Editing Miranda warning (section)

===Public safety exception===
The "public safety" exception is a limited and case-specific exception, allowing certain unadvised statements (given without ''Miranda'' warnings) to be admissible into evidence at trial when they were elicited in circumstances where there was great danger to public safety; thus, the ''Miranda'' rule provides some elasticity.<ref name="Stigall, Dan E. 2009">{{cite book|last=Stigall|first=Dan E.|title=Counterterrorism and the Comparative Law of Investigative Detention|publisher=Cambria|year=2009|location=Amherst, NY|isbn=978-1-60497-618-2}}</ref>

The public safety exception derives from ''[[New York v. Quarles]]'' (1984), a case in which the Supreme Court considered the admissibility of a statement elicited by a police officer who apprehended a rape suspect who was thought to be carrying a firearm. The arrest took place during the middle of the night in a supermarket that was open to the public but apparently deserted except for the clerks at the checkout counter. When the officer arrested the suspect, he found an empty shoulder holster, handcuffed the suspect, and asked him where the gun was. The suspect nodded in the direction of the gun (which was near some empty cartons) and said, "The gun is over there." The Supreme Court found that such an unadvised statement was admissible in evidence because "[i]n a kaleidoscopic situation such as the one confronting these officers, where spontaneity rather than adherence to a police manual is necessarily the order of the day, the application of the exception we recognize today should not be made to depend on ''[[:wikt:post hoc|post hoc]]'' findings at a suppression hearing concerning the subjective motivation of the police officer."<ref>''New York v. Quarles,'' 467 U.S. 649 (1984).</ref> Thus, the jurisprudential rule of ''Miranda'' must yield in "a situation where concern for public safety must be paramount to adherence to the literal language of the [[Prophylactic rule|prophylactic rules]] enunciated in ''Miranda''."

Under this exception, to be admissible in the government's direct case at a trial, the questioning must not be "actually compelled by police conduct which overcame his will to resist," and must be focused and limited, involving a situation "in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety."<ref>Benoit, Carl A. [https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/february2011/legal_digest "The 'Public Safety' Exception to Miranda"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130420020802/http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/february2011/legal_digest |date=April 20, 2013 }}, FBI law enforcement bulletin, February 2011. Retrieved April 19, 2013.</ref>

In 2010, the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] encouraged agents to use a broad interpretation of public safety-related questions in terrorism cases, stating that the "magnitude and complexity" of terrorist threats justified "a significantly more extensive public safety interrogation without ''Miranda'' warnings than would be permissible in an ordinary criminal case," continuing to list such examples as: "questions about possible impending or coordinated terrorist attacks; the location, nature and threat posed by weapons that might pose an imminent danger to the public; and the identities, locations, and activities or intentions of accomplices who may be plotting additional imminent attacks." A [[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]] spokesman described this position as not altering the constitutional right, but as clarifying existing flexibility in the rule.<ref name="NY Times FBI memo">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/us/25miranda.html?_r=0|title=Delayed Miranda Warning Ordered for Terror Suspects|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|first=Charlie|last=savage|date=March 24, 2011|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230420155000/https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/us/25miranda.html?_r=0|archive-date=April 20, 2023}}</ref>

Prosecutors initially argued that [[Dzhokhar Tsarnaev|Tsarnaev]]'s pre-''Miranda'' statements should be admissible under this exception.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Wright|first=Joanna|volume=113|title=Applying ''Miranda''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s Public Safety Exception to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev: Restricting Criminal Procedure Rights by Expanding Judicial Exceptions|journal=Columbia Law Review Sidebar|pages=136–55|url=https://columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Wright-113-Colum.-L.-Rev.-136.pdf|date=September 28, 2013|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230531034010/https://columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Wright-113-Colum.-L.-Rev.-136.pdf|archive-date=May 31, 2023}}</ref>{{rp|136–37}} However, the exception was not considered by the court because the prosecutors later decided not to use any of that evidence in their case against Tsarnaev.<ref>{{cite journal|journal=Catholic University Law Review|title=Mirandizing Terrorism Suspects? The Public Safety Exception, the Rescue Doctrine, and Implicit Analogies to Self-Defense, Defense of Others, and Battered Woman Syndrome|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230420202244/https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3326&context=lawreview|archive-date=April 20, 2023|first=Bruce|last=Ching|date=2015|volume=64|pages=613–47|quote=The case docket shows that in spite of initially opposing the defendant's motion to suppress the use of his un-Mirandized statements, the prosecution later indicated it would not use Dzhokhar’s statements ....|url=https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3326&context=lawreview}}</ref>{{rp|643}}

The [[New York Court of Appeals]] upheld the exception in a 2013 murder case, ''People v Doll'',<ref>{{cite web|title=People v Doll, NY Slip. Op. 06726 (2013)|url=http://www.courts.state.ny.us/Reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_06726.htm|website=NYCourts.gov|publisher=New York State Unified Court System|access-date=7 September 2017|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20220510233507/https://www.nycourts.gov/Reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_06726.htm|archive-date=May 10, 2022}}</ref> where a man with blood on his clothes was detained and questioned.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Kamins|first1=Barry|last2=Murray|first2=Warren J.|title=LexisNexis AnswerGuide New York Criminal Procedure|date=16 December 2015|publisher=LexisNexis|isbn=978-1632845566|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Jps8CwAAQBAJ|access-date=7 September 2017}}</ref>

The window of opportunity for the exception is small. Once the suspect is formally charged, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel would attach and surreptitious interrogation would be prohibited.<ref name=Massiah>''[[Massiah v. United States]]'', 377 U.S. 201 (1964).</ref> The public safety exception applies where circumstances present a clear and present danger to the public's safety and the officers have reason to believe that the suspect has information that can end the emergency.<ref>''New York v. Quarles'', 467 U.S. 649, 655 (1984).</ref>