<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="billres.xsl"?>
<!DOCTYPE resolution PUBLIC "-//US Congress//DTDs/res.dtd//EN" "res.dtd">
<resolution dms-id="HC6457BE7075B4BCB8800672813D6071E" key="H" public-private="public" resolution-stage="Introduced-in-House" resolution-type="house-resolution" star-print="no-star-print">
	<form>
		<distribution-code display="yes">IV</distribution-code>
		<congress display="yes">111th CONGRESS</congress>
		<session display="yes">2d Session</session>
		<legis-num>H. RES. 1413</legis-num>
		<current-chamber>IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES</current-chamber>
		<action display="yes">
			<action-date date="20100527">May 27, 2010</action-date>
			<action-desc><sponsor name-id="T000260">Mr. Tiahrt</sponsor> submitted
			 the following resolution; which was referred to the
			 <committee-name committee-id="HJU00">Committee on the
			 Judiciary</committee-name></action-desc>
		</action>
		<legis-type>RESOLUTION</legis-type>
		<official-title display="yes">Expressing the sense of the House of
		  Representatives that the holding in Miranda v. Arizona may be interpreted to
		  provide for the admissibility of a terrorist suspect’s responses in an
		  interrogation without administration of the Miranda warnings, to the extent
		  that the interrogation is carried out to acquire information concerning other
		  threats to public safety.</official-title>
	</form>
	<resolution-body id="H59D227FFF88D4DAFA1BDBFAAC9E185F6" style="traditional">
		<section display-inline="yes-display-inline" id="H3EEA60311D944A2C88714474723596D4" section-type="undesignated-section"><enum></enum><text display-inline="yes-display-inline">That it is sense of the House of
			 Representatives that the <quote>public safety</quote> exception announced in
			 New York v. Quarles (467 U.S. 649 (1984)) to the holding in Miranda v. Arizona
			 (384 U.S. 436 (1966)) may be interpreted such that the responses of a person
			 interrogated in connection with an act of terrorism who has not been
			 administered the warnings described in Miranda are admissible as evidence
			 against that person in a criminal prosecution, to the extent that the
			 interrogation is carried out because of a reasonable concern that the person
			 has information about other threats to public safety.</text>
		</section></resolution-body>
</resolution>
