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.

Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

Congressional Research Service

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 27, 2010

Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the public safety exception to the holding in Miranda v. Arizona may be interpreted to allow the admission into evidence in a criminal proceeding of responses of a person interrogated in connection with an act of terrorism who has not been administered Miranda warnings, to the extent that the interrogation of such person is carried out because of a reasonable concern that such person has information about other threats to public safety.

Read the summary on Congress.gov

PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

People & committees

Who introduced it

Rep. Tiahrt, Todd [R-KS-4] · R–KS

Committees

Judiciary Committee

0 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Legislative record

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

Jul 26, 2010
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.
May 27, 2010
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
May 27, 2010
Introduced in House
May 27, 2010
Introduced in House

Primary sources

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Introduced in House · May 27, 2010 Formatted Text PDF Formatted XML

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Jan 2, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

AI Conversation Starters

Explore the bill from different angles

Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.Res.1413 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.Res.1413, 111th Congress: 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 record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-resolution/1413

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2010-05-27.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/111/bills/hres1413/BILLS-111hres1413ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-02T16:20:38Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Analyze H.Res.1413 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.

Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.Res.1413 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.Res.1413, 111th Congress: 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 record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-resolution/1413

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2010-05-27.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/111/bills/hres1413/BILLS-111hres1413ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-02T16:20:38Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.Res.1413 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.

Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.Res.1413 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.Res.1413, 111th Congress: 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 record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-resolution/1413

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2010-05-27.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/111/bills/hres1413/BILLS-111hres1413ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-02T16:20:38Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.Res.1413 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.

Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.Res.1413 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.Res.1413, 111th Congress: 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 record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-resolution/1413

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2010-05-27.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/111/bills/hres1413/BILLS-111hres1413ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-02T16:20:38Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.Res.1413 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.