public safety exception in Arizona

2024Instead, there must be "an objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from any immediate danger." State v. Ramirez, 178 Ariz. 116, 124 (1994) (quoting United States v. Brady, 819 F.2d 884 , 888 n.3 (9th Cir. 1987)); see Allen v. Roe, 305 F.3d 1046, 1051 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that an officer's subjective intentions do not affect whether the public safety exception applies).

2018Whether questioning falls within the public safety exception turns on “whether there was an objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from any immediate danger.” State v. Ramirez, 178 Ariz. 116, 124 (1994) (quoting United States v. Brady, 819 F.2d 884 , 888 n.3 (9th Cir. 1987)). ¶36 The initial conversation between Starkovich and the detective falls within the public safety exception.

2023See id. (applying the public-safety exception to post- arrest questions about gun possession). ¶17 Morales’s contention that the officer obtained the statements as part of a “continuous” interrogation is similarly unavailing.

2010The public safety exception was most notably expressed in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 655-56 , 104 S.Ct. 2626 , 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984), in which the Court held that Miranda did not require suppression of a defendant’s answer when questioned by a police officer about where he hid a gun while being pursued in a grocery store because the question was “reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety.” But the two doctrines are not interchangeable because they pertain to two entirely different rules.

2024Instead, there must be "an objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from any immediate danger." State v. Ramirez, 178 Ariz. 116, 124 (1994) (quoting United States v. Brady, 819 F.2d 884 , 888 n.3 (9th Cir. 1987)); see Allen v. Roe, 305 F.3d 1046, 1051 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that an officer's subjective intentions do not affect whether the public safety exception applies).

2018Whether questioning falls within the public safety exception turns on “whether there was an objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from any immediate danger.” State v. Ramirez, 178 Ariz. 116, 124 (1994) (quoting United States v. Brady, 819 F.2d 884 , 888 n.3 (9th Cir. 1987)). ¶36 The initial conversation between Starkovich and the detective falls within the public safety exception.

2024See In re Roy L., 197 Ariz. 441, 446, ¶ 15 (App. 2000) (finding an exception for a question regarding firearm possession after arrest).

2024Instead, there must be "an objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from any immediate danger." State v. Ramirez, 178 Ariz. 116, 124 (1994) (quoting United States v. Brady, 819 F.2d 884 , 888 n.3 (9th Cir. 1987)); see Allen v. Roe, 305 F.3d 1046, 1051 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that an officer's subjective intentions do not affect whether the public safety exception applies).

2023State v. Carter, 145 Ariz. 101, 106 (1985). ¶14 There is also a public-safety exception to Miranda, which applies when police inquiries are “motivated by public safety concerns and were not designed to obtain evidence of a crime.” State v. Ramirez, 78 Ariz. 116, 124 (1994).

2019See State v. Leteve, 237 Ariz. 516, 524, ¶ 9 (2015) ("statements made in response to 'questions necessary to secure the officers' own safety or the safety of the public' are admissible even if Miranda warnings have not been given" (quoting New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 659 (1984))). ¶12 The State presented both direct and circumstantial evidence sufficient to allow the jury to convict.

2018The detective who asked Starkovich the question testified he did it “for officer safety” because the “house had not been searched yet” and he “fear[ed] . . . being in front of a suspected drug house where individuals were just seen running from . . . and want[ed] to protect [him]self.” Accordingly, the question asked fits squarely within the public safety exception because its purpose was to secure the officers from any immediate danger. ¶37 Because the initial statements did not violate Miranda, Starkovich’s post-Miranda statements need not be suppressed based upon Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.

