|
QUESTIONING OF JUVENILES
BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
INTRODUCTION
The following sections pertain to the questioning of juveniles
suspected of committing school rule violations and/or crimes. They briefly
summarize the relevant legal standards.
Law enforcement officers will quickly recognize that the professional
standards normally governing criminal investigation and interrogation of
adults also apply in situations involving juveniles. However, officers
should expect courts to scrutinize the investigative and interview
techniques used to obtain information from juveniles closely.
Law enforcement officers who question a student about possible criminal
activity must comply with Miranda principles. However, school officials
are not required to use Miranda prior to questioning unless the question
was conducted at the request of law enforcement. School officials are
strongly encouraged to seek input from law enforcement prior to
questioning any student about criminal involvement.
COMPLIANCE
WITH
Miranda v. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436
(1966).
The United States Constitution protects persons against compelled
self-incrimination. Persons subjected to custodial interrogation by law
enforcement officers regarding matters that might tend to incriminate them
are entitled to the procedural safeguards outlined in
Miranda v. Arizona. Specifically, they
must be warned before questioning that they have a right to remain silent,
that any statement made may be used as evidence against them and that they
have a right to either appointed or retained counsel.
A person is "in custody" for purposes of
Miranda as soon as his freedom is curtailed to
the degree associated with formal arrest. The test is whether, under the
totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in the subject's
position would have considered himself to be in custody.
A person is "interrogated" for purposes of
Miranda if he is subjected not only to express
questioning, but also to any words or actions by law enforcement officers,
other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody, that the
officers should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating
response from the person.
A person's volunteered statements to a law enforcement officer may be
used against him without prior Miranda warnings.
Similarly, a person's responses to an officer's general, on-the-scene
investigatory questions may be used against him without prior
Miranda warnings. Law enforcement officers must
comply with Miranda even if the person is a
juvenile. School employees are not required to comply with
Miranda, as long as they are not acting as
agents of law enforcement officers. If officers direct, control or involve
themselves in the questioning of a juvenile in custody by using a school
employee in a way likely to induce the juvenile to make an incriminating
statement without the presence of counsel, then any resulting statements
are subject to suppression under Miranda.
WAIVER OF
MIRANDA RIGHTS
BY A JUVENILE
Miranda rights may be waived if the waiver is
made knowingly and intelligently. The determination of whether a valid
waiver has been made depends upon the particular facts and circumstances
of each case, including the background, experience and conduct of the
accused.
Juveniles may waive their Miranda rights, and
may do so without a parent being present. However, reviewing courts will
closely review the facts and circumstances of the waiver to assure that it
was voluntary. Many factors may be considered, including the juvenile's
age, education, intelligence and emotional characteristics; his previous
experience with the criminal justice system; the time of day and the
presence of a parent or other adult concerned about the juvenile's
welfare.
In obtaining a Miranda waiver great care
should be taken to assure that the juvenile understands his/her rights.
Mere recitation of the standard Miranda warnings
will not be good enough. Law enforcement officers must take steps to
ensure that the juvenile really understands his rights and the gravity of
the situation. They must demonstrate that the juvenile has the mental
capacity to comprehend the significance of
Miranda and the rights waived. At minimum, officers should
ask the juvenile to explain, in his own words, his understanding of each
individual right. In certain cases (such as younger juveniles), officers
might go so far as to explain what services an attorney might perform for
the juvenile, and might take special care to explain the concept of
self-incrimination.
VOLUNTARY STATEMENTS
BY JUVENILES TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
Courts will look at the totality of the circumstances to decide whether
a juvenile's statement was voluntary. The test is whether the statement
was made freely and voluntarily, without improper coercion or inducement.
See Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157,
167, 170 (1986); State v. Clappes, 136
Wis. 2d 222, 239, 401 N.W.2d 759 (1987).
Factors to consider include the age, education and intelligence of the
juvenile, the length of questioning, whether the juvenile was informed of
his constitutional rights and whether he was subjected to physical
coercion or punishment. Other relevant factors include the juvenile's
emotional characteristics, his previous experience with the juvenile
and/or criminal justice system and whether his statement was obtained or
induced by police deception. Courts will also look for evidence that the
accused was offered leniency in return for his statement, or received
other offers or promises that induced his statement. Additional factors
include the time of day for the interview and the presence of a parent or
other adult caretaker concerned about the juvenile's welfare during the
questioning.
While the presence or absence of a parent is a factor that courts will
consider in determining voluntariness, there is no per se rule that a
parent must be present during questioning. However, courts have held that
police conduct that frustrates a parent's attempt to speak with their
child before or during questioning is a significant factor in deciding
whether a statement was given voluntarily.
Clearly, statements obtained from juveniles during police interrogation
will invite special attention from reviewing courts. They will be
carefully scrutinized, not only for evidence of physical or psychological
coercion, but also for some demonstration that the juvenile understood his
Miranda rights, appreciated the gravity of the
situation, freely agreed to waive those rights and gave an uncoerced
statement.
LAW ENFORCEMENT INTERVIEWS
WITH JUVENILES AT
SCHOOLS
Law enforcement officers investigate claims of crime. Interviews of
juvenile victims, witnesses and perpetrators are a necessary part of that
process. In certain situations, the school is the best location for that
interview.
School officials are responsible for maintaining an appropriate
educational environment. Minimizing disruption in schools is a necessary
part of that process.
While schools may adopt reasonable policies regarding law enforcement
access to schools and students on school grounds, we encourage mutual
cooperation between the two groups in the development of these policies.
Further information on this issue can be found in OAG
5-94 (1994), a Wisconsin Attorney General Opinion.
| 