Tsarnaev Alive and in Custody

"Alive, conscious, captured."

WATERTOWN — One of the men believed to be responsible for placing the bombs that struck the Boston Marathon on Monday, killing 3 and injuring more than 170, has been taken into custody after a standoff lasting nearly two hours in Watertown.

Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, 19, of Cambridge was apprehended shortly before 8:45 p.m.

"They got him. He's in custody," a state trooper told the media gathered in the neighborhood. A crowd of onlookers broke into applause.

Tsarnaev had been hiding in a boat in the backyard of a home in Watertown, just outside the city. He was rushed to a local hospital. Police had approached him cautiously, worried that he might be wearing a suicide bomb vest.

"We got him," Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino tweeted immediately aftewards. He took to the police radio to thank officers personally, telling them, "Good job, guys!"

A state official said that the suspect was "alive, conscious, captured."

Comments

[Lyle]

The police got him! Yay!

[forestgombosi39]

Nicholas. you think Janice`s blog is terrific, last saturday I got a great Subaru Impreza from having made $8154 this-past/five weeks and-in excess of, 10 grand last-month. it's by-far the best-work Ive ever done. I actually started 9-months ago and practically straight away was earning over $78... per-hr. I use this great link tinyurl.com/d8v6duz
(Go to site and open "Home" for details)

[Kyfho Myoba]

The police got SOMEBODY, and judging by the Aurora shooting, Sandy Hook, the Sikh Temple shooting, and the Murrah bombing, probably the wrong guy.

[Old Man With Candy]

They're suspending the constitution! Boo!

[sasob]

They suspended it long ago - just about the time they began "interpreting" it.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

If it wasn;t for interpreting it, many of the "constitutional protections" we hold dear wouldn'[t exist in the first place.

Miranda warnings - exist because of interpretation of the constitution

Exclusionary rule (throwing out evidence illegally obtained) - ditto

Right to an attorney if you can't afford one - ditto

iow, your point is absurd. The history of constitutional interpretation is full of examples of rights being substantially EXPANDED.

In many states, WA being a good example, interpretation of our even more protective state constitutions have resulted in substantial protections. Our local LEO's are MUCH more restricted in search and seizure for example, than the feds.

While it is true that the "public safety" exception to miranda warnings diminishes rights in certain circs, lets remember that THAT intepretation is a limited exception to a protection that was established IN THE FIRST place by interpretation.

Imo, the current incarnation of the SCOTUS is - on the whole - TOO deferential to police power. There are exceptions, but on the whole imo their interpretation has been too pro state power. Granted, that there have been periods of time when the opposite has been true.

Our constitution was written pretty vaguely in a lot of respects - search and seizure comes down to "reasonableness" for example, which is pretty subjective.

[sasob]

iow, your point is absurd. The history of constitutional interpretation is full of examples of rights being substantially EXPANDED.

That history is also full of examples of federal governmental powers being substantially expanded as well - most notably beginning with the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, and continuing with the Marshall Court's misappropriation of the power of Judicial Review. Those "'constitutional protections' we hold dear" only exist as long as the government doesn't find them to be inconvenient to its interests.

The Constitution wasn't written in vague language - or even in "legaleze" - it was worded so as to be comprehensible to the average citizen, whose representatives were to vote on its ratification. Notes taken during the original (and closed-to-the-public) constitutional convention recount a process where even the exact wording of particular clauses were often tediously debated for hours. Furthermore, publication of the Federalist Papers prior to ratification was intended to explain and make clear every article contained in the document. (cont.)

[sasob]

I would submit that the only vagueness involved is the integrity and honor of the professional prevaricators who have ruled us under that document for the last two hundred plus years. Those snakes have always managed to find wiggle room around even the most absolute language. The Constitution is a document limiting the power of the federal government and protecting the rights of the people? History shows us that the veracity of that statement depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

Excellent posts btw.

Except I disagree with the part about vagueness. The 4th is pretty darn vague.

I think we both agree there has been plenty of chicanery in many respects for expansion of federal power. Most of it centers around ridiculous expansion of what "interstate commerce" is. THAT is a concept that isn't that vague at all, but the silliness of cases like Raich etc. have rendered it a practically meaningless restriction on govt. power (federal) when it was clearly meant to be substantial limitation

[Free Society]

There will always be some vagueness but it's irrelevant to the point of having clause restricting searches to something "reasonable". By restricting a search to one that is "reasonable" may sound vague, but it's real function is to simply provide recourse to contest any search. What is considered "reasonable" may differ from time to time and court to court, but there will always be recourse to argue against a search by claiming that it was somehow "unreasonable".

