Getting to the bottom of this Miranda question for the bomber

posted at 7:01 pm on April 20, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

This has been making the rounds quite a bit over the weekend, including some of our readers talking about it from an article earlier today. Quite a few people seem to be concerned (fair enough) or outright confused (including yours truly) over the situation where Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was not read his Miranda rights before being questioned.

As I pointed out earlier, there is apparently an exception granted under Miranda when public safety is at stake. But it’s rather ambiguous in terms of how we decide when the safety of the public is clearly in danger to a degree sufficient to invoke the exception. One protest over this is laid out fairly clearly. Quoting Joyner:

I have no problem in principle with an exigent circumstances exception to Miranda. I can envision situations where police simply don’t have time for this particular nicety because the public is truly in imminent danger.

This, however, does not seem to be one of those situations. I have no particular sympathy for Tsarnaev, who was given sanctuary in this country that allowed him to escape his war-torn homeland and have a much better life here only to, allegedly, terrorize the city he called home, murdering and maiming innocents. But there’s no theory of the case that I’m aware of that has the public in continued danger.

I’m afraid I have to disagree with Dr. Joyner on that one, at least to a point. When you’ve got two suspects (one dead) who were seen leaving and later throwing bombs and who left explosives in their apartment, the possibility that more nasty surprises are out there waiting certainly seems viable. And questioning the remaining suspect about it looks like fair game to me.

But a larger part of this question seems to be some confusion over precisely what sort of “rights” we’re talking about here. There is apparently nothing sacred about reading someone their Miranda rights unless you plan on using their statements in court anyway. Doug Mataconis explains.

Before getting into a discussion of the “public safety” exception, it’s important to recognize what Miranda does and does not require, and what the consequences are if the police do not comply with it properly. Contrary to the conclusion that most people are likely to gather from watching crime dramas like Law & Order, officers are not required to give the warning before they arrest someone and failure to give the warning will not result in dismissal of the case. Miranda is more properly seen as an evidentiary rule that the government must follow if it wishes to interrogate a suspect and eventual defendant and use whatever statements that interrogation elicits against him in court. If a suspect is not given his or her Miranda warnings and the state then attempts to utilize post-arrest statements against him, then the government will generally be barred from using that statement against him in Court. As Orin Kerr notes, however, the Supreme Court ruled in Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003) that police may arrest a Defendant, fail to read him his rights, interrogate him, and obtain his statement as long as they don’t use the statement in Court. Additionally, the Court has held that evidence that the police discover as a result of a statement such as this can be used in Court against the defendant, which is radically different from 4th Amendment’s “fruit of a poisonous tree” doctrine which provides that any evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search, even indirectly, is inadmissble unless an exception applies.

It seems as if the big takeaways here relate to the fear that some have expressed that Tsarnaev might simply be let off if his attorney filed a protest over his questioning without his Miranda rights being read. He doesn’t legally have to have those rights read and will have no avenue to demand release over the lack of it. The only possible downside is that his statements might not be allowed as evidence in court. But the Public Safety exception could allow them to be used anyway, providing they don’t hold and question him for too long without taking that step.

Orin Kerr has a much more complete rundown of how this works, along with applicable supporting court cases. It’s worth a look, as I certainly picked up a few things there which I’d not realized before. In any event, it’s clearly too early to claim that law enforcement dropped the ball on this one, at least as I’m reading it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Liam on April 20, 2013 at 8:59 PM

I oh so believe that was on purpose and whoever made the call, Barry included, gets a tip of the hat.

Limerick on April 20, 2013 at 9:02 PM

Court-invented paradigm; hence I reject it entirely.

If one does not know simple legal and natural rights, then one is ignorant and society has failed. Stop coddling and enabling criminals. Miranda solidified the lawyer caste; and how has that progressed (or regressed)? In no Law does it state this requirement.

Stop giving in to their quasi-reality. Stop using their terms, phrases, narratives, word-changes.

John Kettlewell on April 20, 2013 at 9:02 PM

But if he’s in a coma, I’d like to be there when he wakes up to learn he’s in Beth Israel Hospital. LOL

Liam on April 20, 2013 at 8:59 PM

And if he never “wakes up” we will know who offed him.

VegasRick on April 20, 2013 at 9:03 PM

And if he never “wakes up” we will know who offed him.

VegasRick on April 20, 2013 at 9:03 PM

Dr Chutzpah?

Limerick on April 20, 2013 at 9:04 PM

Not sure, in recent history it has only been done with one other American Jose Padilla. PRes. Bush actually classified him as one. He was held for three years without charges and interrogated. After pressure, he was then given a civilian trial.

melle1228 on April 20, 2013 at 8:58 PM

In any event, some may want to rethink what they wish for. Do we really want to give Obama (or any President) the power to deprive citizens of constitutional rights and hold them without due process, jury trial, etc.?

Self correction: due process is, of course, guaranteed pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth, not the Fourth.

TitularHead on April 20, 2013 at 9:05 PM

How about just once..
Just so we know where he stands..

Electrongod on April 20, 2013 at 8:04 PM

“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

………………….BHObama [Audacity of Hope]

Solaratov on April 20, 2013 at 9:12 PM

Didn’t Obama drone an American that joined Al Qaeda?

Electrongod on April 20, 2013 at 8:11 PM

And his 16-year old son a couple of days later…

just for good measure.

Solaratov on April 20, 2013 at 9:16 PM

Well, my initial question and the added part about “100 more of you with more bombs” aren’t the same question, really. I still don’t think your phrasing of the question would fall under Miranda as, again, IMMEDIATE grave danger or potential grave danger is required. I don’t see tomorrow as being considered immediate when push came to shove in a court of law.

