General Information

Campus Carry: What you need to know.

In the 2017 legislative session, the Georgia General Assembly passed House Bill 280 amending state law regarding the carrying of handguns on Georgia’s college campuses.  The bill was signed by Governor Deal, and it goes into effect on July 1, 2017.

The purpose of this post is to share information about the bill.  It is not to debate the merits of the bill, pro or con.

The first distinction that needs to be discussed is that this bill allows for Georgia Weapons Carry License (GWCL) holders to carry concealed handguns in certain places on campus.  It is important to stress the word “concealed” as otherwise, the GWCL allows for open and/or concealed carry, and yes, the GWCL is required for open carry.

The bill did not amend 16-11-127.1 O.C.G.A. as it pertains to other weapons.  So, if you are a GWCL holder, you will be able to carry a pistol on campus, but your pocket knife with a blade of more than two inches in length would still be illegal.  Remember, this is government; it doesn’t have to make sense.

Below is an excerpt of 16-11-127.1 containing the definition of weapons that are prohibited on campus (prior to the change allowing for concealed handguns):

 “Weapon” means and includes any pistol, revolver, or any weapon designed or intended to propel a missile of any kind, or any dirk, bowie knife, switchblade knife, ballistic knife, any other knife having a blade of two or more inches, straight-edge razor, razor blade, spring stick, knuckles, whether made from metal, thermoplastic, wood, or other similar material, blackjack, any bat, club, or other bludgeon-type weapon, or any flailing instrument consisting of two or more rigid parts connected in such a manner as to allow them to swing freely, which may be known as a nun chahka, nun chuck, nunchaku, shuriken, or fighting chain, or any disc, of whatever configuration, having at least two points or pointed blades which is designed to be thrown or propelled and which may be known as a throwing star or oriental dart, or any weapon of like kind, and any stun gun or taser as defined in subsection (a) of Code Section 16-11-106. This paragraph excludes any of these instruments used for classroom work authorized by the teacher.

Again, everything on that list, except concealed handguns, will still be illegal to carry on college campuses.

As for concealed, here is your definition:

‘Concealed’ means carried in such a fashion that does not actively solicit the  attention of others and is not prominently, openly, and intentionally displayed except for purposes of defense of self or others. Such term shall include, but not be limited to, carrying on one’s person while such handgun is substantially, but not necessarily completely, covered by an article of clothing which is worn by such person, carrying within a bag of a nondescript nature which is being carried about by such person, or carrying in any other fashion as to not be clearly discernible by the passive observation of others.

As for where you can carry:

Any weapons carry license holder when he or she is in any building or on real property owned by or leased to any public technical school, vocational school, college, or university, or other public institution of postsecondary education;

and where you can’t:

  •  buildings or property used for athletic sporting events or student housing, including, but not limited to, fraternity and sorority houses;
  • any preschool or childcare space located within such buildings or real property
  • any room or space being used for classes related to a college and career academy or other specialized school as provided for under Code Section 20-4-37;
  • any room or space being used for classes in which high school students are enrolled through a dual enrollment program, including, but not limited to, classes related to the ‘Move on When Ready Act’ as provided for under Code Section 20-2-161.3;
  • faculty, staff, or administrative offices or rooms where disciplinary  proceedings are conducted;

NOTE: In 2016, the General Assembly passed HB 792 which made made carrying “electro shock weapons” on campus legal for those over 18, but as of the writing of this article, they have not been removed from the prohibited weapons under 16-11-127.1 per the published code sections.

X Because of Y Was Really Because of Z

I read an online rant by a guy claiming to have been arrested for “standing up at a football game.”  I’m not familiar with the laws in every state, but I was fairly certain that no state, especially Alabama, had a law making it illegal to stand up at a football game.  I contacted the arresting agency and requested a copy of the incident report.

The truth of the matter was that the guy bought a general admission ticket.  During the game, he moved to the reserved seating area where he stood directly blocking the view of other fans. Those fans complained to the event staff upon which time it was discovered that he didn’t have a ticket for that area.  He was asked to return to the general admission area, and he refused.  He was subsequently arrested for Alabama’s version of what we in Georgia would call criminal trespass.  The element of the crime was that he was in an area for which he didn’t have a ticket and refused to leave that area.  It wasn’t for standing up at a football game.