[Kyfho Myoba]

Exclusionary rule only came about after they quit allowing civil suits for trespassing and the like against the wayward officers.

[John Galt]

When he wakes up he's going to regret getting too stoned and listening to his brother's crazy ideas. Yay! Boo-hoo!

[Dunphy (the real one)]

Awesome job, Boston area LEO's.

While depriving him of counsel definitely has serious constitutional issues, if the case was merely not reading Miranda, let's remember that Miranda warnings are due to judicial interpretation of the constitution. It nowhere says that Miranda warnings need be read to arrestees. It's been the law of the land so long that we sometimes forget that whether or not Miranda was a good, or more importantly - a CONSTITUTIONAL decision in the first place is of course a good question. The 5th says a lot of things, but it nowhere says that upon arrest law enforcement need remind people OF rights.

THe decision itself Miranda v. Arizona is actually really an interesting read, and a good insight into what was a very activist court at the time. There are good arguments in that decision made on both sides. Some states, have vastly expanded Miranda. Hawaii is a good example. The classic decision required the warnings only if both custody and interrogation were happening. In hawaii, all that is required is "focus"

So, we had to mirandize even if speaking to a suspect over the phone.

Whether or not the Miranda case was constitutionally sound, I THINK IT'S A GOOD DECISION FROM A RESULTS STANDPOINT. IT'S A GOOD THING THAT WE ADVISE/REMIND PEOPLE OF THEIR RIGHTS BEFORE CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION. IMNSHO.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

A lot of post miranda statements given to me have benefited the defendant, some even prompting a release in the field and no charges preferred. Others cause a prosecutor to nolle pros based on what the suspect said on his behalf (i arrested an attorney once who gave a great selfdefense statement. I released him in the field and the prosecutor agreed it was self defense and didn;'t charge)

Needless to say I see a lot of confessions post miranda, and assuming they are bona fide , thats a great boon for justice

Either way, imnsho the feds better have good cause for how they are handling tsarnaev's interrogation w.o miranda

[John C. Randolph]

Lest anyone believe that talking to dumpy or any other cop is a good idea, watch and learn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

-jcr

[InlineSkate]

Regardless of them reading him his rights or not. I hope that he demands a lawyer that he is entitled to.

The idea from some of these senators that as long as he's not read his rights that they don't exist just reeks of cognitive dissonance.

Rights aren't just enabled at the mercy of government.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

I would "hope" he gives a full confession (assuming he actually is guilty). Why would I HOPE he demands a lawyer. Just because he has a right to one, it doesn't therefore follow that it's a good thing that he demands one. Imo, it's a better thing that (assuming he's guilty) he confess without one.

For HIS sake, it would probably be better if he demands a lawyer. For societys sake, it's better he give a full confession. Either way, it sounds like the evidence against him is pretty good. I am not seeing a "walk" come out of this.

These senators are a bunch of dingdongs, I agree. Rights exist regardless of whether they are read to him and the he should enjoy the full protection of the constitution just like anybody else being investigated by govt. agents

[Sevo]

Dunphy (the real one)| 4.20.13 @ 7:12PM |#
"I would "hope" he gives a full confession (assuming he actually is guilty)"

Cart, horse. Backward.

[caroljonathan]

like Micheal responded I am shocked that anybody can earn $6352 in a few weeks on the computer. have you read this web site
http://www.big76.com

[Sevo]

caroljonathan| 4.20.13 @ 9:25PM |#
"like Micheal responded I am shocked..."

Yeah, well, you're an idiot.

[Sevo]

And you have to wonder why it took XC LEOs when this sort of tech is available:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/pol.....to-4503205

[caroljonathan]

my co-worker's aunt makes $80/hr on the internet. She has been without work for five months but last month her pay was $13862 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more on this site
http://www.big76.com

[JohnToner]

"Exigent circumstances" justifies NOT strictly observing all of an accused's "rights". Example: cops "suspect" illegal activity in an apartment. Then they hear a woman screaming "rape". They can now break down the door (she could be dead by the time they get a warrant) and evidence seized is admissible.

How long does "exigency" last? Not sure. But if there is a legitimate concern these suspects belong to a "network" where future attacks may be planned, I'd certainly be OK interrogating the man w/o a lawyer.