Federal Judiciary

Circuit Split: Protecting Police under the Public Safety Exception to Miranda

By Robert Loblaw

U.S. v. Liddell, 07-1337 (8^th Cir., Feb. 25, 2008)

Under Miranda, suspects who are questioned while in custody must be advised of their constitutional rights, or their subsequent statements are not admissible. In New York v. Quarles, the Supreme Court carved out a limited exception for threats to public safety. In Quarles, police chased an armed rapist into a supermarket. When police caught up with him moments later, his holster was empty, meaning that there was a possibly loaded gun somewhere in the supermarket. The Supreme Court held that the danger to the public justified the officers? decision to question the suspect about the firearm before Mirandizing him.

Today, the Eighth Circuit has held that the same rationale applies to police who, having arrested a suspect with an unloaded weapon in his car, question him about whether there is anything else in the car that might hurt them. The majority reasons that officers could be harmed if they accidentally discovered more weapons in the car. Even though the defendant in this case was pulled over for the non-violent crime of playing his music too loudly, and even though the first weapon police found was unloaded, the Court concludes that police had a reasonable belief that the defendant might also have a loaded weapon in the car. Accordingly, the Court holds that the police were justified in questioning the defendant about the contents of his car without Mirandizing him.

Judge Gruender concurs but expresses concern that the Eighth Circuit?s case law has strayed far afield of the Supreme Court?s decision in Quarles. He notes that there is a circuit split on the issue, with the First Circuit applying the public safety exception under similar circumstances, and the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Circuits rejecting it. That?s an interesting line-up.

Full post as published by Decision of the Day on February 25, 2008 (boomark / email).