[RedNewEnglander on April 20, 2013 at 8:32 PM]

Ah, but it is potential grave danger. But by the tenor of your comment I suspect I’m just being technical and your comment isn’t as precise as the the law provides per case history.

So, are you implying that the exception is basically only good for the class of grave danger where the little girl is buried in the coffin with an hour’s tank of air left? Or to put it more in line with the Marathon case, not reading Timberlan (not dead in this hypothetical) his Miranda because they want to find out where his younger brother is heading with the car because the police lost him during pursuit?

Dusty on April 20, 2013 at 9:16 PM

The NDAA spells it out very clearly.
ButterflyDragon on April 20, 2013 at 9:00 P.M.

Seriously? Another 565 page clearly spelled out Act by Congress?

TitularHead on April 20, 2013 at 9:18 PM

In any event, some may want to rethink what they wish for. Do we really want to give Obama (or any President) the power to deprive citizens of constitutional rights and hold them without due process, jury trial, etc.?

Self correction: due process is, of course, guaranteed pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth, not the Fourth.

TitularHead on April 20, 2013 at 9:05 PM

That’s my fear. I think the lack of mirandizing is so that the suspect cannot lawyer up as happy nomad said thus giving the government time to decide whether to classify him an enemy combatant. I am not comfortable with citizens of the United States being classified as such. I am perfectly okay with him being tried, convicted and put to death..

melle1228 on April 20, 2013 at 9:20 PM

Dr Chutzpah?

Limerick on April 20, 2013 at 9:04 PM

You just know that the dims are “hoping” he dies. This islamist killer does not work well for their agendas on immigration and gun control.

VegasRick on April 20, 2013 at 9:22 PM

And that’s part of what I’m trying to say. It’s pretty tooth-grinding that it has to be this way.

[MelonCollie on April 20, 2013 at 8:10 PM]

(Sorry to have not responded earlier. I’m making pizza.)

I don’t think it’s all that big a deal to have the Miranda warning part of the process. As I said, it reminds the police what the person’s rights are, too, so there’s less room for quibbling about violations after the fact.

It’s tooth-grinding because we are human. It was tooth-grinding before Miranda and still is now, after Miranda.

Dusty on April 20, 2013 at 9:29 PM

But if he’s in a coma, I’d like to be there when he wakes up to learn he’s in Beth Israel Hospital. LOL

Liam on April 20, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Especially if he is then introduced to his attending physician- Dr. Goldstein. ;0

Happy Nomad on April 20, 2013 at 9:40 PM

He lost so much blood, he’s going to be a vegetable. I really don’t think any of this Miranda stuff matters.

Ronnie on April 20, 2013 at 9:43 PM

But if he’s in a coma, I’d like to be there when he wakes up to learn he’s in Beth Israel Hospital. LOL

Liam on April 20, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Especially if he is then introduced to his attending physician- Dr. Goldstein. ;0

Happy Nomad on April 20, 2013 at 9:40 PM

Who is also a woman!

Liam on April 20, 2013 at 9:48 PM

You just know that the dims are “hoping” he dies. This islamist killer does not work well for their agendas on immigration and gun control.

VegasRick on April 20, 2013 at 9:22 PM

Makes things inconvenient anyway. Keeps the attention on the whole issue of immigration and not just amnesty for the illegals. Doubly inconvenient since the terrorist pretty much got every opportunity one could ask for including elite schools, scholarships, and citizenship. And yet, he was the one who planted the bomb who killed a child.

Happy Nomad on April 20, 2013 at 9:49 PM

Who is also a woman!

Liam on April 20, 2013 at 9:48 PM

Who mentions her spouse- Rachel.

Happy Nomad on April 20, 2013 at 9:52 PM

HotAirLib

…you know…I’m starting to think…that even singing DAISY…may be a little too strenuous for HotLips !

KOOLAID2 on April 20, 2013 at 9:53 PM

Who mentions her spouse- Rachel.

Happy Nomad on April 20, 2013 at 9:52 PM

LOL He might end up begging for the death penalty!

Liam on April 20, 2013 at 9:55 PM

How about we cut off his morphine drip? That will get him talking, well, hopefully screaming, about the what and the who.

RovesChins on April 20, 2013 at 8:20 PM

Your right. We must not let him become an addict.

booger71 on April 20, 2013 at 9:59 PM

He may not blab but he can’t lawyer up either.

Happy Nomad on April 20, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Bingo!

melle1228 on April 20, 2013 at 8:41 PM

How is this? If you get taken into custody and ask for a lawyer, but they didn’t say the magic phrase, they can deny you your lawyer?

cptacek on April 20, 2013 at 10:01 PM

The bottom line is that none of us want to be interrogated for a “special category” crime — for which we happen to be not guilty — and have our fundamental Constitutional right not to be coerced into a confession ingored.

Sure we all – none of us on a jury — KNOW Tsarnaev is guilty. But the frequent calls on this site, and the agreeable consideration for, lynching and other forms of torture is extra-Constitutional, immoral and illegal.

Tsarnaev is a US citizen. He has rights. He knows them. Don’t start accepting an unconstitutional parsing of his rights lest you fall into the same pit.

And Enemy Combatants are afforded specific rights under the Geneva Convention. Illegal or unlawful combatants are what you are all talking about here.

flicker on April 20, 2013 at 10:12 PM

The younger brother was sworn in as a US Citizen in September 2012…correct?

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

Break that oath…lose the protections that come with Citizenship.

