The Miranda issue was puzzling to me. Apparently (http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforceme...) the public safety exception to the Miranda warning was created in a ruling that clarified that statements obtained from an un-Mirandized suspected in response to questions asked by police in the heat of the moment (e.g. "Where's the gun?") were admissible. The spirit of the exception was that the threat of suppressed evidence shouldn't prevent police from asking a question that any reasonable person would ask in order to ensure their safety in the heat of the moment.
Clearly, if you can plan not to Mirandize a suspect, then the public safety exception cannot apply in the first place, so calling for the public safety exception merely makes a mockery of the law. The concluding sentences of the FBI's explanation of the public safety exception are worth quoting in full:
"When police officers are confronted by a concern for public safety, Miranda warnings need not be provided prior to asking questions directed at neutralizing an imminent threat, and voluntary statements made in response to such narrowly tailored questions can be admitted at trial. Once the questions turn from those designed to resolve the concern for safety to questions designed solely to elicit incriminating statements, the questioning falls outside the scope of the exception and within the traditional rules of Miranda."
You cannot call for public safety exemption when there is no threat to public safety and the police already stated that there was none.
But let's not kid ourselves, Eric Holder and co give zero fucks about the law or our rights. Fast and Furious anyone?
The problem with this exemption, from what I understand (please correct me if wrong) is that any testimony in this questioning WOULD be admissible in court over some nonsense post 9/11 legalese in some crazy ass bill somewhere.
Clearly, if you can plan not to Mirandize a suspect, then the public safety exception cannot apply in the first place, so calling for the public safety exception merely makes a mockery of the law. The concluding sentences of the FBI's explanation of the public safety exception are worth quoting in full:
"When police officers are confronted by a concern for public safety, Miranda warnings need not be provided prior to asking questions directed at neutralizing an imminent threat, and voluntary statements made in response to such narrowly tailored questions can be admitted at trial. Once the questions turn from those designed to resolve the concern for safety to questions designed solely to elicit incriminating statements, the questioning falls outside the scope of the exception and within the traditional rules of Miranda."