2006The rescue doctrine has also been applied in the following cases: State v. Betances, 265 Conn. 493, 828 A.2d 1248, 1255-57 (2003) (extending the public safety exception to Miranda and holding defendant’s response to the question whether "he swallowed any drugs” was admissible despite the lack of Miranda warnings); Thomas v. State, 128 Md.App. 274 , 737 A.2d 622, 632 (Ct. Spec.App.1999) (holding that Miranda warnings were not necessary when asking if a defendant, who bit an officer, had a transmittable disease); State v. Provost, 490 N.W.2d 93, 96-97 (Minn. 1992) (adopting and applying the resc

2006The rescue doctrine has also been applied in the following cases: State v. Betances, 265 Conn. 493, 828 A.2d 1248, 1255-57 (2003) (extending the public safety exception to Miranda and holding defendant’s response to the question whether "he swallowed any drugs” was admissible despite the lack of Miranda warnings); Thomas v. State, 128 Md.App. 274 , 737 A.2d 622, 632 (Ct. Spec.App.1999) (holding that Miranda warnings were not necessary when asking if a defendant, who bit an officer, had a transmittable disease); State v. Provost, 490 N.W.2d 93, 96-97 (Minn. 1992) (adopting and applying the resc

2006The rescue doctrine has also been applied in the following cases: State v. Betances, 265 Conn. 493, 828 A.2d 1248, 1255-57 (2003) (extending the public safety exception to Miranda and holding defendant’s response to the question whether "he swallowed any drugs” was admissible despite the lack of Miranda warnings); Thomas v. State, 128 Md.App. 274 , 737 A.2d 622, 632 (Ct. Spec.App.1999) (holding that Miranda warnings were not necessary when asking if a defendant, who bit an officer, had a transmittable disease); State v. Provost, 490 N.W.2d 93, 96-97 (Minn. 1992) (adopting and applying the resc

2006The rescue doctrine has also been applied in the following cases: State v. Betances, 265 Conn. 493, 828 A.2d 1248, 1255-57 (2003) (extending the public safety exception to Miranda and holding defendant’s response to the question whether "he swallowed any drugs” was admissible despite the lack of Miranda warnings); Thomas v. State, 128 Md.App. 274 , 737 A.2d 622, 632 (Ct. Spec.App.1999) (holding that Miranda warnings were not necessary when asking if a defendant, who bit an officer, had a transmittable disease); State v. Provost, 490 N.W.2d 93, 96-97 (Minn. 1992) (adopting and applying the resc

2006The rescue doctrine has also been applied in the following cases: State v. Betances, 265 Conn. 493, 828 A.2d 1248, 1255-57 (2003) (extending the public safety exception to Miranda and holding defendant’s response to the question whether "he swallowed any drugs” was admissible despite the lack of Miranda warnings); Thomas v. State, 128 Md.App. 274 , 737 A.2d 622, 632 (Ct. Spec.App.1999) (holding that Miranda warnings were not necessary when asking if a defendant, who bit an officer, had a transmittable disease); State v. Provost, 490 N.W.2d 93, 96-97 (Minn. 1992) (adopting and applying the resc

2006The rescue doctrine has also been applied in the following cases: State v. Betances, 265 Conn. 493, 828 A.2d 1248, 1255-57 (2003) (extending the public safety exception to Miranda and holding defendant’s response to the question whether "he swallowed any drugs” was admissible despite the lack of Miranda warnings); Thomas v. State, 128 Md.App. 274 , 737 A.2d 622, 632 (Ct. Spec.App.1999) (holding that Miranda warnings were not necessary when asking if a defendant, who bit an officer, had a transmittable disease); State v. Provost, 490 N.W.2d 93, 96-97 (Minn. 1992) (adopting and applying the resc

2006The rescue doctrine has also been applied in the following cases: State v. Betances, 265 Conn. 493, 828 A.2d 1248, 1255-57 (2003) (extending the public safety exception to Miranda and holding defendant’s response to the question whether "he swallowed any drugs” was admissible despite the lack of Miranda warnings); Thomas v. State, 128 Md.App. 274 , 737 A.2d 622, 632 (Ct. Spec.App.1999) (holding that Miranda warnings were not necessary when asking if a defendant, who bit an officer, had a transmittable disease); State v. Provost, 490 N.W.2d 93, 96-97 (Minn. 1992) (adopting and applying the resc