TexasEngineer on April 20, 2013 at 10:38 PM

How is this? If you get taken into custody and ask for a lawyer, but they didn’t say the magic phrase, they can deny you your lawyer?

cptacek on April 20, 2013 at 10:01 PM

Because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the “reading” of the rights. It has to do with the fact that they are not giving him his miranda rights.

Ex: Miranda rights say you have a right to remain silent so that you don’t incriminate yourself, but Obama administration is saying that they want to question him under the public safety issue. His answers could very well incriminate him i.e., his telling them where other bombs are.

It really has nothing to do with the actually warning itself.. It has to do with the rights that go along with the warning.

melle1228 on April 20, 2013 at 10:42 PM

So if the government doesn’t need the suspect’s statements to get convictions, but does need to get every bit of intelligence it can out of him, there is no reason to give a Miranda advisement.

novaculus on April 20, 2013 at 8:10 PM

Yes, and no. It’s not just statements that could be excluded. As with the proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree, any evidence collected following such a confession can be excluded. If there are co-conspirators, their cases could conceivably be tainted by such statements.

TitularHead on April 20, 2013 at 8:27 PM

Actually, no. Physical evidence is not excludable, and the statements can be used against other defendants. Statements have limited admissibility based on hearsay objections, but may come in under some circumstances.

novaculus on April 20, 2013 at 10:44 PM

Your so-called Miranda rights do not appear and disappear based on the “magic words” of the cops. You have them. You have to understand them for your statements to not be tainted. If you don’t it’s to the prosecution’s benefit to explain them to you. If you then still can’t understand them, perhaps a competency evaluation is in order.

Mirandizing only applies to those who may not know their rights, and then after that only those whose words that are going to be used in court.

flicker on April 20, 2013 at 10:52 PM

Didn’t Obama drone an American that joined Al Qaeda?

Electrongod on April 20, 2013 at 8:11 PM

And his 16-year old son a couple of days later…

just for good measure.

Solaratov on April 20, 2013 at 9:16 PM

There’s actually some logic to that. Obama (or more likely his handlers) don’t want the junior terrorist to grow up and start planning to avenge his father in a few years. We have had younger kids than that convicted of murder.

MelonCollie on April 20, 2013 at 10:53 PM

The TV defines what is legal now…amazing.

Not reading the Miranda rights has nothing to do with “letting him go”…it is useful only if someone confesses to a crime.

Evidence can still be gathered and used, witnesses, video’s, public statements, all evidence except self incriminating evidence is allowed if no Miranda rights are read…and even than the person has to prove he has no knowledge of Miranda.

It is TV and liberals that have convinced people that their is something holy about Miranda…it was so police no longer can beat confessions out of suspects.

right2bright on April 20, 2013 at 11:09 PM

Because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the “reading” of the rights. It has to do with the fact that they are not giving him his miranda rights.

Ex: Miranda rights say you have a right to remain silent so that you don’t incriminate yourself, but Obama administration is saying that they want to question him under the public safety issue. His answers could very well incriminate him i.e., his telling them where other bombs are.

It really has nothing to do with the actually warning itself.. It has to do with the rights that go along with the warning.

melle1228 on April 20, 2013 at 10:42 PM

The truth is basically the opposite of this… unless you’re writing a Law & Order script, then it’s totally awesome.

Ronnie on April 20, 2013 at 11:20 PM

The truth is basically the opposite of this… unless you’re writing a Law & Order script, then it’s totally awesome.

Ronnie on April 20, 2013 at 11:20 PM

So you are saying if he asked for a lawyer tomorrow; the Obama administration would give him one?

melle1228 on April 20, 2013 at 11:31 PM

So you are saying if he asked for a lawyer tomorrow; the Obama administration would give him one?

melle1228 on April 20, 2013 at 11:31 PM

I have no idea what obama would do, nor did I say that I did.

Ronnie on April 20, 2013 at 11:36 PM

I have no idea what obama would do, nor did I say that I did.

Ronnie on April 20, 2013 at 11:36 PM

That was the question I was responding to as to why Obama wouldn’t mirandize the suspect. I realize that any evidence before miranda cannot be used in court, but I also know that the purpose of not mirandizing a suspect has little to do with the actual reading of the rights and more to do with keeping the suspect from invoking the rights such as the right to counsel which was what my original point was..

melle1228 on April 20, 2013 at 11:42 PM

the right to counsel

melle1228 on April 20, 2013 at 11:42 PM

That right pertains to the trial. He has no right to counsel for an interrogation if no one intends to use his answers as a confession.

Ronnie on April 20, 2013 at 11:50 PM

Let’s put it this way: They could read him his rights tomorrow and interrogate him without a lawyer on Monday. They just wouldn’t be able to use it in court. That’s all Miranda says.

Ronnie on April 20, 2013 at 11:52 PM

Actually, no. Physical evidence is not excludable, and the statements can be used against other defendants. Statements have limited admissibility based on hearsay objections, but may come in under some circumstances.

novaculus on April 20, 2013 at 10:44 PM

Are you maintaining that the fruit of the poisenous tree doctrine does not apply, even when a defendant has invoked his right to counsel and subsequent confessions are obtained? If there is precedent from the SC on this issue, I’d like to see it.

I’ve seen the circuits split, but not settled law. If this defendant invokes the Fifth and Sixth and they obtain evidence from a coerced confession, are you arguing that only the statements would be excluded and not the physical evidence?

TitularHead on April 20, 2013 at 11:56 PM

That right pertains to the trial. He has no right to counsel for an interrogation if no one intends to use his answers as a confession.

