You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time.Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial. The disguise is transparent. These issues, of course, are matters of New York law, which could be disposed of by the New York courts on remand.
Post, at 686. . Rushen v. Spain, The majority's treatment of the legal issues presented in this case is no less troubling than its abuse of the facts. It was only after securing the loaded revolver and giving the warnings that he continued with investigatory questions about the ownership and place of purchase of the gun. By finding on these facts justification for unconsented interrogation, the majority abandons the clear guidelines enunciated in Miranda v. Arizona, * Shortly after midnight on September 11, 1980, Officer Kraft and three other policemen entered an A & P supermarket in search of respondent Quarles, a rape suspect who was reportedly armed. He has argued only that police failed to administer Miranda warnings. See, e.g., Maness v. Meyers, By contrast, suspects subject to informal custodial police interrogation of the type involved in this case are not in the same position as witnesses required to appear before a court, grand jury, or other such formal tribunal. 58 N.Y.2d, at 666, 458 N.Y.S.2d, at 521, 444 N.E.2d, at 985. Long before Miranda, the Court had recognized that the Federal Government was prohibited from introducing at criminal trials compelled confessions, including confessions compelled in the course of custodial interrogations. Decided June 12, 1984. In both cases a dangerous weapon was missing, and in neither case was there any direct evidence where the weapon was hidden. Pp. . Ante, at 651-652. You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time. Respondent answered that he did own it and that he had purchased it in Miami, Fla.In the subsequent prosecution of respondent for criminal possession of a weapon,The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed by a 4-3 vote. The exception which we recognize today, far from complicating the thought processes and the on-the-scene judgments of police officers, will simply free them to follow their legitimate instincts when confronting situations presenting a danger to the public safety.We hold that the Court of Appeals in this case erred in excluding the statement, "the gun is over there," and the gun because of the officer's failure to read respondent his Miranda rights before attempting to locate the weapon. 653-660. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. ), and no New York court considered the theory sua sponte.
This case therefore contains no record on the issue, and it is unclear whether the question is preserved under New York's procedural law. See Friendly, The Bill of Rights as a Code of Criminal Procedure, 53 Calif.L.Rev. Id., at 479, 86 S.Ct., at 1630.Since the time Miranda was decided, the Court has repeatedly refused to bend the literal terms of that decision. There was, of course, still considerable confusion over whether the Until today, the Court has consistently adhered to Miranda's holding that, absent informed waiver, statements made during a custodial interrogation cannot be used to prove a defendant's guilt. Loading... Unsubscribe from Robert Ross? Miranda has never been read to prohibit the police from asking questions to secure the public safety. The police could easily have cordoned off the store and searched for the missing gun. Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, supra, Indeed, whatever case can be made for suppression evaporates when the statements themselves are not admitted, given the rationale of the Schmerber line of cases.