How Miranda Rights Work


The Public Safety Exception
Every arrestee must be read his Miranda rights except in very special circumstances.
Every arrestee must be read his Miranda rights except in very special circumstances.
Terry J Alcorn/E+/Getty Images

The "public safety exception" allows law enforcement to question a subject, and the prosecution to use his answers against him at trial, even if he wasn't read his rights. To be clear, it's not that someone posing a threat to public safety doesn't have constitutional rights; it's that the threat to public safety has been determined to trump them [source: Benoit].

The exemption was established in 1984, when the Supreme Court heard the appeal of New York v. Quarles. Benjamin Quarles was in the custody of police in a grocery store in 1980, identified by a rape victim as the man who'd assaulted her. The officer frisked him for weapons and found an empty gun holster. The officer asked Quarles where the gun was, and Quarles told him he'd hid it "over there," pointing to an empty milk container. The officer found it and secured it. He then arrested the man and read him his Miranda rights.

The gun evidence was thrown out at trial under Miranda. An appellate court agreed it was inadmissible. The Supreme Court did not.

The Supreme Court found that locating the missing gun was critical to securing public safety, and questions prompted by a reasonable concern for public safety were exempt from the Miranda requirement. Quarles' answer to the officer's question and the gun it led to were therefore admissible in court [source: Benoit].

In April 2013, the FBI invoked this exemption in questioning a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing. During their "urgent public safety interview" with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in his hospital room, he confessed to the bombing and answered questions regarding any other attacks still in the works. His request for a lawyer was denied several times. After two days of questioning, Tsarnaev was read his Miranda rights on a judge's orders and went silent. If a court determines the interrogation meets the public safety exception, the statements Tsarnaev made before he was read his rights may be used against him at trial [source: Serrano].

The same exception was invoked in the 2010 questioning of Faisal Shahzad, who failed in his attempt to bomb New York City's Times Square. But Shahzad, after being Mirandized, kept talking -- and never stopped [source: Johnson].

He pleaded guilty at trial, warned Americans to brace themselves for more attacks, and was sentenced to life in prison [source: Katersky]. The public safety exception never came up.

Author's Note: How Miranda Rights Work

I wrote this article in May 2013, just weeks after the Boston Marathon bombings. My research, then, turned up countless opinions on the non-Mirandized questioning of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the applicability of Miranda in circumstances of "domestic terrorism" (and whether Tsarnaev was a suspected "terrorist" or a suspected "criminal"), and exactly how the public safety exception applied when he was interrogated. In the wake of the bombings, opinions were so heated and opposing, the issue so politicized, I ended up primarily setting them aside and focusing on more broadly applicable information provided in calmer times. Court rulings in the bombing case may end up setting new precedents as to Miranda's applicability and definitions of "public safety concerns." In the meantime, though, this is How the Miranda Rights Work. I'd be interested in revisiting the topic in a few years to examine what the courts decide about Tsarnaev's hospital-bed confession.

Related Articles

Sources

  • Allen, Nick. "Boston marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev 'awake and responding'." The Telegraph. April 22, 2013. (May 5, 2013) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10009356/Boston-marathon-bomber-Dzhokhar-Tsarnaev-awake-and-responding.html
  • Benoit, Carl A. "The 'Public Safety' Exception to Miranda." FBI. February 2011. (May 2, 2013) http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/february2011/legal_digest
  • FindLaw. "Miranda Rights." (April 29, 2013) http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/miranda-rights/
  • Johnson, Luke. "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Receives Miranda Rights After Delay For Public Safety Exception." The Huffington Post. April 23, 2013. (May 5, 2013) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/22/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-miranda_n_3134745.html
  • Katersky, Aaron. "Faisal Shahzad Pleads Guilty In Times Square Car Bomb Plot, Warns Of More Attacks." ABC News. June 21, 2010. (May 5, 2013) http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/faisal-shahzad-pleads-guilty-times-square-car-bomb/story?id=10970094#.UYbam8rLNhc
  • Law and Justice. "Capacity to Waive Miranda Rights." Dec. 29, 2011. (May 8, 2013) http://lawandjusticegov.org/psychology-and-law/criminal-competencies/80-capacity-to-waive-miranda-rights.html
  • National Paralegal College. "Custody." (May 5, 2013) http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/PoliceInterrogation/Custody.asp
  • NOLO. "Miranda Rights: What Happens If Police Don't 'Read You Your Rights'?" (April 29, 2013) http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/police-questioning-miranda-warnings-29930.html
  • PBS. "Landmark Cases: Miranda v. Arizona (1966)." (May 4, 2013) http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_miranda.html
  • Serrano, Richard A, Ken Dilanian and Brian Bennett. "Miranda reading silences Boston suspect." The L.A. Times. April 26, 2013. (April 29, 2013) http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/26/nation/la-na-boston-bombing-20130426
  • Tarlton Law Library – The Papers of Justice Tom C. Clark. "5th Amendment – Miranda v. Arizona, 1966." (May 4, 2013) http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/clark/miranda_long.html
  • United States Courts. "Miranda v. Arizona: An Overview and Discussion Questions." (April 29, 2013) http://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/ClassroomActivities/FifthAmendment/mirandaVarizonaOverview.aspx

More to Explore