Ronnie on April 20, 2013 at 11:50 PM

Yeah and you are playing semantics just like the administration. And everyone has a right to invoke counsel even in an interrogation that might result in criminal charges.

melle1228 on April 20, 2013 at 11:58 PM

If this defendant invokes the Fifth and Sixth and they obtain evidence from a coerced confession, are you arguing that only the statements would be excluded and not the physical evidence?

TitularHead on April 20, 2013 at 11:56 PM

Sounds about right. Surely if a guy tells you where the body’s buried, you wouldn’t exclude the body from a murder trial.

Ronnie on April 21, 2013 at 12:00 AM

Let’s put it this way: They could read him his rights tomorrow and interrogate him without a lawyer on Monday. They just wouldn’t be able to use it in court. That’s all Miranda says.

Ronnie on April 20, 2013 at 11:52 PM

I am not talking about what they plan to use in court. I am talking about the fact that they don’t want him to invoke counsel and they don’t want to give him counsel. The whole mirandizing the suspect is a smoke screen for the administration to stall until they can interrogate the suspect and figure out if they want to charge him or make him an enemy combatant. If they cared about what they would “use in court” miranda rights would have been read immediately as to not screw up the case.

melle1228 on April 21, 2013 at 12:02 AM

Yeah and you are playing semantics just like the administration. And everyone has a right to invoke counsel even in an interrogation that might result in criminal charges.

melle1228 on April 20, 2013 at 11:58 PM

Actually lots of people are interrogated before they’re Mirandized and charged.

Ronnie on April 21, 2013 at 12:05 AM

Actually lots of people are interrogated before they’re Mirandized and charged.

Ronnie on April 21, 2013 at 12:05 AM

And do they have the right to invoke counsel at any time?

melle1228 on April 21, 2013 at 12:06 AM

melle1228 on April 21, 2013 at 12:02 AM

No. Reading the Miranda warning doesn’t flip some switch on his rights. It doesn’t begin, “I hereby bestow upon you…” and all it pertains to is what’s admissible in court. That’s ALL it does.

Ronnie on April 21, 2013 at 12:08 AM

And do they have the right to invoke counsel at any time?

melle1228 on April 21, 2013 at 12:06 AM

If the state wants his answers to be admissible.

Ronnie on April 21, 2013 at 12:09 AM

No. Reading the Miranda warning doesn’t flip some switch on his rights. It doesn’t begin, “I hereby bestow upon you…” and all it pertains to is what’s admissible in court. That’s ALL it does.

Ronnie on April 21, 2013 at 12:08 AM
If the state wants his answers to be admissible.

Ronnie on April 21, 2013 at 12:09 AM

You are tap dancing around the issue. Invoking Counsel even PRIOR to miranda rights is a Constitutional right especially when someone feels that they are at risk for criminal prosecution.

And you are either obtuse or deliberately misrepresenting my point. The actual reading of the rights is a smokescreen. No attorney no matter how many times this guy invokes will be forthcoming in the next few days.

The right to invoke counsel is the INDIVIDUAL’S RIGHT. The individual has to cede that right; not the government. It doesn’t matter about what the prosecution wants to use in court etc… They are not allowed to take that right away even if they do it under the auspices of not using what the suspect says in court.

melle1228 on April 21, 2013 at 12:14 AM

… If they cared about what they would “use in court” miranda rights would have been read immediately as to not screw up the case.

melle1228 on April 21, 2013 at 12:02 AM

It is my understanding that both brothers confessed to (bragged about) the bombings to the guy they carjacked therefore they have no need for his admission of guilt. They can just use the witness’ account (not to mention all the police who he was shooting at)

NightmareOnKStreet on April 21, 2013 at 12:15 AM

It is my understanding that both brothers confessed to (bragged about) the bombings to the guy they carjacked therefore they have no need for his admission of guilt. They can just use the witness’ account (not to mention all the police who he was shooting at)

NightmareOnKStreet on April 21, 2013 at 12:15 AM

As I said before, the federal case against him will probably really easy to make for the death penalty. I have no problem with that. I do, however, have a problem with an administration that goes out of its way to give rights to battlefield combatants in Afghanistan but does not afford the same protections to citizens in this country. Whether this guy is scum or not, he has a right to Constitutional protections.

melle1228 on April 21, 2013 at 12:19 AM

Sounds about right. Surely if a guy tells you where the body’s buried, you wouldn’t exclude the body from a murder trial.

Ronnie on April 21, 2013 at 12:00 AM

This has nothing to do with what I would do. I simply asked if you have any precedent to cite for your contentions.

And, yes… If a body was found pursuant to a coerced confession or illegal arrest, the killer may very well walk. The fruit of the poisenous tree doctrine has been around since the 1930s. See also Mapp v. Ohio, which also involved a bombing suspect with child porn.

TitularHead on April 21, 2013 at 12:20 AM

The actual reading of the rights is a smokescreen

melle1228 on April 21, 2013 at 12:14 AM

Well, we agree on that.

Ronnie on April 21, 2013 at 12:27 AM

And, yes… If a body was found pursuant to a coerced confession or illegal arrest, the killer may very well walk. The fruit of the poisenous tree doctrine has been around since the 1930s. See also Mapp v. Ohio, which also involved a bombing suspect with child porn.

TitularHead on April 21, 2013 at 12:20 AM

I missed the word ‘coerced’ the first time. If the guy answers questions without his lawyer and without being mirandized, the body will certainly be admissible. If they beat it out of him, probably not. I didn’t realize we were talking about something unrelated to Boston.

