There have been some articles (and at least one U.S. Senator) this week suggesting that the Boston bombing suspect can be questioned without Miranda warnings, relying on a case describing a public safety exception: Quarles.

What do you think?

But in a case like this (or even something similar), does it really matter? I cannot imagine that there is a person alive today who does not know that they have the right to remain silent, right to attny, etc. Law & Order, et al, have been on TV for decades. So even if you don't tell him his 'rights', I cannot imagine that it would change his decision to talk or not to talk. If he is inclined to speak, he will regardless of Miranda or lack thereof.

Additionally, even if they do go in and start questioning him w/o reading him his rights, a commentator on ABC said that they could only question him like this for around 50 minutes, which seems absolutely silly!

What is the point in there being a time limit?

Additionally, this all seems stupid anyways. Even if they question him w/o an attorney and he spills the beans, so what? How would that affect any criminal charges against him?

He can only be executed once and even if everything post-arrest were to get tossed (on account of the exclusionary rule for not reading him his rights), he did enough prior to his arrest to get convicted (which would not be excluded or effected by a tainted interrogation). So it seems silly to argue or worry about this.

Its not like they need a confession and its not like they need to pile on charges with additional things that would be discovered w/o Miranda. If he decides to snitch on others, the failure to give him Miranda would not effect their cases. He was caught red handed shooting at the cops and throwing bombs at them (while he was trying to escape). Plus, he ran over and killed his brother. Plus, the photos of him planting the bombs.

Quarles is rife with warnings about the practical limitations of the exception granted. It would seem that, in any case, the question is the immediacy of the danger involved. A gun in a supermarket? Limited. A bombing suspect, where there could be dozens of co-conspirators ready to carry out similar attacks? The time limit must, of necessity, stretch. Once it is clear that the danger has passed, the warnings will come into play. Whether Tsarnaev is ultimately convicted and executed remains to be seen. I would estimate that his statements, even if excluded, wouldn't be the ultimate deciding factor in the case.

Of course, Boston isn't dealing with Art. 38.22, C.Cr.P.. Will the Court of Criminal Appeals be as accommodating as the Quarles decision would allow? I would think so, but, then again, Texas courts do what Texas courts do. The courts have made it clear that 38.22 should be strictly construed, yet case after case allows for minor deviations from the scheme.

Though Miranda may have been necessary in the 1960s, is the decision still sound? I imagine few Americans wouldn't understand their rights in this day and age, and the suppression of evidence for violations was always a draconian, though, the Court felt, necessary and proper remedy to deter police misconduct.

In this world of video. police "abuses" are rare. There may be technical violations in many cases, but does that necessitate the continuation of Miranda? After all, the Court wanted to make sure confessions were voluntary. I would imagine that few confessions are beat out of a suspect these days.

All very fascinating. On the left, people act like Miranda is, of itself, a constitutional right. On the right, people act like Miranda is just a tool for the criminal element to escape justice.The fact is, its the law, and, after 31 years of practicing criminal law, 25 in prosecution, I don't see any reason why 38.22, Miranda, or any other Miranda-like rules can't be followed.