Public Safety Exception Case Study

Improved Essays
Under the public safety exception, where officers engage in a custodial interrogation before Miranda warnings, and if reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety or the safety of the arresting officers, a suspect’s statements are admissible as evidence. (New York v. Quarles (1984) 476 U.S. 656 (holding that the need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination).) In essence, an officer must have a reasonable need to protect the public or themselves from immediate danger. Id. Moreover, the applicability of the public safety exception is not dependent upon the subjective motivation of the questioning officer. …show more content…
Newton (2004) 369 F.3d 659; see Allen v. Roe (2002) 305 F.3d 1046 (where the objectively reasonable need be based on what the officer knew at the time of questioning); see also United States v. Jones (2001) 154 F.2d 617 (likewise, holding the public exception applicable where police knew the suspect had a firearm in the apartment unattended with children present). In determining the objectively reasonable need, courts consider whether the defendant might have or recently have had a weapon and that someone other than the police might gain access to that weapon and inflict harm. (United States v. Williams (2007) 483 F.3d 425.) Accordingly, Miranda warnings are not required where there’s an objectively reasonable need in protecting the police or public from immediate danger and statements stemming from custodial interrogation must not be

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Cameron Awbrey Case

    • 995 Words
    • 4 Pages

    The Supreme Court case Thompson v. Keohane established two inquiries to determine whether a person was in custody: the circumstances surrounding the interrogation and whether a reasonable person would have felt at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. In this case, the conversation held between the defendant and the police officer was not considered an interrogation as the officer was unaware his remarks would elicit an incriminating response. In the Supreme court case Rhode Island v. Innis, a conversation that took place between police officers in front of the defendant did not constitute an interrogation under Miranda. An interrogation for Miranda purposes refers to any words or actions that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. In Rhode Island v. Innis, the police officers were not aware their conversation would be susceptible to the defendant, similar to the case today.…

    • 995 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?” This is the Miranda warning or more widely known as the Miranda rights. Police are required to read these rights to anyone they arrest, they are required to under Miranda V. Arizona to protect against self-incrimination. Ernesto Arturo Miranda, who raped, kidnapped, murdered and armed robbed was arrested and convicted after an interrogation where he was not informed of his rights. After that Miranda was taken to court and was convicted of rape and kidnapping and sentenced to 20-30 year.…

    • 843 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Miranda warning includes what rights we have when we are being arrested or interrogated. Police officers or other law enforcement officers must tell a person their Miranda rights during an arrest. After the warning is given to someone being arrested, the person also has the right to speak to an attorney. These rights became a part of the Fifth and Six amendments that already existed in our U.S. Constitution.…

    • 484 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    A woman voluntarily interviewed with police detectives while other officers executed a search warrant at her home. Upon learning of this at the end of the interview, two detectives were unsure if they should let her go. The woman contends that these factors together rendered the interview a custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings thus making her statements inadmissible. A court would likely find, however, that the woman was never in custody because she was never under formal arrest or an equivalent to formal arrest.…

    • 1316 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    His request to speak with his lawyer while being questioned by police was repeatedly denied. The Court held that the denial of Escobedo’s right to counsel contributed to his confession, making it invalid as evidence, emphasizing the importance of protecting the rights of individuals during police questioning (Doc 6). Similarly, in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Court established the famous “Miranda rights,” which require law enforcement officials to inform individuals of their constitutional rights before questioning them in police custody. This case involved Miranda, who confessed to a crime during police interrogation without being informed of his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Court ruled that Miranda’s confession was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights and established the now-familiar Miranda warning to protect individuals’ rights during police interrogation (Doc 7).…

    • 1417 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    According to Memphis criminal attorney J. Jeffrey Lee, if police fail to read a Miranda warning to a person in custody being questioned, the police cannot use self-incriminating information obtained from the person. Cornell University's Legal Information Institute notes that this is part of the Exclusionary Rule. The purpose of the Miranda warning is to protect the Fifth Amendment rights of a person in police custody from coercive police interrogation explains Carl A. Benoit, J.D.…

    • 276 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Miranda Vs Arizona Essay

    • 704 Words
    • 3 Pages

    When someone is being questioned intensely, most people called that giving the “third degree.” Before the court case of Miranda vs Arizona, the police would use varies methods to get a confession out of a person such as intimidation or coercing. Thanks to the Miranda Warning, the police can no longer, well they are not supposed to use any of those methods as acquiring a confession out of a person. The reason for the Miranda Warning also known as the Miranda Rights, is because in 1966 Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping, robbing, and raping. When the police interrogated him, he confessed to the crimes.…