Ronnie on April 21, 2013 at 12:32 AM

Ronnie on April 21, 2013 at 12:32 AM

The topic has wandered. We started with a simple Mirada question; to invoking Constitutional rights; to dragging the dude straight to a water board. I suspect most can agree that the Constitution applies to even the most twisted citizens among us. The public safety exception to Miranda is clear, but limited.

TitularHead on April 21, 2013 at 12:53 AM

How is this? If you get taken into custody and ask for a lawyer, but they didn’t say the magic phrase, they can deny you your lawyer?

cptacek on April 20, 2013 at 10:01 PM

I suspect (but don’t know) that this hits the same general area of legality.

If you ask for a lawyer and are questioned without one provided first; nothing you say could be held against you directly in a court of law.

But if you admit to having placed bombs elsewhere that the police/Feds/etc. disarm and find your fingerprints on; the existence of those bombs and the physical evidence they find WILL be part of your trial even if your statement leading to the location of the bombs does not get admitted.

That is just my guess of how the law would work here; I’m not a lawyer, I don’t play one on TV, and I didn’t sleep at a Holiday Inn Express.

gekkobear on April 21, 2013 at 1:06 AM

This whole Miranda thing is TV (Law and Order) BS. He can (and should) lawyer up from the get go. That whole dance is for stupid people watching TV. And O how stupid people have become. This thread sure proves that. If a cop asks to search your car you say no. He only gets to search (without your consent) if he has ‘Probable Cause’ and he’s only asking for your consent because he doesn’t have ‘Probable Cause’ now does he? However most cops don’t have a problem pulling ‘Probable Cause’ out of their ass if they have to. That after all is the second thing they teach them after teaching them to always ask for consent first. Because risking perjury ups the ante a bit, and he’ll sleep better tonight if you just cooperate stupid.

Miranda only applies to statements he makes being used against HIM period. You can interrogate this guy till the cows come home, his conviction is unavoidable.

Pole-Cat on April 21, 2013 at 1:31 AM

He can tell you everything or refuse to say anything with or without a lawyer, it don’t matter. This Miranda crap is a diversion from the real question – declaring him and Enemy Combatant. Now there’s a move with some teeth to it. That might put Water Boarding on the menu. Better yet as an Enemy Combatant if he “accidently” escapes then Obama could just Drone his ass.

Pole-Cat on April 21, 2013 at 2:00 AM

The only possible downside is that his statements might not be allowed as evidence in court.

When it comes to a conviction in this case, does his statement even matter? The physical evidence seems to be so overwhelming, and should be enough to get a conviction. The video’s from the scene of him placing the bomb has nothing to do with Miranda, and should be plenty to get a conviction. Add to that the multiple firefights with LEO during the chase, and it should be a slam dunk.

HarryBackside on April 21, 2013 at 4:18 AM

This whole Miranda thing is TV (Law and Order) BS. He can (and should) lawyer up from the get go. That whole dance is for stupid people watching TV. And O how stupid people have become. This thread sure proves that. If a cop asks to search your car you say no. He only gets to search (without your consent) if he has ‘Probable Cause’ and he’s only asking for your consent because he doesn’t have ‘Probable Cause’ now does he? However most cops don’t have a problem pulling ‘Probable Cause’ out of their ass if they have to. That after all is the second thing they teach them after teaching them to always ask for consent first. Because risking perjury ups the ante a bit, and he’ll sleep better tonight if you just cooperate stupid.

Miranda only applies to statements he makes being used against HIM period. You can interrogate this guy till the cows come home, his conviction is unavoidable.

Pole-Cat on April 21, 2013 at 1:31 AM

Here’s the reality. In 9 cases out of 10 the cops are too lazy, or too stupid to actually investigate. They prefer you to talk your way into trouble. Rule one, shut the hell up, and say nothing. Sure, you have to give them your name, and address. But short of that, just button your lip and smile. The cops hate that with a passion. They want you talking, because you can, and will talk your way into trouble. You can’t talk your way out of it.

So Miranda is important,it reminds you that you can and should shut your mouth. Remember the cops can and will lie to you. It is a Felony to lie to them. The one thing that annoys me is this idea that police are faultless defenders of justice. They aren’t. They don’t even have a Constitutional duty to protect you.

Routine lies are told by the police constantly. Honestly, the two groups of people I trust least are police, and politicians. Both lie routinely, and both are in power over us.

Next time a cop drives past, take a look and see if he/she is wearing a seat belt. Oh I know the story, they have to be ready to give foot pursuit of a suspect. PFUI.

So when a cop asks you if he can search, ask him what he is searching for? He has a mike on his shirt, and a camera in his car, and you can get him on his own tape. Tell him no, and make him lie on tape about probable cause. We the citizens need to remember this when we sit on the jury. We need to remember that the police tell routine lies all the time, yes, even under oath. The suspect is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but we all make the mistake of assuming guilt until proven innocent, because we think the police are out there for us.

Snake307 on April 21, 2013 at 6:38 AM

You also need to remember that the police are NOT REQUIRED to read ANYONE their Miranda Rights, provided that NO QUESTIONS are asked. As a former law enforcement officer, if I had good evidence and didn’t need to question the suspect after an arrest, I didn’t bother to read them their rights. Now if later on a detective asked them questions, they would get Mirandized. The big issue here is whether or not the federal government wants to treat the Boston Bombing as an act of international terrorism – committed by a foreign national, or as a criminal act committed by a naturalized citizen. If Tsarnev was made a citizen, then regardless of how the government WANTS to treat him, he is subject to the same rights and privileges that any US Citizen is granted. So to ask him any questions, he must be given his Miranda rights.

eyesights on April 21, 2013 at 6:57 AM

Not being a lawyer I am quite frankly puzzled. I can understand not advising a suspect of his Miranda rights in the heat of a fierce gun battle but once the capture has been made, where’s the danger? Can’t, at the instant of capture, Miranda be read to the suspect?