The story above was to illustrate what is a frequent occurrence of the misreporting, intentional or otherwise, of a police-citizen encounter especially when there is a sensational outcome.

At the time that I write this, the news media is buzzing with a story about a man in New York City that died after a confrontation when police there attempted to arrest him supposedly for selling cigarettes on the street.

Some pundits and social media users are making such statements as “he was killed for selling cigarettes.”

Such is absolutely not the case.  Force was not used by the police officers on scene until the man began to physically resist arrest.  Therefore, force wasn’t used for selling cigarettes on the street, it was used due to a lawfully arrested person resisting arrest (obstruction under Georgia law).  Had the man not physically resisted the arrest, the incident would not be a news item.

Nothing in the above should be construed as to supporting the existence and enforcement of such laws dealing with the street vending and taxation of cigarettes.  Nothing in the above should be construed as advocating the use of any particular tactic.  All I will say in regard to the tactics used is that if a person is able to say anything, especially repeatedly, then they have not been “choked out”.  If you doubt this, go by your local mixed martial arts gym and request someone there put you in an actual choke hold and see if you are capable of speech.

I urge you to look past headlines and emotional appeal of a situation and drill down to the actual facts of a case.

Walking in Their Shoes

You all know the old saying about not judging a person until you have walked in their shoes.

This weekend a horrible tragedy played out in Cleveland, OH.  The common thread among the media reports are that two officers from the Cleveland Police Department responded to a call of a young male waiving around a gun.  As the officers approach, one tells the young male to raise his hands.  Instead, the young male draws the pistol from his waistband at which time the officer fires.  The boy was killed.

The gun turned out to be an air-soft (fires plastic BBs) replica of a model 1911 pistol.

Some reports claim that callers mentioned the possibility of the gun being fake, but it is not clear whether this is accurate or if that information was relayed to the responding officers.  In the end, if this is indeed the case, it will certainly add more fuel to the angst fire, but it really doesn’t change the situation to any large degree as this information may certainly be taken into account by responding officers as it couldn’t be accepted as 100% reliable either.

Now for the walking in their shoes part…

I was working midnight shift on patrol.  Other units responded to a reported shooting, and they put out a look out for a very distinctive vehicle that passed by at the exact time of the shooting.  A short time later, I was dispatched to a fight in progress call.  As I arrived on scene, I see the vehicle described as being at the scene of the earlier reported shooting.  It was in fact the very same vehicle.  The vehicle was being chased by several people on foot who were running after it.  I told the people chasing the car to stay back; I caught up to the vehicle; and I initiated a stop on the car keeping in mind that it was very likely connected to the reported shooting.

As the vehicle stopped, the passenger immediately jumped out of the vehicle and turned toward me.  Light from a streetlight glinted off of what appeared to be a silver, metal object in his hand.  I drew my old S&W 4006 out of a Safariland 070 duty holster, and as I type this, I can clearly see the image of my Novak front sight superimposed over the center of his chest.

The object in his hand was a cell phone.

Had he made any move that looked threatening after I saw the light glinting from the object, I would have fired.  I have no doubt of this.  It all happened in split seconds, but the event plays over and over again in slow motion in my mind whenever I think of it.

In another instance, I almost shot a college student who swept back his jacket to show me that the gun that he was carrying was a toy gun.  He saw me, freaked, and turned towards me sweeping back his jacket.  In his mind, he needed to show the cop that he didn’t have a real gun.  All I saw was a guy spin toward me while sweeping his jacket out of the way and reaching for what appeared to be a pistol in a holster on his belt.

The only reason I didn’t fire was that I saw and recognized the power chord coming out of the butt of the pistol.

Yup.  He was carrying the pistol from his video gaming console.

The individuals in the car in the first incident had by pure coincidence driven by the scene of the reported shooting as it occurred.  They made the mistake of pulling into a fraternity parking lot to park their car.  The members of the fraternity took exception to this and the result was a fight.  The two guys jump back into the car (after one of them unleashes a can of pepper spray) and leave the parking lot with the fraternity members chasing them only for me to arrive at the same time.  In the second incident, the individual was a college student on the way to a costume party at a bar.  We happened to wind up in the same parking lot at the same time, and he freaked thinking the cop saw that he had a “gun”.

Both of these incidents could have easily resulted in “Cop Shoots Teenage Holding a Cell Phone” or “Cop Shoots College Student Armed with Video Game Pistol” headlines.

