JL Ch. 24- Questioning Juveniles Flashcards
Juvenile Miranda: Preliminary Issues:
What will a reviewing court look at in deciding voluntariness?
“Totality of the circumstances”
True or false?
Studies confirm the need for caution in evaluating a juvenile’s Miranda waiver. Most juveniles do not understand the significance of these rights. That is why added protections are required, consistent with the legal system’s tradition of affording protected status to minors.
True.
Juvenile Miranda: Preliminary Issues:
All statements, whether to police or private citizens, must be:
Voluntary.
A reviewing court looks at the “totality of the circumstances” in deciding voluntariness.
Juvenile Miranda: Preliminary Issues:
A reviewing court looks at the “totality of the circumstances” in deciding volunatiness. Key factors include: (2)
- Police conduct
-number of officers,- tone of the interview,
- offer of food/drink,
- adherence to Miranda requirements,
- existence of improper tricks or promises
- Characteristics of Juvenile
- Age
- Experience with the system
- Education
- Intelligence
- Alcohol or substance abuse at time of statement
- physical condition
Juvenile Miranda: Preliminary Issues:
Miranda only required if juvenile is in custody, and:
subject to interrogation.
Essentially, the same standard applies to adults and juveniles in determining whether custody and interrogation exist.
Juvenile Miranda: Preliminary Issues:
Does the public safety exception to Miranda apply to juveniles?
Yes.
“Highly Sophisticated Youth” must be at least what age to waive Miranda rights on his own?
14
Valid Juvenile Miranda Waiver: (3)
- Rights must be properly communicated
- Parent or Interested Adult must be Present (only exception: highly sophisticated and at least 14)
- Proper consultation must be afforded prior to the waiver:
-Age 12 or 13: “Actual opportunity”- Police actively encourage consultation
Age 14, 15, 16, 17: “Meaningful opportunity”. Police provide chance to consult.
Juvenile Miranda: Preliminary Issues:
What does “Actual Opportunity” mean?
Police actively encourage consultation.
Age 12 & 13
Juvenile Miranda: Preliminary Issues:
What does “Meaningful Opportunity” mean?
Police provide chance to consult.
Age 14, 15, 16, or 17.
What is a key factor in determining whether a child is in custody for miranda?
Age.
J.D.B Vs. North Carolina- school interrogation case
Note: Age is also a key factor in determining whether interrogation took place.
Police questioned J.D.B, a 13 year old 7th grade student, upon seeing him near the site of two break- ins. That same day, police spoke to his grandmother (his legal guardian) and learned that J.D.B had a digital camera matching one of the stolen items taken during the breaks.
Five days later, Investigator Diconstanzo went to the school. He informed the SRO and assistant principal that he was there to question J.D.B. Although Diconstanzo asked the administrator to verify J.D.B’s date of birth, address, and information, no one attempted to contact his grandmother.
The SRO interrupted J.D.B’s class and took him to a conference room. Diconstanzo and the assistant principal were present. No one provided Miranda Warnings or gave J.D.B a chance to call his grandmother. They did not tell him he was free to leave.
J.D.B denied involvement, but the principal urged him to do the right thing. J.D.B asked whether he would still be in trouble if he returned the stuff. Diconstanzo told him that this would be helpful, but that he was still going to court. Diconstanzo also mentioned that he might end up in pre-trial detention. Upon hearing this, J.D.B confessed.
At that point, Diconstanzo told J.D.B that he could refuse to answer more questions and was free to leave. When asked whether he understood, J.D.B nodded and reported the location of the stolen items. He wrote out a statement. He was allowed to catch the bus home.
The Supreme Court insisted that:
Miranda protections should have been provided earlier to J.D.B. Even for an adult, the physical and psychological isolation of custodial interrogation can compel involuntary statements. In fact, the pressure is so intense that a frighteningly high percentage of people confess to crimes they never committed. Children are more susceptible to outside pressure than adults, so the risk to false confession is even greater.
This is why a child’s age must be considered in determining whether he is in custody for Miranda. This does not mean that age is always a significant factor, but it MUST be considered. This is especially true in a school situation, where the student’s presence is required and disobedience often results in disciplinary action.
Juvenile Miranda: Preliminary Issues:
Even with a parent present, “custody” is examined from:
The child’s perspective.
Ex. 14 year old boy took naked videos of 14 year old girl- charged with creating a video of an unsuspecting person in the nude; disseminating this video; and disseminating child pornography.
From the juvenile’s perspective, this interrogation was custodial. He had no real way of avoiding the interview. It was late at night. He was far from home and brought there by his mother. Getting buzzed into the police station suggested a locked door. He was taken into a separate room with the door shut. His mother had received the strong hint he was a suspect, and the juveniles decision to delete snapchat showed he believed he was in trouble. The detective did not inform the juvenile he was free to leave.
Bottom line: The Juvenile and his mother should have received miranda warnings.