Just so readers know, if I had my druthers, this murdering swine would be pulled apart by teams of oxen moving in different directions on national television, but, sadly, I agree with Snake307 that, as a general rule, police are not your friends-just unionized public employees who would gladly cut corners at your expense, even if innocent.They are tools of the government that controls them–left or right and no more.

The one saving grace in what might be a monumental government snafu is that it was ALL committed by LIBERALS–by a liberal federal government, by a liberal state government, by a liberal city government–as a result there is NO chance that the subject will beat any rap on a technicality. As a last result maybe they can get Dr. Kermit Gosnell to perform a late term abortion on Tsarnaev (LOL).

MaiDee on April 21, 2013 at 7:22 AM

Last I checked, we don’t read ‘rights’ to ENEMY COMBATANTS! I don’t care what President Pro-Islam says — we are AT WAR with Islamic Extremism & these 2 brothers are/were soldiers in that war. Once healthy enough, they should take this 19yo post to Gitmo, give him a waterboard for his 20th birthday, followed by a military trial and a televised execution!

easyt65 on April 21, 2013 at 8:12 AM

Timmothy McVeigh was Obama’s kind of Guy – you know, the kind of American who perpetrated a bombing & kills other Americans….like his buddy Bill Ayers. While both terrorists deserved to die, Timmy did while Ayers did not because, it seems, which letter they were associated with — a (D) or an (R). Now we have a self-professed Muslim terrorist caught after perpetrating this bombing….placing a bomb at the feet of an 8yo little boy. Let’s see if President Pro-Islamic Extremist can 1) try him & get a conviction in less than TEN YEARS..& 2) if he makes sure he is put to death like McVeigh….or if he becomes a professor at Columbia….

easyt65 on April 21, 2013 at 8:21 AM

Last I checked, we don’t read ‘rights’ to ENEMY COMBATANTS! I don’t care what President Pro-Islam says — we are AT WAR with Islamic Extremism & these 2 brothers are/were soldiers in that war. Once healthy enough, they should take this 19yo post to Gitmo, give him a waterboard for his 20th birthday, followed by a military trial and a televised execution!

easyt65 on April 21, 2013 at 8:12 AM

So the Constitution means nothing? Those pesky amendments are just suggestions? What if someone decides that you are an enemy, for whatever reason? Does that mean that the rules should not apply to you?

There are problems with the system. Great inequity exists. I can name a dozen Supreme Court decisions I disagree with. However, I believe that the Constitution means something. It is only our adherence to those laws, the foundation of all other laws, that makes us unique. Many countries behave just as you suggest we should. They write their rules in pencil, and change them at will.

Here is something for you to consider. The KGB used to take people, torture them into confessing, and then execute them. People who survived, because of whatever whim existed in the powers that be, described interview rooms with human eyeballs and teeth scattered about. One Soviet General was famous for having steel teeth. The NVD (Forerunner of the KGB) tortured him by yanking out all his real teeth.

Is that what you really want here? A Government that considers consideres you and I little more than fodder, to be tortured and abused in whatever way they wish? Our rights exist only so long as we fight for them and demand them. Those Constitutional protections you enjoy could well be stripped from you on such a whim as you suggest here. All it takes is for someone to declare you an enemy, they need no more justification by your standard.

But you should know this, I would protest that loudly. I would argue you have rights under our laws, and those rights are meant to make sure we never have a KGB snatching people for whatever imaginary crimes they may have committed.

Without those laws, and our demand to our Government that they are followed religiously, we are not Citizens, we are subjects. Think about that, and then consider your demand that the Boston Bomber be stripped of his rights, his constitutional rights, because it suits your desire for revenge.

Snake307 on April 21, 2013 at 9:48 AM

yes, and yes. Miranda is only an issue if in custody and being interrogated if the statements are being used against him.

I’m going to disagree on the linkage issue a little. Things may have changed, but my understanding is any evidence is out, unless it would have been discovered anyway in the course of the investigation.

For example, if I get info and search something its out. BUT if I can argue I had PC for the search and was only going to discover the evidence post search anyway, you could probably get it in.

Still, this not about getting evidence on him. This is about rolling up the cell he was working with. He’s screwed forever. It doesn’t matter if another word of what he says gets in. It is the other bombers the FBI wants.

archer52 on April 21, 2013 at 11:35 AM

I don’t know the actual reason he has not been marandized, but it could have one effect on the “optics” during his trial.

If the bomber were to say he bombed people because his religion told him to “hate America and bombing it would be a service to mankind” and his professors told him he should “hate America and bombing it would make him a hero like Bill Ayers”, such testimony would be inadmissable in court. No jury would hear about it and no news outlet would be expected to report it. Instead of a clear story, the truth would forever be watered down by msm speculation and clueless chatter.

ROCnPhilly on April 21, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Excellent summary from last night’s QotD

Obama failed to protect the nation.

The FBI failed.

The CIA failed.

The DHS failed.

The Boston Police failed.

And Islam is still the unmentionable root of it all.

profitsbeard on April 21, 2013 at 3:10 AM

I hope the guy dies soon, so the discussions end thusly.

