variation of the standard Miranda warning:
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney, and to have that attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you at no cost.
The warning language comes from Miranda v. Arizona, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1966 that suspects must be notified of the above rights which are guaranteed by the 5th amendment. While a suspect has Miranda rights whether he or she is notified of them or not, not everyone knows their 5th amendment rights. Miranda held that suspects must be notified of those rights when they’re taken into custody.
When Dzhokar Tsarnaev was captured, he was taken into custody and brought to the hospital (he had sustained injuries during the manhunt). He was then questioned before he was read any Miranda warnings. How was this allowed? The government invoked the public safety exception. The public safety exception to the Miranda rule was laid out in New York v. Quarles, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that a public safety exception exists to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect’s answers to interrogation may be admitted into evidence. The FBI’s explainer on the public safety exception states that:
[P]olice 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.
Thus, the public safety exception is to be invoked to deal with ongoing safety issues. In the Boston bombing case, the ongoing safety issues were more bombs, potential accomplices, etc. The questioning under the public safety exception is to be limited to those ongoing safety issues, and once law enforcement has dealt with the ongoing safety concern, then the suspect is to be Mirandized.
In the case of Dzhokar Tsarnaev, he was brought into custody (in the hospital), then questioned when he was conscious, and was finally Mirandized a couple of days after he was brought in, on the order of a judge. Once he was Mirandized, he stopped responding to questioning.
So, the questions are: How long does the public safety exception last? Should there be a time limit on how long law enforcement may question a suspect without Mirandizing him or her under the public safety exception? Was the time between Dzhokhar Tsarnaev being taken into custody and him being Mirandized (days) reasonable?
From a law enforcement standpoint, the answer to how long the public safety exception should be in place is likely however long it takes to protect public safety. They wanted to make sure, especially after the bombing itself that killed and injured so many and a manhunt that took days and resulted in injuries, that there weren’t any more bombs or accomplices lying in wait. From a civil liberties standpoint, the answer is that the exception should be read as narrowly as possible to ensure the constitutional rights of the suspect while protecting public safety, and is not open-ended.
Now that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been indicted on 30 counts for his crimes, we’ll see how the public safety exception plays out in court. Will the court allow the statements given before Mirandizing to be entered into evidence? Will some statements come in, but not all? Will the time lapse of a few days be considered reasonable under the circumstances? Will the statements given before Mirandizing be necessary to convict? These questions will likely be answered in the trial and appeal of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and will likely have future ramifications as well.
The DL Legal Breakdown 