In 1966 the US Supreme Court issued the Miranda warning thru the case of Miranda v. Arizona, as we all know. What I did not know or had not thought about was the non-absolute nature of the warning. In the case of New York v. Quarles in 1984 the court issued the "public safety exception" to the Miranda warning. I read of this recently in the case of the Boston police questioning suspects in the marathon race bombing there of late. In the Quarles case a police officer arrested a man in a near deserted supermarket who was wearing a shoulder holster for a hand gun but the holster was empty. After handcuffing the man the officer asked where the gun was and the suspect indicated its location. This happened before he was given the Miranda warning but the court stated that the statement by the suspect about the gun could be used in court. In 2010 in the Berghuis v. Thompkins case the Supreme Court stated that the suspect "must state he is relying on this right" or any statement made can be used.
(Source: an article in the Virginian Pilot on 5/3/13 on an internet search re Wikepedia)
No comments:
Post a Comment