Schadenfreude on April 21, 2013 at 1:30 PM

The issue of Miranda rights is very simple – anything you say may be used in a court of law against you. Now if there is no reason to suspect you may be liable to criminal charges, there is no requirement to Mirandize anyway – it only comes into play when the law enforcement authority has some reasonable reason to believe you may be a suspect or criminally liable. And if you have not been advised of that possibility, then anything you say cannot be used against you in a court of law.

BUT it can be used outside of court, for intelligence, to advance an investigation, for any number of other reasons that have nothing to do with your criminal legal exposure. The right that you have, cosmetically protected by the Miranda warning, is to NOT have anything you say used against you in court unless you willingly provide the information knowing ahead of time it can hurt you. So it really is a balancing act — do we need this guy’s info to convict him in court? If yes — Mirandize him. If no – no need. So long as we don’t use his information in court, his Miranda rights are NOT violated.

And here, where we have logical and urgent needs to find out who and what else, if any, is involved then we have a need for his information. Whatever he says pre-Miranda will never go into court and cannot be the basis for other evidence used against him. But I would point out that there is an abundance of evidence completely independent of anything he could possibly say to convict. This evidence is untainted by anything he says pre-Miranda. I would maintain there is ample evidence to convict even if he never says another word with or without Miranda.

Remember – Miranda warning is not a right. It is a rule imposed to insure that anything you say cannot be used against you unless you know the risk before you say it. If the authorities make no attempt to use your words against you, your Constitutional right is preserved – regardless of whether they read Miranda to you or not.

UreyP3 on April 21, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Snakes307, the Constitution means EVERYTHING…but the Constitution was NOT written for FOREIGNZ TERRORISTS. It outlines the freedoms, liberties, & rights of American CITIZENS! Our Founding Fathers were not ‘globalists’ who drafted ‘rights for all mankind but for our new nation. It is an ‘exclussive club’s – got to be a CITIZEN & CAN’T be a TERRORIST who Kill Americans & tries to destroy America!

easyt65 on April 21, 2013 at 6:51 PM

Snake, you talk like these 2 Chechen Muslim Extremists are ‘one of us. Like many Americans/Liberals you don’t understand Muslim Extremists are NOT tolerant, they do NOT want to be our friends, & nothing you say will change their minds. That kind of evil in inconcievable to you. This terrorist arrogantly strode through the crowd like a butcher walking through a pen of sheep just before the slaughter and placed a bomb at an 8yo little boy’s feet! There is NOTHING someone like this has to society. If a pit bull would have killed this little boy you would call for the dog to be put down. This ‘dog’ killed this little boy just as savagely & just as coldly – without blinking an eye. He then went back to his dorm, worked out, went to a party….trying to blend back in with his intended victims. He was part of a terrorist cell, no matter how big or small thar cell turns out to be. You seem to have a serious problem distinguishing between real AMERICANS and the terrorists who prey on us…the same problem Obama has!

easyt65 on April 21, 2013 at 7:04 PM

Schad, Intel failed to spot this on ‘radar’… The police played ‘catch-up’ from the start & did an awesome job to catch these 2 so quickly. Our immigration policies have been nothing more than election tools…this administration has been the most criminal ever in this area…cutting BPA #s & letting criminals into civilian population just to play political games with asequestration…Homeland Security buying millions of rounds of ammo to keep weapons out of law-abiding citizens’ hands rather than keep us safe…..this administration has the blood of ‘Fast & Furious’, Benghazi, & Boston on its hands! I applaud the city of Boston & the police for cleaning up Obama’s F#-up & doing his job of making the people of Boston safe again!

easyt65 on April 21, 2013 at 7:15 PM

Last I checked, we don’t read ‘rights’ to ENEMY COMBATANTS! I don’t care what President Pro-Islam says — we are AT WAR with Islamic Extremism & these 2 brothers are/were soldiers in that war. Once healthy enough, they should take this 19yo post to Gitmo, give him a waterboard for his 20th birthday, followed by a military trial and a televised execution!

easyt65 on April 21, 2013 at 8:12 AM

Lindsey? That you?

TitularHead on April 21, 2013 at 8:21 PM

Snake, you talk like these 2 Chechen Muslim Extremists are ‘one of us. Like many Americans/Liberals you don’t understand Muslim Extremists are NOT tolerant, they do NOT want to be our friends, & nothing you say will change their minds. That kind of evil in inconcievable to you. This terrorist arrogantly strode through the crowd like a butcher walking through a pen of sheep just before the slaughter and placed a bomb at an 8yo little boy’s feet! There is NOTHING someone like this has to society. If a pit bull would have killed this little boy you would call for the dog to be put down. This ‘dog’ killed this little boy just as savagely & just as coldly – without blinking an eye. He then went back to his dorm, worked out, went to a party….trying to blend back in with his intended victims. He was part of a terrorist cell, no matter how big or small thar cell turns out to be. You seem to have a serious problem distinguishing between real AMERICANS and the terrorists who prey on us…the same problem Obama has!

easyt65 on April 21, 2013 at 7:04 PM

Because I love and revere the Constitution, I’m a liberal now? Pfui. Our dedication to our laws, and our principals is tested most when things are bad. If we follow the principals we hold sacred then, we are a worthy country. Worthy of the sacrafice of millions in our history who fought and died for this nation. Worthy of the sacrafice we ask our servicemen and women to make today, and tomorrow. If we are loyal to the principals that are contained within the Constitution, we will survive as a nation, but if we start making exceptions, because it is convienient, easier, or we think it is what our enemies would do, we are doomed.

We are already treading on that path, and it sickens me. The PATRIOT ACT evicerates three amendments with it’s National Security Letters. Three amendments ignored with one piece of paper, and we think it’s fine. The First Amendment says we have freedom of speech, press, and Religion. There are many, perhaps even you, who think that we should make an exception for Islam. Now, for the record, I am absolutely convinced there is a God. But I would not demand that anyone believe as I do or else.

We are even now arguing that the Second Amendment may not be abridged. We celebrated the defeat of a piece of legislation that would chip away at it further. We cheered when the Heller decision was handed down, a victory for the Second Amendment.

Kelo was an abomination in my opinion, allowing the Government, at any level, to take property for campaign contributers. That weakened the Constitution in my opinion.

But here is the thing, do we only fight when the Constitution affects us personally? Am I supposed to fight hard to protect the Second, while demanding that the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth be violated because it suits me? If I am to call myself a Christian, I must know, and love all of the Bible. If I am to call myself an American, I must have one thing in my heart above all the petty little symbols and songs. Being an American isn’t about singing the National Anthem at some pathetic sporting event. It is about Supporting and Defending the Constitution. Not just the parts I like, but all of it. If you let a little go because you think it is old, doesn’t apply today, or because it gets in the way, then you will see the parts you do like/love going away because someone else doesn’t like that part.

Liberals detest the Second Amendment, if not for those few words, they would have had guns already. Our dedication to our principals my annoy you now, but if we let them go to suit the public sense of revenge, it will affect you later.

Remember, the Constitution was to protect us from the Government, not to protect and ensrine the Government from US. The Boston Bomber may be guilty as sin, and if so, the trial will get twelve citizens to say so, and they can sentence him to death and they can polish up the table he’ll be strapped to. That is fine, and here is the thing, I’m perfectly cool with that. If on the other hand, the Government decides that it’s just too much trouble to go through that process, and ships him down to Club Gitmo. I am absolutely not cool with that. Because if they do that once, they will do that again, and again, and before long the threshold for that isn’t a terrorist attack, but someone speaking out in favor of the Second Amendment.

There are only two kinds of people who would support something like that. Option A is someone who would say “My country is always right” which is juvenile. Option B is someone who would say “My country right or wrong” which is asinine. Which are you?

Snake307 on April 21, 2013 at 8:53 PM

This entire FARCE of a discussion is because some alledgedly constitutional illiterate(Miranda) did not know what the law is, and sued to get off scott free for his crime.

I have no doubt that someone educated in the US, and going to a college, SHOULD understand that they need not listen to ANYONE to explain what their RIGHTS under the constitution are.

It is quite fascinating to see the blogosphere, the tv pundits, and even politicians, so unaware of what they speak.

Freddy on April 21, 2013 at 11:12 PM

Break that oath…lose the protections that come with Citizenship.

TexasEngineer on April 20, 2013 at 10:38 PM

http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartL-Chapter3.html

Sounds good. Revoke his naturalization and send him back to Russia.

unclesmrgol on April 22, 2013 at 1:41 AM

If the bomber were to say he bombed people because his religion told him to “hate America and bombing it would be a service to mankind” and his professors told him he should “hate America and bombing it would make him a hero like Bill Ayers”, such testimony would be inadmissable in court.

ROCnPhilly on April 21, 2013 at 12:09 PM

The defendant must be presented with the opportunity to face his accusers. He is not obligated to testify, but if he did and said the above, even I as a non-attorney can see where it leads.

“I bombed people because…” translates to “I bombed people.”

It’s an admission of guilt, and that’s why his handlers will make sure he never goes to trial, or, if he does, that he stays mute.

unclesmrgol on April 22, 2013 at 1:46 AM

Break that oath…lose the protections that come with Citizenship.

TexasEngineer on April 20, 2013 at 10:38 PM

Let me know when we start applying that same standard to elected “leaders”.

Wendya on April 22, 2013 at 5:20 AM

The failure to read someone their Miranda rights does not deprive the defendant of those rights. Is there really anyone in this day and age that is not well aware of the wording of the Miranda statement? Very well, not having your rights read may mean that a defendant’s words may not be used against him. He’s still free to shut up and ask for an attorney though before being questioned, and the arresting authorities are (unfortunately in this case) still legally obligated to accede to that request. In this case, it’s a moot point anyway. The evidence against this serpent dirt of a suspect is overwhelming, whether he admits to his guilt or not. If not reading him his rights serves to further the investigation, then I have no problem with it at all.

SteveThomas on April 22, 2013 at 9:59 AM

This whole Miranda thing is TV (Law and Order) BS. He can (and should) lawyer up from the get go. That whole dance is for stupid people watching TV. And O how stupid people have become. This thread sure proves that. If a cop asks to search your car you say no. He only gets to search (without your consent) if he has ‘Probable Cause’ and he’s only asking for your consent because he doesn’t have ‘Probable Cause’ now does he? However most cops don’t have a problem pulling ‘Probable Cause’ out of their ass if they have to. That after all is the second thing they teach them after teaching them to always ask for consent first. Because risking perjury ups the ante a bit, and he’ll sleep better tonight if you just cooperate stupid.

Pole-Cat on April 21, 2013 at 1:31 AM

Wrong. If a cop pulls you over for any valid reason, he has the right to search both you and your car. It’s considered to be for his protection. He won’t be allowed to search your locked glove box or your locked brief case, as those being locked pose no threat to him.

On the other hand, if he pulls you over for an expired tag and your tag isn’t actually expired, he has no right to search either you or your car.

runawayyyy on April 22, 2013 at 11:43 AM

I say Mirandize and waterboard him simultaneously!

redware on April 22, 2013 at 6:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3