Did I hear this correctly? A judge (what judge? what court?) has ruled that there is a “National Security Exemption” to the Fifth Amendment, and that statements made by the “underwear bomber” can be admissible, even though uttered before a Miranda warning was given, and while he was under the influence of medications that could have reduced his capacity for judgement.
What conceivable reasoning could a judge use to create a “National Security Exemption” to the Constitution?
Or…did I hear it wrong, and this is just a “Never Mind” moment?
Trinopus
(I thought I heard it on a CBS news radio report, on a Los Angeles affiliate, about five o’clock this afternoon, Sep 15, 2011. No further cite possible at this time.)
Statements uttered by a prisoner before a Miranda warning is given are already admissible – it’s only when they start to question him that they have to give a Miranda warning. It’s not required at the time of arrest.
And he took the medications himself; they weren’t given by the police. Many (most?) arrestees are partially or completely intoxicated when arrested, but their statements made at the time are admitted in court all the time.
re medications, did he take them himself, or was he medicated and in a hospital? If they came around and asked me questions while I was on pain-killers, I’d darn well hope that would be thrown out as inadmissible. Not quite the same as being drunk and on the street…
Anyway, maybe I’m panicking over nothing, but the way it sounded on the radio was…ominous…
The drug issue: the judge found, based on testimony from medical personal that were there (and who had administered the drugs), that the painkillers weren’t at high enough doses to have an effect on his cognition. So it wasn’t that he was drugged up but the court ruled that it didn’t matter, the court decided he wasn’t drugged up. So I don’t think there’s much controversy there.
The article I read wasn’t 100% clear, but it did sound like the judge decided statements from his un-Mirandized testimony was admissible, due to National Security concerns. The justification being that the FBI wanted to get as much informaiton as quickly as possible to head off the possibility that the suspect was involved in some larger bombing campaign.
Based on the NYT article I read this morning. Hardcopy, so no link, sorry.
A quick recap…The underwear bomber was aboard a plane and tried to detonate a bomb strapped to his, well, underwear. It failed, but the bomber was burned when the bomb malfunctioned. He was taken to a hospital. He was given pain medicine to ease the pain from the burns. The FBI states they questioned him there to determine if he was acting alone or with others; to determine if the nation was still under a threat of attack. The bomber answered the questions under the influence of his pain medication (I’m acting alone; I’m apart of al-qaeda; the plan was x, y, z; ect.). No Miranda rights were given before this line of questioning began.
The underwear bomber still had the right to remain silent/have attorney/ect during questioning, however, he was not advised of that right. The Judge ruled that due to the unknown circumstances surrounding the bombing attempt (i.e., was he acting alone, was the threat contained, ect.) the FBI did not need to Mirandize the suspect before questioning him (Public Safety Exception/National Security Exception). The public safety exception applies where circumstances present a clear and present danger to the public’s safety and the officers have reason to believe that the suspect has information that can end the emergency. It is not new (dates to a 1984 SC case). Under this exception, the statements are still admissible; if there was no exception, the statements would likely be inadmissible.
Judging by CoolHandCox’s explanation, you might view it like this:
When they questioned the man, they were not questioning him to determine guilt nor to lead him into incriminating himself, they were trying to determine the further ramifications of the bomb (i.e. whether there were more bombs). They didn’t care whether he put the bomb in his own pants or someone else forced him to, they just cared about whether they needed to go searching for more bombs or other culprits. If, while they were asking about this, he happened to reveal that he was in fact culpable for the bomb in his own pants, well, that’s too bad for him, but it’s not what they were asking about.
And you have to agree, you really can’t claim that he didn’t set the bomb in his underoos off, and it couldn’t have been placed there accidentally. He really did no shit try to bomb the place. The only thing the Feds did was try to sort out any accomplices and if there was any further plot needed to be thwarted.
Let me clarify my previous post. The Judge did not rule the FBI did not have to Mirandize the suspect. The FBI can question as they please. The Judge ruled the suspect was in custody and being interrogated and not read his Miranda rights, however, those un-Mirandized statements are admissible in her court under the public safety/national security exception to the strict Miranda rule.
Obviously the FBI can question someone in custody without Mirandizing them and act on that information to stop further attacks. The debate, as posed by the OP, is should those statements be admissible in a US court through an exception to the Miranda rule. Clearly the suspect should have been Mirandized. Clearly there is a public safety exception to that rule. Does the exception apply in this specific case? Timing is a big issue…How far from the emergency was he questioned? 2 weeks later won’t fly. Here it was between hours/2 days. The timing is not clear to me from anything I read. Also, how real was the emergency to the public? The real threat of blowing airplanes from the sky is a pretty serious emergency.
I remember the President/DOJ wanted Congress to codify the public safety exception last year, did that ever happen? It would have addressed situations just like this one.
I think being under the influence of drugs is a separate and unrelated question, albeit just as important (he might have invoked his right to silence if he was lucid). However, the nurses and doctor testified he was lucid when questioned.
And it should be pointed out that he STILL had the right to remain silent, so I’m not sure how this is an exemption to the 5th amendment itself unless the OP is saying that Miranda, a product of the activist Warren Court, is so intricately linked to the 5th amendment that hurting the outskirts of Miranda is an assault on the 5th itself.
I did the best I could! Really! It was something I heard on the radio, KNX news radio in Los Angeles, and I gave the date and time. What more can I do?
This sounds like what I heard – which also wasn’t clear.
I can happily accept the need to violate a suspect’s Miranda rights in interrogation to acquire immediately needed information to stem another possible attack. Makes perfect sense. (Er…but not torture…)
But that “poisons the fruit.” Once you do that, you can’t use it in prosecution. It sounds to me like they’re trying to poison the fruit and eat it too!
(Sort of like when a Congressional committee gives a promise of exemption to prosecution to someone, so they can no longer plead the Fifth. Could they then change their mind, say “Ha ha, only kidding” and let someone prosecute? I sez no…)
Sure…but then to turn around and give it to a prosecutor is “having it both ways.”
Here’s a fun example I’ve actually seen. The police think that some guys are dealing drugs in their house. They haven’t got enough information for a warrant. So they send in a Fire Department safety inspector, who doesn’t need a warrant. He can just go in and look around – for fire-safety violations, mind you. But if he should just happen to see some drugs lying around…
It’s a cute “end run” around the Fourth Amendment – and the fire inspector actually admitted this! There weren’t any drugs in the house, the fireman said he would report this back to the police. He made it sound like it was all a good thing!