The Current Scope of the Public Safety Exception to Miranda Under New York v. Quarles
Recommended Citation
Alan Raphael, Th e Current Scope of the Public Safety Exception to Miranda Under New York v. Quarles
The C urrent Scope of the Public Safety Exception to Miranda Under New York v. Quarles
Alan Raphael 0 1
0 The C UNY Law Review is published by the Office of Library Services at the City University of New York. For more information please contact , USA
1 Loyola University
Alan Raphaelt
In New York v. Quarles' the United States Supreme Court
announced an exception to the rule established in Miranda v.
Arizona.2 Miranda bars the use of any statement in the prosecution's
case in chief obtained during custodial interrogation unless the
suspect has first been advised of his or her constitutional right
against self-incrimination 3 and has voluntarily waived that right.4
t Professor of Law, Loyola University Chicago School of Law. J.D., 1979, Indiana
University School of Law; Ph.D., 1972, University of Chicago; M.A.; 1968, University of
Chicago; B.A., 1966, Haverford College.
1 467 U.S. 649 (1984).
2 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
3 U.S. CONST. amend. V.
4 Miranda,384 U.S. at 444-45. Prior to interrogation, a person in custody must be
clearly informed that: (1) he has the right to remain silent; (2) anything he says can
be used against him in court; (3) he has the right to the presence of an attorney at the
questioning; and (4) if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for him by
the court. Id. at 444. There must be a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of
these rights for the interrogation to continue. Id. at 479. If these criteria are not met,
any statements made by the defendant are inadmissible at trial in the prosecution's
case in chief. Id.
When a person is not in custody, the police may question him/her as part of
their investigation and may introduce elicited answers into evidence if that person is
subsequently charged with a crime. See Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 433
(1984). Questioning of a suspect in custody, however, must conform to the
guidelines set forth in Miranda outlined above.
A suspect is considered to be in custody when "a 'formal arrest or restraint or
freedom of movement' of the degree associated with a formal arrest" has taken place.
Quarles, 467 U.S. at 655 (citation omitted). Express questioning or its functional
equivalent constitutes an interrogation. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301
(1980). A "custodial interrogation [therefore is] questioning initiated by law
enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his
freedom of action in any significant way." Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444 (citations
omitted). The test is whether the police should have known that their statements to the
suspect or from the suspect "were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating
response." Innis, 446 U.S. at 301 (citation omitted).
The Innis court determined that an arrestee's response to a conversation he
overheard between two police officers regarding the dangers of a gun previously held by
the suspect toward handicapped children did not constitute an interrogation. Id. at
302. Miranda requirements therefore did not apply, and the arrestee's statement
about the gun's location was admissible as evidence. Id. at 302-03. By contrast, in
Quarles, the police directly questioned the defendant regarding the location of a gun.
Quarles, 467 U.S. at 652. Under Innis, this would constitute express questioning.
Innis, 446 U.S. at 300-01.
Quarles established a public safety exception to Miranda (the
"exception") which allows the admission of otherwise barred
statements where police questioning is "necessary to secure their own
safety or the safety of the public .... ." This article will discuss the
application of the exception in the thirteen years since the
Supreme Court decided Quarles. It will point out the limited
degree to which courts have extended the exception beyond the
bounds set forth by the Supreme Court. This article will also
discuss a related exception for questioning in emergency situations
involving hostages and other persons at risk.
I.
BACKGROUND
Familiarity with the facts of Quarlesare essential to
understanding the scope of the exception. Shortly after midnight, a young
woman approached a police patrol car and informed the officers
that a man armed with a gun had just raped her.6 She further
informed the police that the suspect had entered a nearby
supermarket.7 The police entered the supermarket, spotted a man who
matched the woman's description, and apprehended him after a
brief pursuit.' The police handcuffed and frisked the suspect,
Benjamin Quarles, who wore an empty holster but did not possess a
gun.9 One of the officers inquired as to the location of the gun,
and Quarles told him where to find it, saying "the gun is over
there.""° The police recovered the loaded gun where Quarles
indicated it would be. 1 Quarles was subsequently charged with
criminal possession of a weapon. 2 The defendant sought to ha (...truncated)