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.
I do not assert that Mirandizing him makes him a suspect.
I only mean to address anything learned from him. I want any potentially useful information learned from him to be admissible. Is there any such information? I don't know. Will he say it? I don't know.
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.
I mostly agree with this, except that it must be a custodial relationship. Merely suspecting someone of a crime is not enough, but that doesn't really apply here, I just point it out procedurally. If someone is free to leave but I suspect them of a crime, I can question them all day and the results will be admissible. The moment they either A) incriminate themselves, or B) are in my custody and not free to leave, the courts will begin to discern whether any statements made to me were done with an understanding of their rights.
In this case, that entire construct can be ignored by asking specific questions related to public safety. I see we have differing views about how to apply this stuff; I must say it's a pleasure discussing it with someone who knows what they're talking about. Hopefully we can get some clarity about their decision in the coming days if they either justify, or fail to justify, whatever way they chose to play this.
It's past my bedtime - have a good night and thanks for the discussion.