1 IN TH E SUPREME COURT O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 Op in ion N um be r:

____ ____ ____ __ 3 F ili ng D at e: Ju ne 22, 201 5 4 N O. 33, 997 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Pl ai nti ff

-R es pond en t, 7 v

. 8 AN TON IO T. , a c hild, 9 De fendant-Petitioner, 10 Consolidated w ith: 11 N O. 33, 999 12 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 13 Plaintiff-P etitioner, 14 v. 15 AN TON IO T. , a c hild, 16 D ef

en dant- Re spon de nt.

17 ORI GI NAL PROCEEDI NGS ON CERT IO RARI 18 Sa nd ra A . P ri ce , D ist ri ctJu dg e1 Jorge A. Alvar ado, Chief Public De fender 2 J.K . T heodos ia Johns on, A ssistant Appellate D efender 3 San ta Fe, NM 4 fo r Pet it io ne r an d R es po nd en t An to ni o T.

5 Gary K. King, Attorney

Ge neral 6 Joel Jacobsen, Assistant Attorney Ge neral 7 San ta Fe, NM 8 for Re spon dent and Petition er S tate of N ewMexico1 OPIN ION

2 CHÁ VEZ , Just ice. 3 { 1} H av ing gr an te d th e St at e’ s m oti on for re he ar ing in this ca se , w e w ith dr awthe 4 opin ion filed October 23, 2014, and substitu te the following in its p lace. 5 { 2} A nto nio , a

se ve nte en -y ear- old

hig h sc hool stu de nt , w as take n to A ssi stant 6 Pr inc ipa l V an es saS ar

na ’ s ( Pr inc ipa l S ar

na ) of fi ce be ca use he w as sus pe ct ed of

be ing 7 under the influence of alcohol. Possessio n of alcohol by a m inor is a delinquent act 8 under NMS A 1978, Se ction 32 A- 2-3(A) (2) (2009) of the D elinquency Ac t, N MSA 9 1978 , §§ 3 2A -2 -1 to -3 3 ( 1993 , a s am en de d th ro ug h 20 09 ). P ri nc ipa l S ar na 10 questio ned Antonio abo ut his p ossessi on of alcohol in the presence of De putySherif f 11 E m er son Ch ar le y , Jr

. (D ep uty Ch ar le y ), w hom she ha d as ke d to be pr esen t, and 12 re que ste d th at

he br ing a br eath al co hol te st t o be a dm ini ste re d to A nto nio

. A nto nio 13 adm itted that he had brough t alcohol to school, wher e he consum ed it. At P rincipal 14 Sarna’ s request, D eputy Charley adm inistered the breath test to Antonio, which tested 15 posit ive for alcohol. A fter a dm inistering the test to Antonio, De puty Charley advised 1 6 A n t o n i o o f h i s r i g h t t o r e m a i n s i l e n t , a n d A n t o n i o d e c l i n e d t o a n s w e r D ep uty 17 Ch ar le y ’ s qu es tio ns a bout his pos se ssi on o f al co hol

. 18 { 3} A n t o n i o wa s c h a r g e dwi t h t h e d e l i n qu e n ta c to f p o s s e s s i o n o f

a l c o h o l b y a 19 m ino r. H e fi le d am oti on t o su ppr es s th e stat em en ts he m ad e to P ri nc ipa l S ar na2

1 because his statem ents wer e elicited w ithou t a knowing, intelligent, and volu ntary 2 wai v er o f his right to rem ain silent, citing Section 32A-2-14(D)

. The district court 3 de ni edhi s m ot io n, wh ic h was affi rm edby the Co ur t of App eal s. State v. A nton io T. , 4 2013 -N MC A -0 35, ¶

26, 298 P

. 3d 4 84. W e re ve rs e both th e dis tr ic t cou rt and th e 5 Co urt of

Appe al s. A lth ough a sc hool of fi ci al m ay ins ist that a ch ild an sw er que sti ons 6 for purposes of school disciplin ary proceedings, any

statem ents elicite d by

the o f f i cial 7 in th e pr es en ce of

alawe nf

or ce m en t of

fi ce r m ay not be use d a ga ins t the c hil d ina 8 delinqu ency proceeding unless the child m ade a knowing, intelligent, and volunt ary 9 wa iver of his or her statutory right to rem ain silent. S ec tion 3 2A-2-14(C) , ( D)

. 10 Be ca use the S ta te f

ai le d to pr ove that A nto nio e ff ec tiv el y w ai ve d th is s ta tut or

y r igh t, 11 his state m en ts w er e ina dm iss ibl e in the de lin que nc y pr oc ee din g. 12 I. BACKGRO UND 13 { 4} T w o te ac he rs a t K irtland C en tr al Hi gh Sc hool ( K CH S) e sc orte d A nto nio to 14 Pr in c ipa l S ar

na ’ s of fi ce be ca use the y sus pe ct ed

he w as und er

the inf lue nc e of a lc ohol

. 15 Pr inc ipa l S ar

nac al le d th e stu de nt r es our ce of fi ce r on duty , D ep uty

Ch ar le y , to 16 adm inister a portabl e b re at h t est to Antonio. De puty Charley is a cer tified law 17 enforcem ent officer

with the San Juan County Sheriff ’ s Of fice who spent over eleven 18 y ears on the p olice force before being assigned to KCH S as a student resource office r.3

1 D ep uty Ch ar le y w ears af

ull uni fo rm , inc lud in g hi s ba dge a nd d uty be lt w itha 2 h o lstered gun, to work in the school. H e w as we aring his un iform and his sid earm 3 when he enter ed Principal Sarna’ s office. 4 { 5} D ep uty

Ch ar le y sto od abo ut fi ve fe et

a w ay f ro m A nto nio , pr ep ar ing the br eath 5 te st, w hil e Pr inc ipa l S ar naque sti one d A nto ni o ab out dr ink ing a lc ohol a t sc hool

. 6 D ep uty Ch ar le y ’ s no rm al pr oc ed ur e w as to que sti on a

stu de nt s uspe ct ed of usi ng 7 alcohol prior to adm inistering a breath alcohol test. How ever, in this in stance, 8 because Pr incipal Sarna was as king question s that wer e identical to the ones that 9 De p u t y Ch ar l ey wo u l dh av e a s k ed , h e mer el y l i s t en ed at t en t i v el y t o Pr i n ci p al Sa rn a’s 10 questio ning “ in case som ething [did ] com e up . . . further on in the investig ation that 11 [he] m ight h ave to look b ack onto.” Principal Sarna a sked Antonio if he had been 12 drinkin g, w hat he had to drink, how m uch he had consu m ed, and if any one else wa s 13 dr ink ing w ithhim

. Pr inc ipa l S ar nate sti fi ed

that sh e tol d A nto nio that he w oul d 14 re ce ive ale sse r te rm

of sus pe nsi on i f he tol d he r the tr uth

. T he se kin ds o f que sti ons 15 an d barg ai ns w er e ro uti ne f or P ri nc ipa l S ar

nabe ca use he r j ob i s to e nf

or ce dis ci pli ne 16 at K CHS , where she often deals w ith stu dent discip linary cases “ j ust one right after 17 another.” In response to Principal Sarna’ s questio ns, A nton io adm itted that he had 18 co nsum ed two sh ots of a lc ohol , he ha d br ough t the a lc ohol to sc hool in a soda or14 Pr inc ipa l S ar na an d De puty Ch ar le y w er e the onl y tw o w itn es se s to te sti fy

in 1 15 thi s ca se . T he ir

sto ri es dif

fe re d a s to w he n th e kni fe w as dis co ve re d and whe the r or 16 not Deputy

Charley wa s present when A nton io was questi o ned by Principal Sarna. 17 Pr inc ipal Sarn a te stif ie d th at she c oul d no t be sur e of the se que nc e of

e ve nts , a nd 18 D ep uty

Ch ar le y ’ s te sti m ony

a nd his pol ic e re port r ef

le ct that he w as pr es en t duri ng 19 Principal Sar n a’s question ing and h er search of A nton io’ s backpack. T he district 20 co urt f

ound that D ep uty

Ch ar le y w as pr es en t. “ [W ] he n th er e is a co nf li ct in the 21 testim ony , we defer to the trier of fact. ” B uc ki ngha m v. R ya n , 19 98 -NMCA- 01 2, ¶ 22 10, 124 N

. M. 498 , 953 P

. 2d 3 3. 4 1 G at or ad e bott le , an d he ha d di spos ed of the bottle in a ba thr oom

tr as h c ane as t of

the 2 s c h o o l l i b r a ry. 3 { 6} Af

te r An t onio confessed to consum ing alcoho l, D eputy Charley advised 4 Antonio th at he w ouldhave to blow int o t h e portable breath test m achine, which 5 A nto nio did ; An ton io te ste d po sit ive f or a lc ohol , w hic h c or

ro bor at ed his c onf es sio n. 6 N o pare nt or guard ian w as pr es en t, a nd D ep uty Ch ar le y did not pr ovi de A nto nio w ith 7 a n y M ira nda w ar

nin gs p ri or to adm ini ste ri ng the br eath te st be ca use at that tim e he 8 “ wa s goin g by

what the school wa s re q u es ting.” While Deputy Charley wa s 9 adm ini ste ri ng the br eath t es t, Pri ncipa l S ar nase ar ch ed

A nto nio ’ s ba ck

pa ck a nd 10 located a folding po cketknife. 1 11 { 7} Principal Sar

na then asked D eputy Charley to search for the plastic bott le that 12 A nto nio c la im ed

he t hr ewa w ay . D ep uty Ch ar le y se ar ch ed thr ee tr as h c an s inthe 13 vic ini ty

of the bathr oom

ne ar the li br ar y , but he c oul d no t f

ind the bottle

. A ft er

the5

1 s ea rc h fo r e v i d en ce tu rn ed up n o t h i n g , De p u t y Ch ar l ey re tu rn ed t o Pr i n ci p al Sa rn a’s 2 of fi ce an d advi se d Ant oni o of his ful l cons tit uti ona l rig hts as a nnounc ed in M ira nda 3 v. A riz ona , 3 8 4 U.S . 4 3 6 , 4 7 8

- 7 9 (1 9 6 6 ). An t o n i o an s we re dDe p u t y Ch ar l ey’s 4 que sti ons ab out the kni fe , but he re fu se d to an sw er D ep uty Ch ar le y ’s qu es tio ns 5 regarding alcoho l co nsum ption

. The statem ents Antonio m ade during Principal 6 Sarn a’ s qu es tio nin g w er e doc um en te d in D ep uty Ch ar le y ’ s po lic e re port un de r the 7 “ investig ation” heading. De putyCharley confiscated the pocketknife that Principal 8 Sarn a fo und in A nto nio ’ s ba ck pa ck

. T he S ta te la te r ch ar ge d A nto nio on ly w ith 9 poss ession o f alcoholic beverages by a m inor. 10 { 8} A nto nio f

ile d am oti on t o su

ppr es s hi s st at em en t or

c onf es sio n purs uant t o 11 Se ct ion32A -2 -1 4( C) thr ough( E ), c onten ding th at “ the S ta te c an not

pr ove that the 12 state m en t or

c onf es sio n of fe re d ine vid en ce w as e lic ite d a ft er a know ing , int el lig en t 13 an d vo lun tary

w ai ve r of

the Ch ild ’ s r igh ts and m ust be sup pr es se d. ” A nto nio 14 spe ci fi ca lly

c ite d Se ct ion 32A -2 -1 4( D ), w hic h “ re qui re s that the state ‘ sha ll pr ove the 15 state m en t or

c onf es sio n of fe re d ine vid en ce w as e lic ite d on ly a ft er akno w ing , 1 6 i n t el l i g en t an d v o l u n t ary wa i v er o f t h e c h i l d ’s co n s t i tu t i o n al ri g h t s wa s o b t ai n ed .’ ” 17 A nto nio r eque ste d th e dis tr ic t co urt fi nd that he “ did not kno w ing ly , int el lig en tly

a nd 18 vol unt ar ily

w ai ve co nst itu tio na l and sta tut or y ri ght s and s uppr es s any state m en ts o r6

1 co nf es si on .” 2 { 9} A n e vid en tiary

he ar ing w as he ld o n A nto nio ’ s m oti on t o suppr es s on 3 Se pte m be r 1, 201 0. A ft er he ari ng t es tim ony f ro m P ri nc ipa l S ar

naa nd D ep uty 4 Charley , the district court denied the m otion

. Antonio entered into a condi tional pl ea 5 an d d isp osi tio n a gr ee m en t, r es er vin g hi s r igh t t o a

ppe al the de nia l of

his m oti on t o 6 supp re ss. H e ap pe al ed to the N ewMe xic o C our t of Appe al s, w hic h a ff

irm ed the 7 di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng . Antonio T. , 201 3- N MC A -0 35, ¶ 26. 8 { 10} The C ourt of Appeals analy zed the s uppressio n as a constituti onal issu e, 9 di sc us si ng th e co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s o f ch il dr en du rin g c us to di al in te rro ga ti on , id. ¶¶ 10 8- 10 , and in ve st ig at ory de te nt io ns , id. ¶¶ 12-16. It first concluded th at A nton io had 11 be en su bjec t t o a n i nv es ti ga to ry de te nt io n, n ot a cu st od ia l i nt erro ga ti on . Id

