◆ SpookStack

UNCLASSIFIED To: All Field Offices From: Office of the General Counsel. Re: 333-HQ-C1595552-0GC,10/21/2010 In these instances, agents should seek sAc approval to proceed with an unwarned interrogation after the public safety questioning is concluded. Whenever feasible, the sAC. Justice attorneys before granting approval. Presentment of an arrestee may not be delayed simply to continue the interrogation, unless the defendant has timely waived prompt presentment. The determination whether particular unwarned questions are justified on public safety grounds must always be made on a case-. of the magnitude and complexity of the threat often posed by terrorist organizations, particularly international terrorist organizations, and the nature of their attacks, the circumstances surrounding an arrest of an operational terrorist may warrant significantly more extensive public safety interrogation without Miranda warnings than would be permissible in an ordinary criminal case. Depending on the facts, such interrogation might include, for example, questions about possible impending or. coordinated terrorist attacks; the location, nature, and threat posed by weapons that might pose an imminent danger to the public; and the identities, locations, and activities or. intentions of accomplices who may be plotting additional imminent attacks. As noted above, if there is time to consult with FBI-HQ (including Ogc) and Department of Justice attorneys regarding the. defendant his Miranda rights, the field office should endeavor to. do so. Nevertheless, the agents on the scene who are interacting. with the arrestee are in the best position to assess what. questions are necessary to secure their safety and the safety of the public, and how long the post-arrest interview can. warnings, but instead maybe violated only if and when the government introduces an unwarned statement in a criminal proceeding against the defendant. See Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 769 (2003) (plurality op.); id. at 789 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); cf. also id. at 778-79 (Souter, J., concurring in the judgment); see also United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630, 641 (2004)(plurality opinion)("[V]iolations [of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination] occur, if at all, only upon the admission of unwarned statements into evidence at trial."); United States v. Verdugo-Urguidez, 494 U.S. 259, 264 (1990) ("[A] violation [of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination] occurs only at trial.").. UNCLASSIFIED 3