On Christmas day, 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to blow up an airplane headed to Detroit, Michigan. He had explosives hidden in his underwear, which earned him the nickname “Underwear Bomber.” This terrorist was unsuccessful at detonating the explosives and he was immediately taken into police custody and interrogated. During this interrogation, the terrorist made incriminating statements. His attorney recently argued in the United States District Court in Detroit that the incriminating statements should be suppressed since his client was not read his Miranda rights.
Usually suspects must be read their Miranda rights
Usually, suspects in police custody who are being interrogated must be read their Miranda rights or else statements or admissions obtained as a result of the custodial interrogation may be suppressed in court. However, there is an exception to this rule. If necessary for the public safety, officers may interrogate a suspect who is in custody without first giving the suspect his or her Miranda rights. United States District Judge Nancy Edmunds ruled that this exception applied in the Underwear Bomber’s case, and thus his incriminating statements can be used in court to convict him. “There was a national security exception…that excused the giving of Miranda warnings,” Judge Edmunds stated.
Understandably, it was important to national security to find out whether this terrorist was working alone or if there were other airplanes in the air with suicide bombers as passengers. However, criminal defense attorneys wonder where this public safety exception ends. There could be a case made that questioning any criminal suspect without taking the time to read them Miranda warnings would be necessary for the public safety. As defense lawyers, we believe all suspects are entitled to their Constitutional rights and defenses, and we work hard to preserve them in the face of a tough criminal justice system.