Now THIS is where the public safety exception to the Miranda rule becomes
relevant.
According to that exception, evidence gained from
questioning a suspect who has not been Mirandized may be admissible if there
was good public safety reason to question the suspect without the warning.
This does not mean the suspect does not HAVE the rights in
question, but only that he needn’t be expressly warned of them in all cases.
And if the Obama administration thinks it needs to I am sure
it will, with however great reluctance, seek to use such evidence in this case.
If the evidence is excluded at trial they will appeal that
ruling or the Democrats will pay a very heavy electoral price if he does not.
And what would the Supremes say?
A truly textualist court would reject Miranda, anyway, and Gideon right along with it.
I doubt our Supremes would actually go that far, though, if asked about this case.
Pretty good bet they'd be willing to make that public safety exception pretty broad for dealing with terrorists, though, I would guess.
A truly textualist court would reject Miranda, anyway, and Gideon right along with it.
I doubt our Supremes would actually go that far, though, if asked about this case.
Pretty good bet they'd be willing to make that public safety exception pretty broad for dealing with terrorists, though, I would guess.
Hmm?
No comments:
Post a Comment