. ¶ ¶ 11, 17. 12 T he Co urt of

Appe al s not ed that “ Se ct ion 32A -2 -1 4 ha s thu s far onl y be enappl ie d in 13 cases where law enforcem ent has interrogated or d etained a chil d, never in inst ances 14 of school di scipline i nvol ving only a school adm inistrator,” Antonio T. , 15 2013 -N MC A -0 35, ¶

18, an d that “ Se ct ion32A -2 -1 4 a ppl ie s to inv es tig at ion s by or 16 on behalf of law enforcem ent officials, ” Antonio T. , 201 3- N MC A -0 35, ¶ 20. T he 17 Co urt of

Appe al s th ende te rm ine d th at P ri nc ipa l S ar

naw as a ctin g within the sc ope 18 of h er duties as a school adm inistrator and was not acting as an agent for law7

1 enforcem ent, and accordinglyconcluded that sh e w as not oblig ated to issue M ira nda 2 warn in gs to Ant on io

. Id

. ¶¶ 2 4 , 26

. Th e Co u rt o f Ap p ea l s d i dn o tad d re s s An t o n i o ’s 3 st at uto ry c la im that hi s st at em en t w as ina dm iss ibl e unde r the pla in l an gua ge of 4 Se ct ion32A -2 -1 4( D ), w hic h w as the or igi na l ba sis fo r A nto nio ’ s m oti on t o su ppr es s. 5 Bo th A nto nio a nd the S ta te appe al ed to thi s C ourt. 6 { 11} W e gr an te d cer

tio rari on tw o qu es tio ns r ai se d inA nto nio ’ s a ppe al : ( 1) did

the 7 Co urt of Ap pe al s err in af fi rm ing the low er co urt’ s deni al of A nto nio ’ s su ppr es sio n 8 m ot i on , a nd

( 2) w a s t he pl e a i nv a l i d be c aus e t he r e w a s i ns uf f i c i e nt e vi de nc e ? Sta te 9 v. Antonio T. , 2013- NM CE RT-003 (No. 33,997, Mar . 1, 2013 ). W e also granted 10 certiorar i on on e question raised in th e State ’ s appeal: did the Court of Appeals er r 11 i n ho l di ng that A nt on i o w a s i n i nv e st i gat or y d e t e nt i on ? State v. A nton io T. , 1 2 2 0 1 3 -N M CE RT -0 0 3 (N o . 3 3 ,9 9 9 , M ar . 1 , 2 0 1 3 ). We h o l dt h at De p u t y Ch ar l ey’s 13 m er e pr es en ce dur ing P ri nc ipa l S ar na ’ s qu es tio nin g of A nto nio subj ec te d A nto nio to 14 aninv es tig at or

y de te nti on tha t

tr igg er ed the statut or

y pr ote ct ion s pr ovi de d by

S ec tio n 15 32A-2-14 (C) and (D)

. Pursuant to Section 32A-2-14(C), De putyCharley wa s 1 6 re qui r e dt o a d v i s e A n t o n i o t h a th e h a dar i g h tt o r e m a i n s i l e n t , a n dt h a ti f A nto nio 17 wa ived the right, anything he said c ouldbe used against him in crim inal delinq uency 18 pr oc ee din gs. Be ca

use D ep uty Ch ar le y fa ile d to a dvi se A nto nio of thi s st at uto ry r igh t8

1 be fo re P ri nc ipa l Sarn a que sti one d Ant oni o in his pr es en ce , A nto nio ’ s in cr im inatin g 2 statem ents are inadm issib le under Sec tion 3 2A-2-14(D ). 3 II. DISC US SION 4 { 12} T his c as e re qui re s us to an al y ze w he the r a sta te m en t m ad e by a ch ild ove r the 5 ag e of f if te enis adm iss ibl e unde r Se ct ion32A-2-14 , w he n th e state m en t w as m ad e 6 in re spon se to que sti oni ng by a sc hool pr inc ipa l in the pre se nc e of a lawe nf or ce m en t 7 officer . Children who comm it an act th at would be considered a crim e if they we re 8 ove r the a ge of

e igh te ena re s ubj ec t t o th e D el inque nc y A ct a nd are gr an te d c er

ta in 9 b as i c s t at u t o ry ri g h t s u n d erSe ct i o n 3 2 A- 2 -1 4 . Th e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f A n t o n i o ’s 10 state m en ts i s de pe nde nt o n our int er pr et at ion of the D el inque nc y A ct

. Be ca

use 11 st atut ory in te rp ret at io n is a qu es ti on of la w, we rev ie w i t d e n ov o. Se e Sta te v . J ade 12 G. , 200 7- N MS C- 010, ¶ 15, 141 N

. M. 284 , 154 P

. 3d 6 59. 13 A . P ur su an t to S ec ti on 32A -2 -1 4( D ), A nt on io’ s st at em en ts were in ad m iss ib le 14 be ca use he w as questioned dur ing an investigatory dete ntion wi thout 15 bei ng fir st ad vi se d o f the r ig ht to remai n si le nt as requi red b y S ecti on 32 A16 2- 14 (C) 17 { 13} In St at e v. Ja vi er M. , 20 01 -NMSC -0 30 , ¶¶ 32 , 42 , 13 1 N.M. 1 , 33 P.3d 1, we 18 held that the Legislature intended Section 32A-2-14 to afford children greate r 19 statut or

y pr ote ct ionthan what is co nst itu tio na lly m an da te d. W e ev al ua te d th e 20 adm iss ibi lity

of ac hil d’ s st at em en ts m ad e in r es pons e to p oli ce que sti oni ng b y f ir st9

1 as se ssi ng the m ini m

um c onst itu tio na l gu ar an te es a va ila ble to the c hild un de r the 2 U nit ed Sta te s Supr em e Co urt’ s de ci sio n in M ira nda

. Ja vi er

M. , 200 1- N MS C- 030, 3 ¶ 11 ( “ Onl y aft er ass es sin g th e m ini m um c onst itu tio na l gu ar an te es a va ila ble to the 4 Child un der M

ira nda can w e ad equa te ly int er pr et Se ct ion 32A -2 -1 4 an d dete rm ine 5 what, if any , a dditi onal protection s are available to the Child u nder the statute.”)

. 6 { 14} W e re co gni ze d th at M ira nda “ im

pose d a proph y la ct ic pr ote ct ionby r equir ing 7 that susp ects be advised of their rights under the Fifth Am endm ent [of the Un ited 8 St at es Co ns ti tu ti on ] pr io r to an y qu es ti on in g” du rin g a cu st od ia l i nt erro ga ti on . Javier 9 M. , 2001 -N MS C- 030, ¶ 14. “ Cu sto dia l int er ro ga tio n oc curs w he n [a ] n ind ivi dua l [ is] 10 sw ep t f

ro m f am ili ar sur ro undi ngs int o po lic e cu sto dy , su rro un de d by a nta goni sti c 11 fo rc es , a nd s ubj ec te d to the te ch nique s of per sua sio n . . . [s o that the ind ivi dua l f

ee ls] 12 under com

pulsi on to sp eak.” Id

. ¶

15 ( al terat ion s inor igi na l) ( int er na l qu otatio n 13 m ar ks and ci ta tio n om itt ed ). Whe n a suspe ct is subj ec te d to ac ust odi al int er ro ga tio n, 14 that pe rs on “‘ m

ust be w ar ne d th at he [ or she ] ha s ar igh t to rem ai n si lent, that any 1 5 sta te m en t h e [ o r

s h e ] d o e s m a k e m a y

b e u s e da s e v i d e n c e a g a i n s th i m [ o r h e r ] , a nd 16 that he [o r sh e] h as ar igh t t o th e pr es en ce of a n a tto rn ey , e ith er

r et ai ne d or 17 appoin ted.’ ” Id

. ( quot ing M ira nda , 384 U

. S. a t 44 4)

. I n Ja vi er M. , w e he ld tha t the 18 ch ild w as not sub j ec te d to a cu sto dia l i nte rr oga tio n be ca use the “ Ch ild ’ s de te nti on10

1 wa s no t o v erly‘ police dom inated,’ ” the child wa s not swept away from fam iliar 2 sur ro undi ngs, a nd the c hil d w as que sti one d i n a pu bli c pla ce in the pr es en ce of 3 se ve ral ot he r su sp ect s. Se e id

. ¶¶ 21- 23. A cc or din gly , in Ja vi er M. w e he ld tha t “ the 4 of fi ce r w as not

r equir ed to ‘ M ira ndi ze ’ the Child before questioni ng him .” Id

. ¶ 23. 5 { 15} Havi n g co n cluded that the child wa s not entit led to the consti tutio nal 6 p r o t e c t i o n s g u a r a n t e e db y M ira nda , thi s C ourt tur

ne d to the D el inquenc y A ct to 7 an al y ze wh et he r it pro vi de d t he ch il d wi th an y ad di ti on al st atut ory

pro te ct io n. Javier 8 M. , 200 1- N MS C- 030, ¶ ¶ 24- 32. A s apr el im inary m atte r, w e ac know le dge d that “ it 9 i s com pletely within the Le gislature’ s authorityto provid e grea ter sta tutory 10 prot ec tio n than accorded under the fe deral Constitu tion.” Id . ¶ 24 (em phasis add ed). 11 Inint er

pr et ing S ec tio n 32 A -2 -1 4, we fo cu se d onthr ee iss ue s: (1 ) w he the r the 1 2 Le g i s l a tu r e i n t e n d e dt o mer e l y c o d i f y M ira nda under the statute by re q u i ri n g that 13 children be subjected to custodial interro g at ions b efore statutory protections are 14 triggered, ( 2) the circum stances under which statutory protections would be triggered 1 5 i f t h e Le g i s l a tu r e d i dn o ti n t e n dt o c o d i f y M ira nda , and (3) th e n ature of the statut ory 16 pr ot ect io ns affo rd edun de r th e st atut e. Ja vi er M. , 200 1- N MS C- 030, ¶

25. 17 { 16} A ft er

loo kin g a t i ts pla in langua ge , thi s Co urt re j ec te d th e not ionthat S ec tio n 18 32A -2 -1 4 wa s in te nde d to c odi fy the a dvi ce of

c onst itu tio na l r igh ts announc ed in11

1 M ira nda

. Ja vi er

M. , 2001 -N MS C- 030, ¶ 29. “ In ste ad of usi ng M ira nda tr igg er ing 2 term s such as ‘ custody ’ or ‘ custodi al interrogation,’ the Le gislature used m uch 3 b ro ad ert er m s , s u ch as , ‘al l eg ed ,’ ‘s u s p ec t ed ,’ ‘in t erro g at ed ,’ an d ‘q u es t i o n ed .’ ” 4 Ja vi er M. , 20 01 -NMSC -0 30 , ¶ 29 (qu ot in g Sect io n 32 A-2 -1 4( C)). Acco rd in gl y , we 5 held t hatS e c t i on3 2A

- 2- 14 d i d no tr e qu i r e ac hi l d t o be s ub j e c tt o ac us t odial 6 in te rro ga ti on in ord er fo r th e ad di ti on al st atut ory pro te ct io ns to ap pl y . Ja v ie r M. , 7 2001 -N MS C- 030, ¶

32. 8 { 17} Af

ter deter m inin g t h at a cus todial in terrogation was not required, we then 9 tur ne d to the que sti on of w ha t cir cu m stanc es w oul d tr igg er the pr ote ct ion s of

S ec tio n 10 32A -2 -1 4. I n Ja vi er

M. , w e stated that “ ‘ alleged’ ” pertained to the “ tim e period after 11 w hic h af

orm al pe tit iona lle gin g de lin que nc y ha s be enf

ile d inthe Ch ildre n’ s C ourt” 1 2 an dd ef

i n ed “ ‘su s p ec t ’ ” as m ea n i n g “ ‘to i m ag i n e ( o n e) t o b e g u i l t y o r c u l p ab l e. ’ ” 13 Id

. ¶ 29 ( quot ing W

e b s t e r ’ s N i n th N e wC o l l e g i a t e D i c t i onar

y 118 9 ( 1985 ) (s ec ond 1 4 a l t e r a t i o n i n o r i g i n a l ) )

. We r e a s o n e dt h a t“ a n o f f i c e r ’s s u s p i c i o n w i l l a l mo s ta l w a ys 15 cause the encounter with the child to be an invest igatory detention,” Ja vi er

M. , 200 1- 16 NMS C-030, ¶ 35, and that “ by includin g the term

‘ susp ected’ in Section 32A-2-14(C) 17 to d es cr ibe w he n th e statut e’ s pro tec tio ns are tr igg er ed , the L eg isl at ur e int en de d to 18 drawt h e li ne at investigato ry detentions .” Ja vi er

M. , 2 0 0 1 -N M SC -0 3 0 , ¶3 6 . We12

1 co nc lud ed

that “ w he n an of

fi ce r ap pr oa ch es ac hil d to a sk the c hil d qu es tio ns b ec au se 2 th e o ff i ce r ‘ susp ects’ the child of delinq uent behavio r, the officer is perform ing an 3 investig atory detention .” Id . ¶ 37. “ G ive n ac hil d’ s po ssi ble im m at ur ity a nd 4 susceptib ility

to intim idation , a child who is subject to an investigatory detention m ay 5 feel pre ss ur es si m il ar t o t ho se ex pe rie nc edby adu lt s d ur in g c us to di al in te rro ga ti on .” 6 Id . As a res ul t, we h el d t ha t “ th e p ro te ct io ns of t he st at u t e a r e tri gg ered in two 7 circum stances: (1) af

ter for m al charges have been filed against a child; and (2) when 8 a child is seized p ursuant to an investig atory detention and not free to leave. ” Id . ¶ 9 38. 10 { 18} Fin al ly, in de fin in g t he sco pe of th e pr ot ect io ns affo rd ed un de r th e st atut e, we 11 he ld tha t the te rm

“ ‘ co nst itu tio na l r igh ts’ ” in Se ct ion 32A -2 -1 4( C) doe s no t r ef er to 12 the w ar

nin gs e num er at ed

in M ira nda wher e the child is subject to an i n v es t i gatory 13 de te nt io n a nd no t a c u s t o di al in te rro ga ti on . Ja vi er M. , 200 1- N MS C- 030, ¶ 41. 14 Instead, we held that “ children who are subject to investigatory detentions [have a 1 5 s t at u t o ry ri g h t ] onl

yto be warned of t heir righ t to rem ain silent and that anything they 16 say can be used against them .” Id

. ¶ 41 (em phasis add ed). 17 { 19} U nde r the r ea soni ng i n Ja vi er M. , if Antonio was subje cted to an investig atory 18 de te nti on, the ba sic statut or y r igh t at is su e in this c as e is the r igh t t o r em ai n si le nt.13

1 Be ca u s e ch i ldren m ay

not un derstand either their right to rem ain silent or that they 2 are entitled to assert this statutory right, the L egislature has detailed which procedural 3 safeguards m

ust be satisfied before any statem ent m ade b y a ch i l d i s adm itted as 4 ev ide nc e in a cr im ina l del inque nc y pr oc ee din g. U nde r Se ct ion32A -2 -1 4( C) , ac hil d 5 w ho i s su sp ect ed or

a lle ge d of

ha vin g c om

m itt ed ade lin que nt a ct

c an not be 6 int er ro ga te d or

que sti one d duri ng an inv es tig at or y de te nti on unle ss the c hil d is f ir st 7 a d v i s e do f

h i s o r h e r s t a tu t o ry ri g h tt o r e mai n s i l e n ta n dt h e c h i l dk n o w i n g l y, 8 intellig ently , and vo luntarily wa ives his o r her r ights

. When Section 32A-2-14(C) has 9 be envio la te d, the le gis la tiv e re m edy is to pr ec lud e the a dm iss ionof a ny state m en t or 10 co nf es sio n el ic ite d fr om the ch ild in co urt pr oc ee din gs. S ec tio n 32 A -2 -1 4( D ); Javier 11 M. , 200 1- N MS C- 030, ¶ ¶ 1, 27. 12 { 20} T o de te rm ine w he the r a chi ld’ s sta te m en t or con fe ssi on m ay be intro duc ed

int o 1 3 e v i d e n c e , t h e S t a t e b e a r s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g t h a tt h e c h i l dkn o w i n g l y, i n t e l l i g e n t l y, 14 an d vo lun tari ly

w ai ve d th e ch ild ’ s st at

uto ry r igh t t o r em ai n si le nt. S ec tio n 32 A -2

- 15 14( D ). I n asse ssi ng the va lid ity of an al le ge d wa ive r, Se ct ion 32A -2 -1 4 r equir es the 16 court to consid er ( 1) the age o f the child, (2) whether the child’ s statem ent was 17 el ic ite d or vol unt ee re d, (3 ) w he the r the ch ild w as advis ed of his or he r statut or

y r igh t 18 to rem ain silent bef

ore the statem ent wa s elicited, and (4) the additional criteria listed14

1 in Section 32A-2-14(E)

. 2 { 21} If the ch ild is le ss than thi rt ee n y ears old , und er no c ir cu m stanc es m ay

his or 3 he r state m en t be intro duc ed a ga ins t the c hil d inc ourt pr oc ee din gs. S ec tio n 32 A -2

- 4 14( F) pr ovi de s th at

“ [n ] otw ith standi ng any

oth er pr ovi sio n to the c ontrary , no 5 co nf es sio ns, state m en ts o r adm iss ion s m ay be intro duc ed

a ga i n s t a c h ild und er the a ge 6 of thi rt ee n y ears on the al le ga tio ns o f the pe tit ion

. ” I n Jade G

. , w e he ld tha t S ec tio n 7 32A -2 -1 4( F) e re ct s an a bsol ute bar to the adm iss ion of an y state m en t m ad e by ac hil d 8 under the age of thirteen— even statem ents that the child s pont aneouslyvolun teers 9 to fam il y

m e mb ers , frie nd s, o r ot he rs who are n ot in a po si ti on of a ut ho rit y . See 10 2007 -N MS C- 010, ¶

16. F or c hil dr enwho are thi rt ee n or f ourte eny ears old , the 11 L eg isl at

ur e has cr eate d a reb utt ab le pr es um pti on tha t the ir co nf

es sio ns, state m en ts, 12 or a dm iss ion s ar e ina dm iss ibl e in c ourt pr oc ee din gs i f suc h st at em en ts w er e m ad e to 13 a person in a positi on of autho rity

. Section 32A-2-14(F)

. 14 { 22} If the ch ild is fi ft ee n y ears old or old er , a s inthi s c as e, his or he r state m en t i s 15 adm iss ibl e if

it was m ad e spon tane ousl y by the c hil d w ith out

pr om pti ng— i. e. , if

it 16 w as not

e lic ite d. Se ct ion 32A -2 -1 4( D ), ( F)

. “ [V ] olunte er ed state m en ts o f an y

kin d 17 are . . . not subject to th e protections of Section 32A-2-14 since such statem ents are 18 generally

not in response to any

‘ questio ning ’ or ‘ interrogation.’ ” Ja vi er M. , 200 1-15

1 NMS C-030, ¶

40. H owever , if

the statem ent or confession was elicite d during an 2 investig atory

detention, the State m

ust prov e that the child w as advised of his or her 3 statutory

right to rem ain silent and kn owingly , intelligently , and vo luntarily wa ived 4 th is rig ht

. Id . ¶

¶ 40, 44. The que s t i o n b ef o re this Court is whether Antonio was 5 subj ec te d to a n in ve sti ga tor y d e t e n t i o ntr igg er ing the pr ote ct ion s of S ec tio n 32 A -2 -1 4 6 w he n P r i n c i p a l S a rn a qu e s t i o n e d h i m ab o u t d e l i n qu e n t b e h a v i o r i n t h e p r e s e n c e of 7 a lawe nf

or ce m en t of

fi ce r. U nli ke the Co urt of Appe al s, w e an sw er

thi s qu es tio n in 8 the affir

m ative. 9 1. When a child suspected of delinquent behavior is questioned in the presen ce 10 of

a l awe nf orc em en t of

fice r, th at c hi

ld i s s ub je cted to an in vesti

gat ory 11 de te nt

ion 12 { 23} T he Co urt of

Appe al s in terp re te d S ec tio n 32 A -2 -1 4( D ) to p re cl ude onl y 13 state m en ts o r co nf

es sions e lic ite d by

lawe nf or ce m en t of

fi ce rs or the ir a ge nts

. 14 Antonio T. , 201 3 -N MCA -035, ¶ 20 (holding that all of the basic rights of children 15 enum erate d in Section 32A-2-14 only apply “ to investig ations byor on behalf of law 16 en fo rc em en t of

fi ci al s” ). T he Co urt of Appe al s not ed that “ Se ct ion32A -2 -1 4 ha s thus 17 far onl y

be enappl ie d inc as es w he re lawe nf or ce m en t ha s in te rr oga te d or de ta ine d a 18 ch il d, nev er in in st an ces of sc ho ol di sc ip li ne in vo lv in g o nl y a sc ho ol ad m in is tra to r.” 19 Antonio T. , 2013-NMC A- 035, ¶ 18. A ccordingly , the C ourt of Appeals concluded16

1 that S ec tio n 32 A -2 -1 4 on ly appl ie s w he n alawe nf

orcem en t of

fi ce r int er ro ga te s or 2 de tains ac hil d, or

w he n th e sc hool of

fi ci al a ct s a s an a ge nt o f lawe nf or ce m en t. 3 Antonio T. , 2013-NMC A- 035, ¶¶ 18-20. Beca use the C o urt of Appeals found that 4 D ep uty Ch ar le y did not int er ro ga te or de ta in A nto nio , the Co urt foc use d so le ly on 5 whether Principal Sar

na acted as an agent of law enforcem ent bey ond th e scope of her 6 du ti es as a sch oo l ad m in is tra to r. Id . ¶ ¶ 21-24. Concludin g that Principal Sar na wa s 7 not a ct ing a s an a ge nt t o law en fo rc em en t, the Co urt of Appe al s he ld that “ al tho ugh 8 thi s w as a n in ve sti ga tor y de te nti on, A nto nio ha d no r igh t t o M ira nda w ar

nin gs f ro m 9 a sc ho ol ad m in is tra to r fo r a sc ho ol in te rro ga ti on , d es pi te th e p res en ce o f a d ep ut y .” 10 Antonio T. , 201 3- N MC A -0 35, ¶ 26. 11 { 24} W e begin our analy sis byfirst ac knowledgin g that Principal Sar na suspected 12 Antonio of being intox icated w hile at school—a schoo l discipli nary v i o l at i on that 13 w oul d a lso r en de r him ade lin que nt c hil d. T his sus pic ionpr om pte d P ri nc ipa l S ar

na 14 to con duc t an inve sti ga tio n into A nto nio ’ s alc ohol co nsum pti on. W e ag re e w iththe 15 Co urt of Ap pe al s that Pr inc ipa l Sarn a’ s suspi ci on alo ne did not tr igg er the pr ote ct ion s 16 unde r Sec tio n 32 A -2 -1 4( C) , be ca use P ri nc ipa l S ar

nais ne ith er

alawe nf

or ce m en t 17 of fic er n orwas s he act in g a s an ag en t o f la w enf or cem en t. See A nton io T. , 201 3- 18 N MC A -0 35, ¶

20. Q ue sti oni ng a

c hil d f or sc hool discip lin ar

y m atte rs is17

1 di st in gu is habl e fro m

qu es ti on in g a ch il d fo r su sp ect edcri m in al wro ng do in g. See In 2 re Julio L. , 3 P

. 3d 3 83, 385 (A ri z. 2000 ) (e n banc ) (“ [N ] ot ev er y vio la tio n of

pub lic 3 de co rum or of sc hool ru le s giv es le ga l ca use fo r cr im ina l ad

j udi cati on .”). Be ca

use 4 “ m ai nta ini ng s ec ur ity

a nd o rd er in .

. . sc hool s re qui re s ac er ta in d eg re e of

f le xib ili ty 5 in s ch ool dis ci pli nary pr oc ed ur es , ” w e re co gni ze “ the va lue of pr eser vin g th e 6 inform ality of the stu de nt- te ac he r re lat ion shi p .” New Jer

se y v. T.L.O. , 469 U

. S. 325 , 7 340 (198 5) (em

phasis add ed). Ac cordingly , P rincipal Sarna wa s entitled to act on her 8 susp icion and c om

pel answer s from Antonio for the purpos es of scho o l disciplin e. 9 Se e In re D oe , 1975 -N MC A -1 08, ¶ 29, 88 N

. M. 347 , 540 P

. 2d 8 27 ( statin g th atin10 school d isciplin ary

m atters, unlik e cr im inal proceedin g s , d o not require M ira nda 11 warnings). Absent any agency relationship b et we en school officials and law 12 en fo rc em en t auth oritie s, int er ro ga tin g A nto nio a lon e in h er of fi ce about

sc hool 13 di sc ip li na ry

m at te rs wou ldno t ha ve co ns ti tu te d an in ve st ig at ory de te nt io n. Se e Sta te 14 v. San tiago , 200 9- N MS C- 045, ¶ 18, 147 N

. M. 76, 217 P. 3d 89 (p ro vid ing the te st t o 15 determ ine whether som eone acts as an a gent of law e nforcem ent). 16 { 25} H ow ev er , the ch ar ac te r of Pr inc ipa l S ar na ’ s sc hool dis ci pli nary

inv es tig at ion 17 changed once she requested Deputy Char l eyto be present when she questioned 18 Antoni o about h is susp ected delinquent beh avior. W hile the State m aintains that18

1 De putyCharley ’ s presence i n the room wa s inno cuous, De putyCharley ’ s presence 2 in the r oom

c re at ed ac oe rc ive a nd a dve rs ar ia l e nvi ro nm en t tha t do es not nor m al ly 3 ex is t du rin g in te ract io ns be twee n sc ho ol of fic ia ls an d st ud en ts

. Se e T.L.O. , 469 U. S. 4 at 349-50 (Powell, J., concurring). Un l ike school o fficials, whose prim ary duties 5 fo cu s on “ t h e e du c a t i o n a n dt r a i n i n g o f y o u n g p e o p l e [ , ]

. . . [ l ] a we n f o r c em en t 6 of fi ce rs f unc tio n a s a dve rs ar ie s of c ri m ina l su spe ct s. T he se of fi ce rs ha ve the 7 re spon sib ili ty

to inve sti ga te c ri m ina l a ct ivi ty , to loc at e an d arr es t those w ho v iol at e 8 our laws, and to f

acilitate the charging and bring ing of such p ersons to trial.” Se e id

. 9 (Pow ell, J. , c oncurring). 10 { 26} D ep uty

Ch ar le y ’ s m er e pr es en ce dur ing P ri nc ip al S ar na ’ s qu es tio nin g of 11 Antonio converted the school disciplin ary interrogation int o a crim inal investi gatory 12 detention , and it th eref ore triggered the protections pr ov i de d by S e c t i on 3 2A

- 2- 14(C). 13 Be fo re e nc ount er ing A nto nio , D ep uty Char le y w as a lr ea dy

on n oti ce that A nto nio 14 wa s susp ected of delinqu ent behavior. Principal Sarna testified that s h e i n v olved 15 De putyCharley

in the school ’ s investi gation so he w ouldknow that Antonio was 16 unde r the inf

lue nc e, a nd a lso to te st A nto nio ’ s br eath fo r al co hol

. A s P ri nc ipa l S ar na 17 interrogated Antonio abou t his su spe ct ed delinqu ent behavior, D eputy Charley 18 not ic ed

that A nto nio ’ s spe ec h w as slurr ed an d slo w . D ur ing A nto nio ’ s in te rr oga tio n,19

1 D ep uty Ch ar le y sto od a bout f ive f ee t aw ay fr om A nto nio pr ep ar ing a porta ble br eath 2 al co hol te st whil e w eari ng a f ull uni fo rm , i nc lu di ng his ba dge a nd d uty be lt w itha 3 holst ered gun. A t a m inim um , A nton io was not fre e to leave Pr incipal Sarna’ s office 4 unt il D ep uty

Ch ar le y a dm ini ste re d th e porta

ble br eath a lc ohol te st t o A nto nio

. 5 { 27} D ep uty

Ch ar le y ’ s pr es en ce in the r oom not on ly cr eate d ac oe rc ive a nd 6 adve rs ar ia l e nvi ro nm en t, it a lso gr an te d hi m

a cc es s to e vid en ce ne ce ssary to 7 p ro s ec u t e cr i m i n al d el i n qu en t b eh av i o r. Ap p ar en t l y an t i ci p at i n g t h at A n t o n i o ’s 8 responses would have bearing on a future c rim inal investi gation and other 9 pr oc ee din gs, D ep uty

Ch ar le y li ste ne d a tte nti ve ly

to the int er

ro ga tio n. T o th is e nd, he 10 testified that it is im

portant fo r h im

to listen to whether

a child adm its or denies 11 co nsum ing a lc ohol be fo re a dm ini ste ri ng the porta ble a lc ohol te st t o c onf

irm or de ny 12 the c hil d’ s state m ents. D ep uty Ch ar le y sim ply use s th e por

ta ble a lc ohol te st a s a 13 pseudo lie detector test during his crim inal investig ation to corroborate any elicited 14 state m en ts or co nf

es sio ns. T his is im

por tant be ca use A nto nio ’s in cr im inatin g 15 state m en ts tha t he drank alc ohol al one w oul d su ppor t a sc hool sus pe nsi on, a lth ough 16 the confession alo n e wo uld no t supp ort a cr im inal convictio n und er the statutory 17 co rp us de li ct i d oc tri ne . See § 32A-2-14(G ). 18 { 28} The statutory

corp u s d el icti requirem ent provides th at “ [a] n extraj udicial20

1 adm iss ionor

c onfess io n m ad e by

the c hil d ou t of

c ourt i s in suf

fi ci en t t o su

ppor t a 2 fi ndi ng tha t the ch ild co m m itt ed the de lin que nt ac ts al le ge d in the pe tit ionunl es s it 3 is corroborated by

other evidence.” Se e id

. A s ar es ult , the S ta te c oul d no t have 4 pr os ecu te d A n t o n io so le ly on h is st at em en t o r co nf es si on . Id . De p u t y Ch ar l ey’s 5 pr es en ce in Pr inc ipa l S ar na ’ s of fi ce a s sh e que sti one d Anto nio gr an te d th e St at e 6 ac ce ss t o bo th A nto nio ’ s in cr im inatin g st at em en ts an d the re sul ts o f the porta ble 7 br eath a lc ohol te st, w hic h c or ro bor at ed A nto nio ’ s c onf

es sio n. 8 { 29} W e dis ag re e w iththe S ta te ’ s c hara c t e r i z at i o no f D ep uty Ch ar le y ’ s in vol ve m en t 9 in P rincipal Sarna’ s questio ning of A nton io. W e acknowledge that D eputy Charley 10 did no t escort A nton io to Principal S arna’ s office, ask Antonio any question s him self, 11 or te ll Pr inc ipa l Sarn a w hic h que sti ons to as k A nto nio

. N one theles s, Deputy 12 Charley ’ s m ere presence in Pr incipal Sarna’ s office a s Principal Sar na question ed 13 A nto nio sub

j ec te d A nto nio to an inve sti ga tor y de te nti on. P ur suant t o S ec tio n 32 A -2

- 14 14( C) , D ep uty

Ch ar le y w as r equir ed

to advis e A nto nio that he ha d astatut or y r igh t 15 to rem ain silent , an d i f An tonio wa ived that right, anything he said could be used 16 against h i m in crim inal delinq uency proceedings. D eputy

Charley m ust have been 17 aw ar e that A nto nio ’ s st at em en ts w oul d be ina dm iss ibl e ab se nt a va lid w ai ve r of

his 18 ri ght to re m ai n sil en t, as w as ev ide nc ed by the fa ct that D ep uty

Ch ar le y sub se que ntl y21

1 advis ed A nto nio of

his r igh t t o r em ai n si le nt pri or to at te m pti ng to ques tio n him

a ga in 2 ab out his c onsum

pti on o f al co hol

. 3 2. Antonio’s s t

a tem ents were inadm issib le because h e did not waive his right 4 to rem ain si le nt as req uire d b

y Sec ti on 32

A-2 -1 4( D) 5 { 30} Section 32A-2-14(D ) provides that before any incrimin at i ng statem ent “ m ay 6 be intro duc ed

a t a tr ia l or he ar ing w he n a ch ild is al le ge d to be a de lin que nt c hil d, the 7 state sha ll pr ove that the state m en t or c onf es sio n off er ed in ev ide nc e w as e lic ite d on ly 8 af te r a know ing , int el lig en t and voluntary w ai ve r of the c hil d’ s c onst itu tio na l r igh ts 9 w as obt ai ne d. ” A know ing , int el lig en t, an d volunt ar y w ai ve r cannot

be obt ai ne d if 10 the c hil d ha s no t f

ir st b ee n a dvi se d of

his or he r statut or

y rig ht to r em ai n si le nt. 11 A cco rd in gly , S ec tio n 32 A -2 -1 4( D ) pr ovi de s th e le ga l r em edy f or vio la tio ns o f 12 Section 32A-2-14(C)

. 13 { 31} Antonio m oved to supp ress th e in crim inating statem ents he m ade to Principal 14 Sarna ba se d onthe pla in l an gua ge m an date of S ec tio n 32 A -2 -1 4( D ) that f or the 15 state m en ts t o be adm iss ibl e ag ai nst him in a de lin que nc y pr oc ee din g, “ the state sha ll 16 prove that the statem ent o r con fession offered in evidence w as elicited only after a 17 knowing, intelli g en t and volu ntary wa iver of the child’ s constit ution al rights was 18 obtaine d. ” B e c aus e t he l a ng ua ge of t he st a tut e i s c l e a r , i t i s pr op e r t o app l y i tas 19 writ te n. St at e v. Jo na th an M. , 199 0- N MS C- 046, ¶ 4, 109 N

. M. 78 9, 79 1 P. 2d 6 422

1 (“ Whe n a statut e co nta ins langua ge w hic h is c le ar a nd una m

big uous , w e m

ust giv e 2 ef fe ct to that l an gua ge a nd r ef ra in f ro m f urthe r statut or

y int er pr etatio n. ”)

. I n th is 3 ca se , the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d have gr an te d A nto nio ’ s m oti on t o su ppr es s hi s 4 state m en ts b ec au se A nto nio ’ s st at em en ts w er e el ic ite d by Pr inc ipa l Sarn a bef or e he 5 w as w a rn e da n dw i t h o u tA n t o n i o h a v i n g kn o w i n g l y , i n t e l l i g e n t l y , a n dv o l u n t ar ily 6 w ai ve d hi s st at

uto ry r igh t t o r em ai n si le nt. I t i s undi sput ed that A nto nio r ef use d to 7 re pe at the state m en ts a ft er D ep uty Ch ar le y advis ed him of his ri ght to re m ai n si le nt. 8 A nto nio appe ar ed to ha ve unde rs too d that his an sw er s to Pr inc ipa l S ar na ’ s qu es tio ns 9 would affe ct his discipline under school rules, but once De putyCharley question ed 10 him , he the n po te nti al ly f ac ed c ri m ina l c harg es . B ec au se the S ta te c oul d no t pr ove 11 that the state m en ts w er e m ad e af ter wa rn ing s and a

va lid w ai ve r as r equir ed

by 12 Section 32A-2-14(D ), the statem ents w ere inadm issib le. As a result, the State f ailed 13 to m eet its burden of proof under Section 32A-2-14(D ). 14 { 32} W e em

phasize that our hold ing in this case should not be construed to require 15 sc hool a dm ini str at or s to a dvi se a chi ld of his or he r ri ght to re m ai n sile nt in orde r to 16 use inc ri m inatin g st at em en ts elic it ed fr om the c hil d a ga ins t tha t c hil d insc hool 17 dis ci pli nary pr oc ee din gs. W e em pha siz ed in St at e v. Ni ck R. that “ [n oth ing ] in thi s 18 opin io n [ is] int en de d to im pa ir the e xis tin g auth or ity

of sc hool auth or iti es to23

1 pr om ulg at e an d e nf

or ce a dm ini str at ive se curi ty m ea sur es . ” 200 9- N MS C- 050, ¶ ¶ 44- 2 48, 147 N. M. 182, 218 P. 3d 868 (aff irm ing scho ol pol icies prohibit ing po cketknives 3 on cam pus, but holding that a pocketkn ife wa s not a “ deadly we apon” f or purposes 4 of a dj udi catio n inCh ildre n’ s C ourt ( quot ing w ithappr ova l Sta te v . D oe , 92 P

. 3d 5 21, 5 525 (I daho 2 004) ( “ [P ] ubl ic sc hool of fi ci al s [h av e] an ef

fe ct ive m eans o f dis ci pli nin g 6 unr uly or dis ru pti ve pup ils in an adm ini str at ive f as hio n. ” (a lte ratio ns i n or igi na l) 7 ( i n t e rn a l qu o t a t i o n m a rk s a n dc i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) )) ); St at e v. Tyw ay ne H. , 8 1997 -N MC A -0 15, ¶

13, 123 N

. M. 42, 933 P. 2d 251 (“ [T ] he re is a sharp dis tin ct ion 9 betwee n the purpo se of a search by a school officia l and a search by a police office r. 10 T he na tur e of a . . . se ar chby asc hool auth or ity

is to m ai nta in o rd er

a nd d isc ipl ine in 11 the sc hool

. T he na tur e of ase ar chby a po li ce of fic er is to o bta in e vid en ce f

or 12 cr im in al pr ose cu tio ns. ” (i nte rn al c itatio n om itt ed ))

. S im ilarl y , in thi s c as e, apla in 13 language r ea din g of

S ec tio n 32 A -2 -1 4( D ) de m onstrate s th at it is a bar to the 14 adm iss ibi lity

of c hil dr en ’ s c onf

es sio ns in de lin que nc y pr oc ee din gs if the c onf es sio n 15 wa s elicited in the presence of a law enforcem ent officer or a school official w ho was 1 6 ac t i n g as an ag en to f l aw en fo rc emen t ; i n n o wa y d o es t h i s s ec t i o n p re v en tch i l d re n ’s 17 co nf es sio ns f ro m be ing use d a ga ins t the m

dur ing sc hool dis ci pli nary pr oc ee din gs. 18 III. CO NC LUS ION24

1 { 33} W e hold that Section 32 A- 2-14(D) precluded the u s e o f Anto nio’s self

2 in cri m in at in g s ta te m en ts ag ai ns t hi m in a d el in qu en cy pro ceed in g. Acco rd in gl y , we 3 reverse both th e district court and the Cour t of Appeals. W e re m and to the dis trict 4 co urt, w he re A nto nio sha ll be pe rm itt ed to w ith dr awhis ple a if

he so c hoos es . 5 { 34} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

6

____ ____ ____ ____ ________

____ __ 7 EDWA RD L. CH ÁV EZ , Just ice 8 WE CONCUR:

9 ___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 10 BA RBA RAJ. V IGIL, C hief Just ice

11 ___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 12 PE TRAJIMEN EZMA ES, Sen ior Justice

13 ___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 14 RIC HAR

D C . B OSSON , Just ice

15 ___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 16 CH ARLES W. DA NIEL S, Justice