In the aftermath of the Boston Terror incident, civil liberties proponents and media pundits are questioning whether the suspect should have been advised of his Miranda rights. The case illustrates the tension between the protection of personal rights and law enforcement’s duty to protect the public good. As a major American city and its suburbs recover from the trauma of a terror incident and the unprecedented step of putting millions of citizens on a public safety lockdown, the tension between these two ideals is stunningly demonstrated.
The horror which befell those gathered at the Boston Marathon finish line was the beginning of a series of threats to public safety. Each incident which followed, one after the other, increased the threat to the community, both in and around Boston. After one bomb detonated, another bomb soon followed. It is a common terrorist ploy to set off one bomb and delay a second detonation to ensure that civilians and first responders are gathered about those initially injured to be sure that the second bomb injures and kills as many people as possible.
Law enforcement authorities advise that three additional bombs were scheduled to explode that day. Police conducted a “controlled explosion” of one of the bombs. Clearly, the continuing sequence of events placed public safety concerns at an all-time high since 9/11. Now law enforcement was at risk as the officers fulfilled their obligation to protect and serve their community.
MIT Police Officer Sean Collier, 26, was executed during the manhunt. The terrorists happened to cross paths with Officer Collier as they attempted to evade capture. Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26 and his brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19 hijacked a vehicle, but released the driver unharmed. Reportedly, the driver’s life was spared because he is not an American. The hostage informed authorities that prior to his release; he heard the brothers speaking in a foreign language. The hostage indicated the one word he believes he understood was Manhattan. How great a concern was there for public safety? Was New York City next if the Tsarnaev’s escaped Boston? Police authorities had a major threat to public safety at hand.
The stolen Mercedes was spotted by police. A chase ensued, which ended in an extensive exchange of gun fire between the brothers and four Boston police officers. Tamerlan Tsarnaev aggressively approached the officers who took him down. As officers attempted to cuff him, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev put the stolen Mercedes in reverse, heading in the direction of the officers and his brother. This resulted in Dzhokhar running his brother over with the car and dragging his brother’s body approximately a block as he fled. Authorities believe that Dzhokhar caused the death of his older brother.
This incident required authorities to lock Boston down. Police found the vehicle Dzhokhar used to flee the fire fight abandoned. LEOs began a tactical approach, advancing door to door and checking house by house in search of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. A citizen’s tip led police to Tsarnaev hiding in a boat in Watertown, Massachusetts. He was taken to Beth Israel Hospital and remains there under guard. He became alert Monday.
Last Monday, 183 people were injured at the Marathon finish line, 3 were killed, MIT Police Officer Sean Collier was executed by a gunshot to the back of his head, MBTA Officer Richard Donahue was gravely wounded, a vehicle was car-jacked, the driver was kidnapped and robbed. A fire-fight ensued between the Tsarnaev brothers and the police, bombs were tossed by the brothers at the police, and Boston (and surrounding suburbs) was placed in lockdown. Law enforcement was experiencing a public safety emergency.
Some ask why Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will be questioned by the police without first Mirandizing him. The United States Supreme Court will always side with an individual when it comes to the protection of privacy or the other protections granted by the Bill of Rights except if one exception. The Supreme Court will not undermine the wellbeing of society. This incident was a terrorist attack. Whether it was domestic terror or an attack sponsored by Muslim Extremist group is still under investigation. Many questions must be answered in addition to understanding the actual terrorist acts committed.
Much of the debate regarding the use of the Public Safety Exception to the Miranda decision revolves around the limited instances in which it is used. The exception to question a person without the protection of Miranda will only stand up against challenges by the ACLU and other such groups if a clear and present danger to the public good can be demonstrated. Regarding these incidents in Boston, questions must be answered to ensure the public safety of the Bostonians as well as any other citizens possibly targeted.
The Constitution is a remarkable document. Whoever would have foreseen this document, adopted in 1787, incorporating the Bill of Rights would play such a significant role in permitting America to protect itself from itself in 2013. The Constitution is referred to as a living and breathing document. This has to do with the principles of the Constitution keeping pace with the present needs of society as addressed by case law.
The Supreme Court established the Public Safety Exception was in the case of New York vs. Quarles in 1984. In this case, a woman approached two officers. She informed them she was the victim of a rape. She provided a description of her assailant and his location in a supermarket. The officers were advised the man was in possession of a gun.
The suspect was located, but an officer briefly lost sight of the suspect as he attempted to flee the supermarket. The suspect was apprehended with a holster on his belt, but no firearm. Once the suspect was handcuffed, he was asked where the gun was located. The responded nodded and said, “The gun is over there.” Once the gun was located the officer read the suspect his rights under Miranda. The trial court and both the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals all were of the opinion the statements made by the suspect are inadmissible in violation of Miranda.
Upon review, the United States Supreme Court reversed the findings of the lower courts due to this case presenting a situation where a concern for public safety must be held to higher standard than the personal safeguards under Miranda. This ruling created a narrow exception to the Miranda rule for special circumstances such as the tragedy experienced by the City of Boston.
On Monday, April 15, 2013, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was arraigned under Miranda. Prior to the arraignment, Tsarnaev was cooperating with authorities questioning him. The Public Safety Exception was used and the world is watching.
What would our enemies think of us as a nation if by law, we afforded the protection of Miranda while public safety remained at risk? This would encourage another attack. In this case, the Public Safety Exception was applicable due to the actions of the Tsarnaev brothers.
Jim Gaffney, MPA is Law Enforcement Today’s risk management /police administration contributor. He has served with a metro-New York police department for over 25 years in varying capacities, culminating with Executive Officer and PIO. He is a member of ILEETA, IACP, and IACSP. Jim is a Certified Force Science Analyst. He mentors law enforcement’s next generation as an adjunct criminal justice professor in the New York City area. Jim brings the street into the classroom to prepare students today for their roles as police officers tomorrow. He is CEO of Bright Line Consulting and can be reached via www.brightlinepoliceconsulting.com
To learn more:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=467&invol=649