# Can anyone explain the significance of not giving the Boston Bomber his Miranda Rights? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 20, 2013, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185 "2013-04-20T02:59:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/21 "2013-04-20T14:14:38Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > The prosecution cannot use any information that he gives out unless he has been Mirandaized first. They can still use all other evidence. Not quite. Spontaneous utterances are admissible. So if, as he was being loaded into the ambulance, he said “Yes, I did it. I designed the bomb and planted it to kill those people.” then that statement, not made in response to police questioning\*, would be admissible. \*nor made in response to any police tactic not designed to elicit a response. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/22 "2013-04-20T14:31:35Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > The news hasn’t explained what this accomplishes? What’s the point of not reading him the Miranda? He’s in critical condition and can’t be questioned anyhow for awhile. Plenty of time to get warrants or whatever tonight. Warants for what? ---
**Author:** ![ratatoskK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ratatoskk/32/2987_2.png) [@ratatoskK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ratatoskK)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/23 "2013-04-20T15:03:59Z")
[This story says:](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/us/boston-marathon-bombings.html?hp) > [@](#): > > A federal law enforcement official said Mr. Tsarnaev would not be read his Miranda rights because the authorities would invoke the public safety exception to question him extensively about other potential explosive devices or accomplices and to try to gain intelligence. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/24 "2013-04-20T16:36:33Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > Not quite. Spontaneous utterances are admissible. > > So if, as he was being loaded into the ambulance, he said “Yes, I did it. I designed the bomb and planted it to kill those people.” then that statement, not made in response to police questioning\*, would be admissible. > \*nor made in response to any police tactic not designed to elicit a response. Thank you for the correction. ---
**Author:** ![DaveRaver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/daveraver/32/1078_2.png) [@DaveRaver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DaveRaver)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/25 "2013-04-20T17:50:47Z")
Am I correct in assuming they just forgot to read him his Miranda Rights in the excitement of the capture? ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/26 "2013-04-20T17:55:27Z")
Posters above are correct about the effect of not reading _Miranda_ rights. however, there is a statute or court rule, I forget which, that mandates reading rights within x amount of time after suspect is in custody. There’s not much teeth for violations of that rule, but to avoid the issue, there is a “public safety” exception. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/27 "2013-04-20T17:57:39Z")
The only difference this will make is a few extra motions by defense lawyers, which will be dismissed. ---
**Author:** ![Robb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Robb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robb)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/28 "2013-04-20T20:34:23Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Posters above are correct about the effect of not reading _Miranda_ rights. however, there is a statute or court rule, I forget which, that mandates reading rights within x amount of time after suspect is in custody. There’s not much teeth for violations of that rule, but to avoid the issue, there is a “public safety” exception. You might be confusing Miranda rights with the obligation to inform someone of the accusation against them. If the government doesn’t want to question the accused, it has no obligation to Mirandize the accused. ---
**Author:** ![Robb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Robb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robb)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/29 "2013-04-20T20:38:36Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > The only difference this will make is a few extra motions by defense lawyers, which will be dismissed. If they don’t interrogate him, then it makes no difference. If they interrogate him without reading him his Miranda rights, they will be giving his eventual attorneys something to consider. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/30 "2013-04-20T20:44:36Z")
> [@Robb](#): > > If they don’t interrogate him, then it makes no difference. If they interrogate him without reading him his Miranda rights, they will be giving his eventual attorneys something to consider. Yes, I did leave out that this makes no difference at all if he’s not interrogated. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/31 "2013-04-20T20:45:21Z")
The standard searches that the cops perform of homes, computers and Internet records. There shouldn’t be any problem getting a judge to sign these quickly. This was a horric crime and it seems even more important to follow procedures and convict this guy the right way. > [@lawbuff](#): > > Warants for what? ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/32 "2013-04-20T20:56:16Z")
> [@DaveRaver](#): > > Am I correct in assuming they just forgot to read him his Miranda Rights in the excitement of the capture? No, I’m sure it was planned out well before the arrest. ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/33 "2013-04-20T21:15:17Z")
> [@BuzzSaw101](#): > > There are certain rules for questioning a suspect that go along with the “Public Safety” exception to Miranda. The feds can only legally question him about things which are of an immediate concern to public safety or the safety of law enforcement. None of what they ask him can be used in court. > > [http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/february2011/legal\_digest](http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/february2011/legal_digest) Your cite says the opposite. Anything that they ask him under the Public Safety Exception can be used in Court against him. Also, not reading someone their Miranda rights doesn’t mean they do not have a right to an attorney. You always have that right whether you are read your Miranda warnings or not. The rights you have under Miranda (the court case) is the right to be _informed_ of your right to remain silent and to have an attorney. In the case of this Boston Bomber, the police just want to question him about other bombs without letting him know that he can remain silent or get an attorney. If he knows about these rights, he can still assert them. He can stay silent if he wants, and he can ask for an attorney if he wants. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/34 "2013-04-20T22:16:12Z")
> [@Robb](#): > > You might be confusing Miranda rights with the obligation to inform someone of the accusation against them. If the government doesn’t want to question the accused, it has no obligation to Mirandize the accused. I agree. However, the government has an obligation to bring the accused before a magistrate for an initial appearance “without unnecessary delay.” and he’d get read his rights there whether they want to question hom or not. Federal rule of criminal procedure 4(d) An interesting side note, even if there was a _Miranda_ violation, information found as a result of the improperly obtained statement is admissible. The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine doesn’t apply to _Miranda_ ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/35 "2013-04-20T22:22:56Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > There’s no Constitutional requirement that a suspect be read his Miranda rights at all. The requirement is that a defendant must be aware of his rights in order for _what he says_ to be admissible at trial. Mirandization has no affect at all on the huge amount of physical and forensic evidence pointing to these guys. The worst case scenario here is that anything he tells his interrogators will not be admissible. That’s not going to get him off. I don’t know why I’ve never thought of this question before, but you mention “requirement is that a defendant must be aware of his rights..” which I had always known about Miranda. But I had never thought…is the “Miranda warning” always required to make a defendant aware? What if the defendant is a police officer or an attorney with 20 years of practice experience in criminal law? What if it’s a judge? Will a court “assume” that such persons are innately aware of their rights regardless of whether they have been informed? ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/36 "2013-04-20T23:02:14Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > There’s no Constitutional requirement that a suspect be read his Miranda rights at all. The requirement is that a defendant must be aware of his rights in order for _what he says_ to be admissible at trial. There are two possible reading of what you are claiming here. Are you saying that the act of reading Miranda is not required if we just assume for some reason tha suspects are “aware of his rights?” If so, are you unaware that the Supreme Court, including arch-conservatives Rehnquist and Scalia who _never_ take pro-civil liberties positions, emphatically rejected this argument nearly 13 years ago, or are you coyly disagreeing with them? > **[Dickerson v. United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickerson_v._United_States)** > > Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000), upheld the requirement that the Miranda warning be read to criminal suspects and struck down a federal statute that purported to overrule Miranda v. Arizona (1966). > Dickerson is regarded as a significant example of a rare departure by the Court from the principle of party presentation. The Court noted that neither party in the case advocated on behalf of the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 3501, the specific statute at issue in the case. Accor... Or are you just saying that Miranda is about evidence and trial and not arrest per se, and therefore it’s OK to arrest people without the intent of ever charging them with a crime and putting them on trial? Because there are yet more fundamental problems with that. You seem to be either arguing against Miranda/Dickerson itself, or against habeas corpus. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/37 "2013-04-20T23:11:06Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > There are two possible reading of what you are claiming here. > > Are you saying that the act of reading Miranda is not required if we just assume for some reason tha suspects are “aware of his rights?” If so, are you unaware that the Supreme Court, including arch-conservatives Rehnquist and Scalia who _never_ take pro-civil liberties positions, emphatically rejected this argument nearly 13 years ago, or are you coyly disagreeing with them? > > [Dickerson v. United States - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickerson_v._United_States) > > Or are you just saying that Miranda is about evidence and trial and not arrest per se, and therefore it’s OK to arrest people without the intent of ever charging them with a crime and putting them on trial? Because there are yet more fundamental problems with that. You seem to be either arguing against Miranda/Dickerson itself, or against habeas corpus. He’s correct, there is no general requirement to Mirandize anyone. It’s a requirement if you want to use information obtained in a police interview of someone who is under arrest or detained, but if you have no desire to use interview information then why Mirandize? Most DUI defendants aren’t Mirandized, for example, because you don’t usually need to interrogate someone to convict them of DUI. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/38 "2013-04-20T23:15:41Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > There are two possible reading of what you are claiming here. > > Are you saying that the act of reading Miranda is not required if we just assume for some reason tha suspects are “aware of his rights?” If so, are you unaware that the Supreme Court, including arch-conservatives Rehnquist and Scalia who _never_ take pro-civil liberties positions, emphatically rejected this argument nearly 13 years ago, or are you coyly disagreeing with them? > > [Dickerson v. United States - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickerson_v._United_States) > > Or are you just saying that Miranda is about evidence and trial and not arrest per se, and therefore it’s OK to arrest people without the intent of ever charging them with a crime and putting them on trial? Because there are yet more fundamental problems with that. You seem to be either arguing against Miranda/Dickerson itself, or against habeas corpus. Frankly, I don’t quite follow how you could reach either of those conclusions from what I said. When I said “there’s no Constitutional requirement that a suspect be read his Miranda rights at all,” what I meant was “there’s no Constitutional requirement that a suspect be read his Miranda rights at all.” That’s it. As a matter of standard procedure, it’s generally considered best practice to Mirandize a suspect as soon as is practicable, so there will be no question as to the admissibility of his statements. (The public safety exception is of course an exception.) ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/39 "2013-04-20T23:19:22Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I don’t know why I’ve never thought of this question before, but you mention “requirement is that a defendant must be aware of his rights..” which I had always known about Miranda. But I had never thought…is the “Miranda warning” always required to make a defendant aware? What if the defendant is a police officer or an attorney with 20 years of practice experience in criminal law? What if it’s a judge? Will a court “assume” that such persons are innately aware of their rights regardless of whether they have been informed? The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to mean that a person must be clearly informed of their rights in order for any information obtained to be used against them. I don’t recall any exceptions based on the defendents knowledge or experience. The instruction is to clearly inform, not make a decision on whether they are already so informed. ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185/40 "2013-04-20T23:23:27Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > Frankly, I don’t quite follow how you could reach either of those conclusions from what I said. When I said “there’s no Constitutional requirement that a suspect be read his Miranda rights at all,” what I meant was “there’s no Constitutional requirement that a suspect be read his Miranda rights at all.” That’s it. > > As a matter of standard procedure, it’s generally considered best practice to Mirandize a suspect as soon as is practicable, so there will be no question as to the admissibility of his statements. (The public safety exception is of course an exception.) But there is ALSO a requirement that you have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed to arrest someone in the first place. If you don’t plan to put the person on trial, arresting them is extremely problematic, legally. You think you’ve discovered a loophole here but I assure you that you have not. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-explain-the-significance-of-not-giving-the-boston-bomber-his-miranda-rights/656185.md?page=3)