public safety exception in Virginia

2022The public safety exception to Miranda applies when a police officer’s questions to a criminal suspect “relate to an objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from any immediate danger.” Id. at 659 n.8.

2015To Suppress 3.) McKinney rather appears to be asserting a defense that his statement was not voluntary, which is discussed infra. Even had McKinney been “in custody” for purposes of Miranda, arguendo, the Officer’s inquiry into the presence of weapons did not constitute interrogation but instead was governed by the public safety exception to the Miranda requirement See New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 656 (1984).

2022However, we conclude that any use of Holman’s answer during Holman’s trial is “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,” Sanchez v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 340, 353 (2003) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967)), since there is no reasonable possibility that Holman’s non-responsive answer (“Just get me out of here”) contributed to the jury verdict.

2022However, we conclude that any use of Holman’s answer during Holman’s trial is “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,” Sanchez v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 340, 353 (2003) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967)), since there is no reasonable possibility that Holman’s non-responsive answer (“Just get me out of here”) contributed to the jury verdict.

2010See United States v. Day, 590 F. Supp. 2d 796, 804 (E.D.

2009While the trial court concluded the defendant was not in custody, it held in the alternative that the public safety exception to the rule in Miranda applied. 1 New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984), held the “need for answers to questions in a situation posing a 1 In Hasan, 276 Va. at 681 , 667 S.E.2d at 572 , the Supreme Court concluded the Commonwealth’s argument that the officer’s question was justified by the public safety exception was “in the nature of a harmless error analysis.” It held Hasan was entitled to withdraw his plea because he had entered a conditional guilty plea.

2009While the trial court concluded the defendant was not in custody, it held in the alternative that the public safety exception to the rule in Miranda applied. 1 New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984), held the “need for answers to questions in a situation posing a 1 In Hasan, 276 Va. at 681 , 667 S.E.2d at 572 , the Supreme Court concluded the Commonwealth’s argument that the officer’s question was justified by the public safety exception was “in the nature of a harmless error analysis.” It held Hasan was entitled to withdraw his plea because he had entered a conditional guilty plea.