The decisions in those incidents were made in less than a second each.  It turned out that I was right both times.  The irony is that I could have been wrong and still been right.  I also could have been wrong and ended up dead.  That is the pure truth of the matter.  Life and death decisions made instantaneously, in real time, and without the benefit of slow motion replay to see if the ref blew the call.

The Other Part of the Fifth Amendment

I wrote a breathtakingly brilliant paper on this topic in graduate school for an administrative law class.  Okay, I wrote a paper on this topic…

I wish that I could find that paper as I would just upload it here, but that was prior to my walking towards the Mac light, and at least three Windows based laptops have met the blue screen of death since that class.  Plus, I don’t have a current device that will read the 3.5” storage disks even if I could find the one containing said paper.  So, this will be much shorter than the 15 or so pages I wrote back then, and it certainly isn’t going to be anywhere near as scholarly.

Disclaimer: Some legal scholar is likely to read this and argue that it is the Fourteenth Amendment that bestows the rights I am going to discuss below. They can get their own blog. I prefer to use the text from the Fifth Amendment as it is more commonly known, and it gives me another opportunity to point out that the Miranda Warning is a complete fabrication of the court. Folks tend to forget that there are other parts of the Fifth Amendment, and yes, I know that Miranda includes portions of other amendments.  I understand the 14th Amendment and the theory of incorporation on the states.

And with that:

A long time ago in a nation seemingly far away, a document was written and ratified by a citizenry establishing a social contract and a system of government.  As part of the ratification process, the citizens insisted that certain additions be made to said document, and those additions became the Bill of Rights.

And then lawyers happened…

The Fifth Amendment contains more than the protections against self-incrimination and double jeopardy and other facets of criminal law that are most closely associated with it. Pay attention to the portions in bold:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

To shorten this up considerably, the lawyers have successfully established in court that public employees have property and liberty interest in their jobs and that in order to be terminated, or lose pay, or be demoted, etc., they must be afforded due process. The employee has a right to a formal hearing and a chance to answer the accusations against them.

Even in specific instances in which an employee does not have a property interest, such as a probationary employee, a liberty interest still exists. As the saying goes, “You can fire a probationary (or at will) employee for no reason. You just can’t fire them for a bad reason.” Employees with no property interest can’t be terminated/demoted/etc. because they choose to go to or not to go to a particular place of worship (religious freedom) or for their diddling preferences (sexual orientation) or any such similar things. Also, if an employee is accused of dishonesty or other things that would sully their “good name” and likely prevent their ability to gain other employment, they must be given an opportunity to “clear their name”.

So, when you see a news story concerning some allegation against a public employee, and the story contains a passage such as “suspended with pay” that does not mean that is the end of things. It means it is the beginning. As the media and the public often have the attention span of a gnat (I presume gnats have short attention spans. I don’t actually know that this is the case, and it may very well be insulting to gnats to make such a comparison. Gnats likely have a longer attention span than the media and public.) and the follow up story, if there is one, comes well down the road and is buried closer to the back page of the story than to the front.

Those that read such stories and make asinine comments such as “paid leave will teach them” or the like truly are idiots in the purest Greek sense of the word. Bless you hearts.

I also suggest web searches on the Garrity Warning. Garrity is a tool that can be used in administrative investigations to compel an employee to make a statement; however, any evidence resulting from the use of Garrity may not be used in a criminal prosecution unless it is independently obtained.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Private Campus Officers and Immunity

The Georgia Supreme Court recently decided a case concerning private campus officers and qualified immunity.

The first sentence of the decision is as follows:

“We granted certiorari to decide whether a campus police officer employed by a private college qualifies as a “state officer or employee” who may assert immunity from tort suits under the Georgia Tort Claims Act (GTCA), OCGA §§ 50-21-20 to 50-21-37.”

In a previous piece, I outlined the statutory authority of campus law enforcement agencies.  Let me be very clear that this case pertains only to the the campus police agencies of private colleges.  It has absolutely, positively nothing to do with the campus police departments of public educational institutions.

The legal question arises from a case handled by the Agnes Scott College Department of Public Safety (ASCDPS).  The personnel involved are fully certified peace officers.  They attended the same academies as do deputy sheriffs and municipal police officers.

