Law in Contemporary Society

View   r5  >  r4  ...
AlexHeyckeSecondEssay 5 - 28 May 2024 - Main.AlexHeycke
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="SecondEssay"
Line: 10 to 10
 

New York v. Quarles and the Public Safety Exception

Changed:
<
<		In New York v. Quarles, the Supreme Court held that our 5th Amendment Miranda right is subject to a public safety exception: when there is a need to protect the public or police from any immediate danger, pre-_Miranda_ statements–and evidence gathered on their basis–are admissible evidence against the accused.
>
>		In New York v. Quarles, the Supreme Court held that our 5th Amendment Miranda right is subject to a public safety exception: when there is a need to protect the public or police from any immediate danger, pre-_Miranda_ statements–and evidence gathered on their basis–are admissible evidence against the accused.
 
Why would you discuss at length a Supreme Court case, or any case, without linking to it?
Line: 24 to 24
 

Changed:
<
<		 the Quarles court reflects–and greatly feeds into–another problem: the extreme deference to police discretion in our constitutional law. Although the court described the threat to public safety as needing to be “objectively reasonable,” it immediately softened the objectiveness of its standard by noting that its holding would “free [officers] to follow their legitimate instincts.” While there was some precedent in allowing some level of error set by cases like Adams v. Williams and Terry v. Ohio (essentially applying a reasonable person standard with some room for error), Quarles was the first case to make such a wholesale, explicit endorsement of police’s ability to generally make the correct decisions while acting on mere whim.
>
>		 the Quarles court reflects–and greatly feeds into–another problem: the extreme deference to police discretion in our constitutional law. Although the court described the threat to public safety as needing to be “objectively reasonable,” it immediately softened the objectiveness of its standard by noting that its holding would “free [officers] to follow their legitimate instincts.” While there was some precedent in allowing some level of error set by cases like Adams v. Williams and Terry v. Ohio (essentially applying a reasonable person standard with some room for error), Quarles was the first case to make such a wholesale, explicit endorsement of police’s ability to generally make the correct decisions while acting on mere whim.
 
Why are you not linking the cases you refer to?

Revision 5r5 - 28 May 2024 - 23:26:30 - AlexHeycke
Revision 4r4 - 28 May 2024 - 03:41:33 - AlexHeycke
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM