Courts universally hold that school authorities may question a student without giving a Miranda warning, although much of that case law is predicated on the recognition that school personnel are not law enforcement personnel or even agents of the police. There may be some due process issues connected with the use of a statement obtained involuntarily, as that issue is separate and distinct from the Miranda issue. However, at least one court has held that a student's silence in an administrative hearing may be considered as one element in a finding of guilt. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts concluded that the right to education defined in the latter case applied to the children of the Commonwealth generally, and did not constitute a fundamental right for an individual student. Thus, strict scrutiny was not required in determining the sanction in an expulsion case.
Similar holdings seem likely in other jurisdictions.
Unfortunately, the special protections given to disabled children under court decisions or legislation do not generally apply to other youths facing charges, no matter how educationally or personally vulnerable they may be. Lawyers representing students facing expulsion or long-term suspension for weapons or drug offenses in a school setting need to be aware of the relationship between criminal or delinquency charges and school administrative proceedings. Not only are due process and other constitutional rights implicated, but the school's actions may impact significantly on what may happen in the courts. The expulsion of the youth may influence the imposition of a more severe sanction in court and, conversely, the decision to utilize an alternative to expulsion may influence the exercise of leniency by a judge. The long-term interests of the youth, and the community, are also served by utilizing the least restrictive alternative when a decision is made to remove the juvenile from the regular school setting.