    • 704 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Miranda Rights help protect citizens fifth and sixth amendments. The fifth amendment protects citizens from being forced to be witness against himself, while the sixth amendment assures that those arrested have a right to a public and speedy trial (Doc E). Together, the fifth amendment protects against self-incrimination and the sixth amendment assures that those arrested can not be held in jail indefinitely. The Miranda Warning read by officers specifically states that after one is made aware of their Miranda Rights, any confession or statements can be used against oneself lawfully (Doc J). Consequently, the Miranda ruling assures that one is fully aware of their rights and are also aware of the consequences if they choose to self-incriminate after being read their…

    • 799 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The police officer making the arrest, based on the Fifth Amendment, must inform the person of his or her Miranda Rights, which is “an individual in police custody must be informed of the rights to remain silent and to confer with a lawyer before answering questions and must be told that any statements might be used in court” (Foner 1023). The Fifth Amendment also states, “no person shall be held to answer for a capital, unless on a presentment or indictment of the Grand Jury (Foner A-38). As Zeitoun was “pushed toward the front door” he was not granted those options (Egger 207). During Hurricane Katrina officers were not interested in ant type of justification. It was more like they had been assigned a task they had to fulfill at whatever expense of basic human rights and dignity.…

    • 1500 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Option 2: Impact of Miranda on Policing and Prosecuting Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), is an extremely famous case that affected policing and prosecuting criminals tremendously. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), affected policing and prosecuting criminals just as much as the well-known Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 463 (1961), case did, when it made items found via unreasonable search and seizure inadmissible in court. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), has caused all sorts of controversy over the last four decades and will continue to into the future. The case has been linked to hand-cuffing police officers and making it harder for prosecutors to get criminals convicted of their crimes. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was the landmark case where the United States Supreme Court “ruled that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination”…

    • 2075 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    However, this only applies when the suspect is in custody. According to GetLegal.com, if both elements are not present, the police are not required to give Miranda warnings. Many landmark cases have addressed and debated over what the true meaning of "custody" and "interrogation," however the main definition to go by is that custody means to be arrested. Therefore, the standard a court will apply is objective as they give a fair choice, where they will ask whether the average person is aware of the circumstances and of their rights but would have felt free to leave the scene and remain silent. If the answer is no, the suspect is put in…

    • 1242 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In law enforcement there are numerous searches that can be conducted by law enforcement and they may range from search of premises or a vehicle, search of public places, stop and frisk, and plain view searches. It is always important for both parties (suspect and police) to grasp how the rights and legality relating to search and seizure, arrest, and interrogation have shaped the role of law enforcement in these processes. Therefore, to fully understand “search and seizure, arrest, and interrogation” and the rights of suspects and of the police too, one must: comprehend the importance of the fourth amendment, grasp how Miranda takes into play in regards to arrest and interrogation and its limitations, and fully understand the arresting process. To begin with, in order to grasp what is “right” during a search and/or seizure it is beneficial to know what is permissible by the fourth amendment and what it means to you, the officer, or to you, the suspect. For insistence, for a police officer the fourth amendment is essential to their job duties because it gives an officer the layout of how to investigate unlawful acts and suspects which is by having probable cause.…

    • 1720 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Fifth Amendment

    • 857 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Even in cases where rights have been waived according to the standards of the Miranda decision, it is still possible for a confession to be deemed coerced. Subsequent case law has ruled that continuing to speak to police after being informed of one’s right not to is an implicit waiving of the right to remain silent, and that not explicitly requesting an attorney is an implicit waiving of that right as well. Even so, confessions…

    • 857 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Five Amendments

    • 1399 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Whereas the Fourth Amendment uses probable cause to set up if a crime is, has, or is about to occur and an arrest can be made. Then the Fifth Amendment comes into play, with the questioning of a person who has been arrested and the rights to the arrested person, specifically the reading of Miranda Rights. In 1966, Ernesto Miranda’s civil rights from the Fifth and Sixth were found to have been violated during the investigation and following interrogation. The Supreme Court determined that anyone who is in custody and being questioned needs to be read his or her specific rights, which included: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.…

    • 1399 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The People vs. Larry Flynt Americans value their freedom, most especially their freedom of speech and how their Constitution protects such freedom. Speeches like hate speech, speech plus, symbolic speech, seditious speech and the like are part of their freedom of speech. For the purposes of this paper, the film to be discussed is The People vs. Larry Flynt. This paper will also discuss the interrelationship between media, identities, and politics depicted in the said movie. Brief Summary of the Film…

    • 1543 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays