◆ SpookStack

UNCLASSIFIED To: All Field Offices From: Office of the General Counsel Re: 333-HQ-C1595552-0GC, 10/21/2010 our communities are critical to protecting the American people. The Department of Justice and the FBI believe that we can maximize our ability to accomplish these objectives by continuing to adhere to FBI policy regarding the use of Miranda warnings for custodial interrogation of operational terrorists? who are arrested inside the United states:. 1. If applicable, agents should ask any and all. questions that are reasonably prompted by an immediate concern for the safety of the public or the arresting. agents without advising the arrestee of his Miranda rights.3 2. After all applicable public safety questions have been exhausted, agents should advise the arrestee of his Miranda rights and seek a waiver of those rights before any further interrogation occurs, absent exceptional circumstances described below.. 3. There may be exceptional cases in which, although all. relevant public safety questions have been asked, agents nonetheless conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the government's interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation.1 2For these purposes, an operational terrorist is an arrestee who is reasonably believed to be either a high-level member of an international terrorist group; or an operative who has personally conducted or attempted to conduct a terrorist operation that involved risk to life; or an individual knowledgeable about operational details of a pending terrorist operation. 3The Supreme Court held in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984), that if law. enforcement officials engage in custodial interrogation of an individual that is "reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety," any statements the individual provides in the course of such interrogation shall not be inadmissible in any criminal proceeding on the basis that the warnings described in Miranda V. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), were not provided. The Court noted that this exception to the Miranda rule is a narrow one and that "in each case it will be circumscribed by the {public safety} exigency which justifies it." 467 U.S. at 657. 4The Supreme Court has strongly suggested that an arrestee's Fifth Amendment right. against self-incrimination is not violated at the time a statement is taken without Miranda UNCLASSIFIED 2