The ASCDPS received a report from a student claiming that she had been sexually assaulted in her dorm room.  She named a suspect.  An officer from the ASCDPS went to a judge and obtained an arrest warrant for the suspect named by the complainant.  The suspect was arrested in Knoxville, TN, and extradited to Georgia.  The suspect offered proof that she was in Knoxville at the time of the alleged assault, and the District Attorney dropped the charges.  The suspect then filed suit against the officers and Agnes Scott College for false arrest.

The officers sought to have the lawsuit dismissed claiming immunity under state law.  The initial trial court rejected this argument; however, the Court of Appeals overturned the trial court.  To simplify the writing of this, the statute provides that law enforcement officers have immunity, but the statute also excludes private organizations.  The appellate decision was split.  The state Supreme Court recognized the reasoning of the appellate decision but overturned the decision due to Agnes Scott College being a private organization.

So, yes, the ASCDPS officers are in fact law enforcement officers, but as they work for a private organization, they are not covered under the state’s immunity laws.

Again, this ruling does not apply to the campus police officers of public institutions.

Now that the legal question has been settled, the actual lawsuit is clear to go forward.

Logic Me Not

Regardless of where you come down on private citizens carrying firearms in public, and no matter what your views are concerning Georgia’s House Bill 60, the complete failure of logic occurring among the governing authorities of some Georgia counties and municipalities is astounding.

Under current state law, it is illegal to carry a firearm into a “government building”.  Here is the definition of a government building from 16-11-127 O.C.G.A.:

(3) “Government building” means:

(A) The building in which a government entity is housed;

(B) The building where a government entity meets in its official capacity; provided, however, that if such building is not a publicly owned building, such building shall be considered a government building for the purposes of this Code section only during the time such government entity is meeting at such building; or

(C) The portion of any building that is not a publicly owned building that is occupied by a government entity.

(4) “Government entity” means an office, agency, authority, department, commission, board, body, division, instrumentality, or institution of the state or any county, municipal corporation, consolidated government, or local board of education within this state.

Currently, the only thing keeping armed criminals from entering many government buildings within the state is words on a piece of paper: a written law.  Outside of courthouses, active security screening is not present in the majority of government buildings.

HB60 changes state law as to carry into government buildings.  Effective July 1, 2014, it will be legal for the holder of a Georgia Weapons Carry License (GWCL) to carry into government buildings that do not have active security screening.  It will still be illegal for those who do not hold a GWCL to enter such buildings.

Now, as to the logic failure, a simple perusal of media outlets indicates that there are numerous city and county governments contemplating installing security equipment and hiring security staff to conduct screening at government buildings that do not currently have such security measures in place.

That’s right, the city and county governments in question who before were not worried about armed criminals entering their buildings thus they took no measures to stop it are now taking active measures to prevent legally armed citizens, citizens who have undergone background checks and obtained licenses no less, from entering.

One more time: no security measures to prevent armed criminals from entering versus security measures to prevent legally armed citizens from entering.

That’s right; people who took no steps to keep out armed criminals are taking steps to keep out people who have actually passed background checks.  I just wanted to make sure everybody was clear on that.

But wait, the law said criminals can’t enter government buildings with firearms, and we all know criminals are so good at obeying laws…

Praise the Lord And Pass the Ammunition: Georgia HB60

The Georgia General Assembly passed House Bill 60 which made changes to Georgia’s firearms carry laws. For the most part, my opinion is that this a good piece of legislation in that it clarifies some ambiguities, and more importantly, it clearly codifies into law what the courts have already ruled: there is no firearms exception to the Fourth Amendment and the mere presence of a firearm alone is not sufficient reason to detain a citizen.

Unfortunately, there is one portion of the bill that will prove to be problematic. Currently, all places of worship are “off limits” for Georgia Weapons Carry License (GWCL) holders. Under HB60, the governing bodies of places of worship may take the affirmative step to allow firearms carry on their premisses and at their services. Unless this affirmative step is taken by a respective place of worship, it will remain an off limits location.

Rather than take the position that places of worship are private property and treating them just as any other private property in the state, the legislature has created tool of division that is going to ripple through congregations throughout the state. Some congregants will be mad because the governing body of their particular place of worship chose not to allow firearms carry. Likewise, some congregants will be mad because the governing body of their particular place of worship took the opposite approach.

