United States v. Abdulmutallab
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
2011 WL 4345243, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105462 (2011)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (defendant), a Nigerian citizen, was indicted in federal district court after he attempted to ignite explosives concealed in his underwear while flying as a passenger from Amsterdam to Detroit, Michigan. During his planned attack, Abdulmutallab successfully lit his pants and the side of the aircraft on fire. Nearby passengers subdued Abdulmutallab while the flames were extinguished. During the incident, Abdulmutallab suffered significant burns and was taken by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers to the University of Michigan Hospital for medical treatment. Later, Abdulmutallab was questioned at the hospital by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents. During the 50-minute questioning, Abdulmutallab admitted to possessing and attempting to use the explosives to blow up the plane on behalf of al-Qaeda. However, the federal agents did not advise Abdulmutallab of his Miranda rights, fearing that there was little time to prevent possible additional, imminent aircraft attacks. Prior to trial, Abdulmutallab filed a motion to suppress his statements made prior to the issuance of his Miranda warnings. The federal government argued that Abdulmutallab’s pre-Miranda statements were admissible under the public-safety exception to Miranda rights, which was articulated in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984).
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Edmunds, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