Juvenile Miranda: Preliminary Issues:
Is home usually custodial or noncustodial?
usually noncustodial.
16 year old defendant was a suspect in a murder. His grandfather returned a phone call from police and agreed that police would interview the defendant at his grandfather’s home. Detectives arrived at 9:05 pm and met with the defendant, his father, and his grandfather. They told the three that they could end the conversation at any time and detectives would leave. They sat at the kitchen table. When detectives asked if they could record, all 3 refused. Defendant denied any knowledge at first, but, when detectives showed him surveillance photographs, he admitted to being present. Still, he continued to deny being involved in the stabbing. The interview ended at 10:25pm.
Was this interview coercive? Why or why not? (3)
The interview was NOT coercive because:
- The officers made an appointment to come to the house, giving the defendant time to consult with 2 adults;
- Defendant asserted himself by refusing to be recorded, and officers honored his refusal;
- Defendant continued to insist he was not involved in the attack.
Juvenile Interrogation:
A juvenile who is under arrest may not be held and questioned in the police station when:
the Juvenile court is open for arraignment.
Can a juvenile, who is under arrest, be held and questions in the police station, while the juvenile court is open for arraignment?
No. Must be brought to court.
While investigating a shooting, officers arrested a 16 year old suspect on unrelated charges and brought him to the Lynn station for booking. He was not read his Miranda rights OR questioned.
Before leaving the station, the defendant asked the transporting officer why he was being locked up. The officer answered by giving the defendant advice about “the negative things that the streets bring to people.” He recommended that the defendant “clean up his act or he’s going to wind up in serious trouble”. This prompted the defendant to admit he was “proving” his toughness- a comment later used to link him to the shooting. The officer finished: “just get out completely. There’s nothing positive about the life path you have chosen.” The officer did not say anything else or ask any follow up questions.
Interrogation includes words or actions by an officer that he should know are likely to result in an incriminating response. When the suspect is a juvenile, the test is how a reasonable juvenile would understand the situation. Children perceive police statements or conduct differently from adults.
What was the outcome of this case? Were the officers statements the functional equivalent of interrogation?
No they weren’t; Statements were admissible.
Here, the defendant was in custody under arrest, but his statements were not the product of interrogation. The officer did not mention the defendant’s situation. Instead, he have general advice. The officer did not demand an explanation. As a result, the juvenile’s statement was admissible even though he had not been advised of his miranda rights.
It goes without saying that police officers must be vigilant in obtaining valid miranda waivers prior to the custodial interrogation of children. There are other officials, who, because of their (blank), must also abide by Miranda rules.
“Quasi- enforcement status”
Juvenile Corrections and treatment officials are covered, meaning they must give miranda when applicable.
It goes without saying that police officers must be vigilant in obtaining valid miranda waivers prior to the custodial interrogation of children. There are other officials, who, because of their “quasi- enforcement status”, must also abide by Miranda rules.
Do Juvenile corrections officers and treatment officials fall into this category?
Yes.
This is true whether or not police encourage the investigation. The SJC held that this “police connection” necessitates Miranda protection.
Assistant Director of a private home contracted by DYS interviewed a juvenile assault suspect who, at the time, was subject to continuous supervision and was not free to leave the facility; the director was convinced that the juvenile committed the crime and questioned him several times before getting a confession; the director also had a duty to inform the police in the event he learned incriminating facts.
Should the youth have been given Miranda?
Yes.
“quasi enforcement status”- treatment officials (ex. DYS) covered.
The SJC has held that this “police connection” necessitates Miranda protection.
School administrators and teachers do NOT need to provide Miranda rights unless:
they serve as an agent of the police:
Important notes:
-Reporting findings to police does not equal “agency”
- No custody in principal’s office ( A trip to the principal’s office for an interview is hardly a “formal arrest”, nor does it it suggest to the student that he faces arrest)
- Voluntary statements: For the same reasons as above, just because statements are taken by a school official in a position of authority does not make them involuntary
- No right to parent consultation: if the situation does not require miranda, then it doesn’t require parent consultation before answering questions. The right to consult with an adult only applies prior to a Miranda waiver.
Juvenile Miranda & the Proper Waiver:
Parent or interested adult: Presence requirement:
- MUST be present if child is age:
- Almost without exception should be present if child is age:
- 12 or 13
- 14, 15, 16, or 17 - without adult input, waiver will only be valid if youth is “highly sophisticated”
Juvenile Miranda & the Proper Waiver:
Parent or interested adult: Presence requirement:
- 12 or 13
- 14, 15, 16, 17
- MUST be present
- Almost without exception should be present (without adult input, a waiver will ONLY be valid if youth is “highly sophisticated”)
Juvenile Miranda & the Proper Waiver:
The protection of adult consultation extends to (blank) year old juveniles.
17 year old juveniles.
-At 18, an individual is considered an adult by the Massachusetts criminal justice system, so he loses the right to adult guidance at this point
