Could a liberal judge disallow it? Maybe. But I don't think we should throw our hands up and Mirandize, and erect a bunch of unnecessary legal barriers just because that's a possibility.
In summary, if you Mirandize this guy now, it is not possible to obtain information that is useful in court, even if he agrees to talk.
If you do not Mirandize him, there is a possibility of obtaining information that is useful in court, which may or may not be thrown out.
I gotta go with the chance over the no chance, and I always did in my 20 years on the force.
No, you’ve got it backwards — it’s NOT correct that mirandizing a guy makes him a suspect triggering his rights.
It’s when the entirety of the circumstances require that you treat a person of interest as a suspect that you are then required to respect certain constitutional rights and if you wish to question him, then mirandize him.
Look, I’ve argued for thirty years that the exclusionary rule is bass-ackwards. I have always said the right way to go on this is to punish the cops, and not the public. Evidence is evidence. If a cop violated someone’s constitutional rights to get it, then we should punish the cop. We should not punish the public by pretending the evidence does not exist.
By the way, I don’t disagree with your reasoning if the facts were somewhat different. If we were dealing with foreign jihadis who just came across the border and committed terrorism, then yeah, by mirandizing them you probably really ARE telling them something they don’t know and could cause them to shut up.