2006The Court reasoned that “the need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-inerimination.” Id. at 657 , 104 S.Ct. 2626 ; see also State v. Ramirez, 178 Ariz. 116, 124 , 871 P.2d 237, 245 (1994) (applying the public safety exception to admit a statement made in response to police questions aimed at determining what they would encounter when they proceeded further into apartment, past a body on the floor of blood-spattered room). ¶8 Courts in other jurisdiction

2006The Court reasoned that “the need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-inerimination.” Id. at 657 , 104 S.Ct. 2626 ; see also State v. Ramirez, 178 Ariz. 116, 124 , 871 P.2d 237, 245 (1994) (applying the public safety exception to admit a statement made in response to police questions aimed at determining what they would encounter when they proceeded further into apartment, past a body on the floor of blood-spattered room). ¶8 Courts in other jurisdiction

2006The rescue doctrine has also been applied in the following cases: State v. Betances, 265 Conn. 493, 828 A.2d 1248, 1255-57 (2003) (extending the public safety exception to Miranda and holding defendant’s response to the question whether "he swallowed any drugs” was admissible despite the lack of Miranda warnings); Thomas v. State, 128 Md.App. 274 , 737 A.2d 622, 632 (Ct. Spec.App.1999) (holding that Miranda warnings were not necessary when asking if a defendant, who bit an officer, had a transmittable disease); State v. Provost, 490 N.W.2d 93, 96-97 (Minn. 1992) (adopting and applying the resc

2006The rescue doctrine has also been applied in the following cases: State v. Betances, 265 Conn. 493, 828 A.2d 1248, 1255-57 (2003) (extending the public safety exception to Miranda and holding defendant’s response to the question whether "he swallowed any drugs” was admissible despite the lack of Miranda warnings); Thomas v. State, 128 Md.App. 274 , 737 A.2d 622, 632 (Ct. Spec.App.1999) (holding that Miranda warnings were not necessary when asking if a defendant, who bit an officer, had a transmittable disease); State v. Provost, 490 N.W.2d 93, 96-97 (Minn. 1992) (adopting and applying the resc

2006(Citation omitted.) cf. State v. Schinzel, 202 Ariz. 375, 381, ¶24 , 45 P.3d 1224, 1230 (App.2002) (recognizing the Stevenson exception to Miranda , but holding that no similar exception applied in that case). ¶ 9 This exception, referred to as the “private safety exception,” or the “rescue doctrine,” has been held in several jurisdictions to apply under circumstances such as those presented here, when the suspect himself is reasonably considered to be in urgent need of rescue to avoid serious injury or death.

2006(Citation omitted.) cf. State v. Schinzel, 202 Ariz. 375, 381, ¶24 , 45 P.3d 1224, 1230 (App.2002) (recognizing the Stevenson exception to Miranda , but holding that no similar exception applied in that case). ¶ 9 This exception, referred to as the “private safety exception,” or the “rescue doctrine,” has been held in several jurisdictions to apply under circumstances such as those presented here, when the suspect himself is reasonably considered to be in urgent need of rescue to avoid serious injury or death.

2000See State v. Tellez, 6 Ariz.App. 251, 256 , 431 P.2d 691, 696 (1967) (officer’s questioning of motorist who had been weaving in traffic was not custodial interrogation requiring prior Miranda warnings, because, although defendant suspected of something due to his physical condition, officers did not yet know what crime had been committed and questioning occurred in public street beside defendant’s companions). ¶ 15 The officer’s question also fits within the public safety exception to the requirement that the police give Miranda warnings to a person in custody prior to interrogation.

2000See State v. Tellez, 6 Ariz.App. 251, 256 , 431 P.2d 691, 696 (1967) (officer’s questioning of motorist who had been weaving in traffic was not custodial interrogation requiring prior Miranda warnings, because, although defendant suspected of something due to his physical condition, officers did not yet know what crime had been committed and questioning occurred in public street beside defendant’s companions). ¶ 15 The officer’s question also fits within the public safety exception to the requirement that the police give Miranda warnings to a person in custody prior to interrogation.