Furthermore, suppose the congregants and governance of an individual church desire to allow carry; however, the church is part of a denomination and the powers that be for the denomination go the other way and impose said ruling upon all member churches. The individual church breaking away from the denomination is not a simple matter as that might seem. In some denominations, the congregation does not own the title to the church building, the denomination does. This could lead to court battles over control of church property.

I am not normally a “the sky is falling” type person, but I simply foresee a lot of consternation and strife coming from this. Stand by for the law of unintended consequences.

50 Years of the McFadden Stop

On The Job

On October 31, 1963, Detective Martin McFadden, age 62 at the time of the incident, took action that would lead to one of the landmark cases in criminal procedure: Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). At the time of the incident, Detective McFadden was a 39 year veteran of the Cleveland Police Department. His career ultimately would span 45 years with 41 of those years as a Detective, and he was noted for his ability to capture thieves and pickpockets especially “Louie the Dip” Finkelstein.

On the day in question, Detective McFadden would spot two individuals (later joined by a third) in front of a store “casing a job, a stick-up”. He had watched the individuals repeatedly walking to a store window, looking inside, and then walking away and conferring. He eventually confronted the individuals and ultimately arrested two of them on weapon’s charges after “frisking” them and finding their pistols.

The individuals were convicted and the case ultimately wound up before the Supreme Court where it was upheld. In short, the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard is not violated when a peace officer has a reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) to conduct an investigatory stop. Two important notes from the ruling was that, first, the Court stated that mere “good faith” of the peace officer is not enough to justify such a stop.  Second, The Court also drew (and continues to draw) a distinction between that of a person being armed and that of a person being “armed and presently dangerous”. In other cases, the Court has ruled that there is not a firearms exception to the Fourth Amendment and thus their presence alone is no different that a person being in possession of a wallet (an actual example from a Supreme Court ruling).

Since the ruling in this case was handed down, investigatory stops have often been termed as “Terry Stops”. I take umbrage with this. Terry was one of the bad guys. Detective McFadden was the one that put forth some excellent police work; so, we should be calling these “McFadden Stops”, but alas, cops are like offensive lineman in that we only get close-up shots and our number called when forget the snap count or get caught holding.

The concept of reasonable articulable suspicion and the facts of the case are more detailed than what I have condensed here. The purpose of this article is to pay respects to Detective McFadden on the 50th anniversary of the incident.

Special thanks go out to retired Commander Bob Cermack of the Cleveland Police Department and the Cleveland Police Museum for providing pictures of Detective McFadden as well as other documents.

2004012021Marty at work
Detective McFadden at work.

2004012018RetirementCake
Detective McFadden at his retirement party.

Obituary 1981
Detective McFadden’s obituary.

Recording Police Activity and Identification Issues

Two areas in which my brethren are constantly creating self inflicted trouble is the complete misunderstanding or willful ignorance of the laws concerning the recording of police activity as well as the laws concerning whether or not a citizen must provide  identification.

Note: for a summary on Police-Citizen Contacts see the 2-3-4 Rule.

Before I jump into these two issues, I want to point out that in my experience, video clears more peace officers of false accusations than it catches those committing malevolent acts.  However, the former simply don’t make it to the all knowing interweb.  Often, complaints evaporate once the complainant is invited to come watch the video.

I also want to point out that I understand the divided attention dilemma for peace officers.  It is difficult enough to conduct business and be observant of one’s surroundings.   Having one’s attention divided even more by having another person interjected into the mix doesn’t make things easier, but use their camera as plus for you. Let it catch you doing things the right way instead of doing something that makes you the next big YouTube star.

The Issue of Videoing Police Activity

It is perfectly legal for a citizen to record police activity.  This issue has been addressed recently by two federal appeals court circuits, both circuits upheld the practice as protected by the First Amendment.  The Supreme Court refused to take either of the cases on appeal thus letting stand the rulings of the lower courts.

The first of these cases comes out of Massachusetts (2011) in which police arrested an individual who was videoing them while they arrested a suspect.  His cell phone was also seized.  The police based their charges on a state law concerning wiretapping.  The criminal charges were dismissed, and the individual filed a lawsuit.   The court framed the issue as a First Amendment issue and ruled in the favor of the citizen.  Former Providence, Rhode Island, Police Captain Jack Ryan, who is also an attorney, summarized the case here.

