Legal Updates

In Re Andre M.
Arizona Supreme Court - April 22, 2004

Andre, a sixteen and one- half year old juvenile was brought into the principal’s office at Pueblo High School in Tucson for fighting. Police officers arrived and briefly interviewed Andre about the fight. Andre’s mother arrived after that interview and sat with the assistant principal. They waited for the police to further interview Andre. The mother told the assistant principal that she wanted to be present for any further interviews.

After a while, the mother informed the assistant principal she had to go pick-up her daughter, but was still concerned about Andre being interviewed without her present. The assistant principal assured her that if she did not return before any further interviews, either he or another administrator would sit in on the interview. Unbeknownst to either of them, the police had recovered a sawed-off shotgun in another student’s car that allegedly belonged to Andre. The assistant principal neglected to tell the police about the mother’s concern.

When the mother returned to the school she found Andre in a room, behind closed doors, being interviewed by three police officers. She attempted to get into the room, but was prevented from doing so by another officer standing outside of the room. The interview continued for another five to ten minutes.

Andre was found delinquent by the juvenile court and put on probation. The Court of Appeals upheld his conviction. The Supreme Court reversed the finding.

The Supreme Court held that the statements made to police by Andre were inadmissible. The court stated that “When a juvenile confession occurs as a result of police questioning, the ‘greatest of care must be taken to assure that the admission was voluntary, in the sense not only that it was not coerced or suggested, but also that it was not the product of ignorance of rights or of adolescent fantasy, fright or despair.’”

The Court looks at the totality of the circumstances surrounding confession. In a juvenile confession the court looks at the defendant’s age, education, and intelligence; any advice to defendant of constitutional rights; the length of detention and interrogation; and use of physical force. The presence of a parent during interrogation is a strong indicator that the waiver of rights was voluntary.

The police are not required to allow a parent in every case. The juvenile may request the parents not be present. The parent’s actions or conduct may justify excluding the parent, especially if the parent appears to be disruptive or threatening the officers or the child. The parent can be excluded if they are a suspect. The interview may proceed before the parent arrives if speedy interrogation is necessary for the safety or security of others.

When the officers exclude a parent without good cause, a strong inference arises that the police wished to maintain a coercive atmosphere or discourage the juvenile from fully understanding and exercising his or her constitutional rights. Still, the courts must look at the totality of the circumstances. Here, Andre was apparently advised of his Miranda rights at one point. However, there is no evidence he was advised of age appropriate warnings. There is no signed rights form. Although the interview was apparently taped, the tape was not part of the record in the case. The court stated it would have helpful in determining whether or not the statement was voluntary.

Comments:

1. Tape all interviews when possible.
2. Use a rights form if no tape is available.
3. After you advise a juvenile of the standard Miranda rights, determine if you should use simpler language to further explain Miranda.
4. This juvenile was obviously not free to leave. In addition, he was being interviewed by three officers (you have to wonder why), so Miranda applies. However, if the juvenile is not in custody and you conduct the interview with one officer, Miranda would not apply.
5. Finally, if there is no good reason to exclude the parent, don’t.

Source: Chandler PD Legal Unit