Apropos of juvenile interrogation law, which is being revisited and discussed by court watchers as the U.S. Supreme Court weighs whether to accept sixteen-year-old Brendan Dassey’s voluntariness appeal, I received some unrelated but still very good news yesterday.
Yesterday, the Indiana Supreme Court handed down an opinion in In re B.A. that clarifies when a child being questioned by school administrators is entitled to constitutional protections, such as the Miranda rights. Northwestern Pritzker School of Law’s Bluhm Legal Clinic – in particular, our Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth, which I co-direct along with Megan Crane – was honored to submit an amicus brief in the case, which was skillfully argued by Indiana lawyer Amy Karazos. Our amicus brief was based in part on our staff’s electrifying experience attending a seminar held by John E. Reid & Associates at which police interrogation trainers taught school administrators how to question children using criminal interrogation techniques (that’s right, you read that correctly).
The lower courts declined to suppress B.A.’s confession on Miranda grounds, reasoning that he had been questioned by a school administrator for “educational purposes” and thus had not been in police custody.
The Indiana Supreme Court reversed, emphasizing that juveniles should be entitled to more protections, not fewer, when being subjected to custodial interrogation -- regardless of whether that interrogation takes place in the stationhouse or schoolhouse. Pointing out that the right against self-incrimination “reflects many of our fundamental values and most noble aspirations,” and noting that “children are particularly vulnerable to” coercion, it found that there is no “educational purpose” exception to Miranda. Instead, it found that such an exception would “swallow the Miranda rule, leaving less protection for students than for other suspects.” Instead, it applied a child-sensitive, sliding-scale custody test to conclude that B.A. had, in fact, been in police custody – and that he had therefore been entitled to Miranda warnings. On that basis, it suppressed his confession and reversed his adjudication.
To read more about the burgeoning business of training teachers and administrators to interrogate schoolchildren using criminal interrogation tactics, check out this New Yorker article documenting the practice in states around the country. And in the meantime – well done to the Indiana Supreme Court for reaching a sound result in this case.
In your view, at what age does a person cease being a "kid"?
Please, don't respond that thirteen is a kid, to any "right thinking person" and, so, therefore, the question is irrelevant.
Serious question: At what age does a person cease being a "kid" or a "child"?
Posted by: anon | June 22, 2018 at 12:43 AM
Addendum
Do you refer to students in law school as "the kids"?
Posted by: anon | June 22, 2018 at 12:44 AM
At 13.
Posted by: Deep State Special Legal Counsel | June 22, 2018 at 03:10 PM