The second case comes out of Illinois (2012) where the state legislature specifically made it a crime to record police activity.  This law was challenged, and the court struck it down on First Amendment grounds.

The courts are clear on this issue.  There is no ambiguity on the matter.  My message to my brethren is also simple: unless a person is materially interfering while videoing, simply leave them alone.  If you are worried about what the video will capture, the issue is with you and not the person taking the video.  Don’t take the bait.

Demanding Identification

There is no law in Georgia that allows a peace officer carte blanche authority to compel a person to provide identification.  Whats-more, there is no law requiring a person to even obtain or possess identification in general.  Requirements for identification are linked to specific activities, and persons not engaged in those activities need not possess identification.  For instance, the requirement for an individual to have a driver’s license only applies if a person is operating a vehicle that requires a license to operate it in the first place and the vehicle is being operated in a location for which the operator must be licensed to do so.

What I mean by no carte blanche is that officers simply cannot demand identity from a person and then arrest that person for failure to comply.   Remember that any seizure of a person requires at minimum reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime (see above link on police-citizen contacts), and using a show of authority to compel identification is a seizure.  If the person (and/or their stuff) is not free to go then the person (and/or their stuff) is seized.  If, for instance, a peace officer approaches a citizen and demands identification while telling the individual they are not free to leave, and then said peace officer takes away the individual’s cell phone, both the person and their property have been seized under the Fourth Amendment.  Needless to say, attempting to delete a video from the phone is not a good idea.

In Conclusion

It is perfectly legal to ask someone for their identification for any or no reason.  However, once the show of authority is made, being able to articulate specific facts when taken together as a whole indicate that a person is involved in criminal activity is a must on the part of the officer.  Merely being “suspicious” is not enough.

Miranda and the Public Safety Exception

As I wrote previously, the Miranda warning is a fiction created by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Nowhere in the Constitution will you find anything even close to a requirement to advise criminal suspects of their rights.

Miranda is grossly misunderstood. Movies and television give the impression that Miranda must be read immediately upon arrest or the arrest is invalid. This is far from the case. Miranda is two pronged. The first prong is that a person must be in custody. The second prong is that a person must be being asked investigative questions. A person not in custody can be freely questioned without having been read the warning as long as the person consents to the questioning.

Let us examine the following scenario:

A peace officer on patrol spots a bandit snatching a purse from a lady. The peace officer chases down the bandit, captures him, and then hauls him to jail. The peace officer never asks the suspect any questions about the crime and the Miranda warning is never read.

Good arrest? Bad arrest? Will the case be tanked due to the lack of the warning?

The answer is good arrest with no Miranda issues.

Now, if the peace officer, after having captured the suspect, had chosen to ask the suspect questions about the crime, the warning would have been required. Failure to do read the warning would have resulted in any evidence obtained as a result of the questioning being thrown out of court. It is important to note that the initial arrest would still be a good arrest.

Since we have gotten all of the above out of the way, we can move on to the point of this piece which is the public safety exception. This exception is triggered only when there is immediate danger. It originated in the case of New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984), in which officers responding to a reported rape approached a suspect in a grocery store and captured him after a short chase. During a frisk of the suspect, an empty holster was discovered, and upon being asked where the gun was, the suspect gave up the location. He was later Mirandized and formally questioned.

At trial, the court tossed the disclosure of the firearm’s location as well as all resulting questioning. The ruling was appealed and initially upheld, but the SCOTUS reversed the rulings of the lower courts and held that the initial questions were prompted by an immediate concern for public safety.

Note the use of the word “immediate”. The Court didn’t establish a blanket exception here. It only established an exception when there is an immediate public safety concern. Once that initial immediate public safety concern is alleviated the exception no longer applies. In the scenario of the Quarles case, once the firearm was located the officers read the warning prior to formally questioning the suspect.

So, suppose a bombing suspect was hiding in a boat in someone’s back yard, and a swarm of cops descended upon the scene to capture him. Whilst doing so, if they asked about bombs and weapons in an attempt to safely secure the suspect and the scene, then such questions would be good to go. However, when that suspect, should he survive his wounds, is formally questioned about his involvement in the bombing and ties to terror organizations, Miranda will most definitely apply.

None of this would matter in the first place if SCOTUS had not created the Miranda warning in the first place.