After authorities captured Boston Marathon bombing suspect, 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, officials with the United States Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigations told media outlets that they may question Tsarnaev without reading him his Miranda rights first. Many commentators voiced criticism over the government’s decision to deny Tsarnaev a reading of the Miranda warning, with some stating that such an act would be unconstitutional.
Let’s talk about what rights a person in Mr. Tsarnaev’s shoes has. Whenever a person is “in custody” and is subject to express questioning, the person must be advised of certain constitutional rights. However, failure to do so results in suppressing the evidence obtained. In other words, if the officers have Mr. Tsarnaev in custody and they question him without reading him his rights, the may not be permitted to use his statements to prove his guilt in court.
But, of course, it is the law and there are exceptions.
The requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect’s statements can be used in evidence does not apply in situations where the police ask questions prompted by a public safety concern. So this means authorities can question Mr. Tsarnaev first, and Mirandize him later as long as there is a concern for public safety.
Lastly, it is important to note that even if this exception did not apply, authorities may still decide to question Mr. Tsarnaev without reading his rights because they do not need his statements to convict him. It seems as though there is overwhelming evidence against him, they may be questioning him for reasons other than using his statements to prove his guilt.