Source: https://www.shouselaw.com/juvenile-interrogation.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 17:03:15+00:00

Document:
Minors accused of juvenile crimes in California have the right to remain silent and to be read a “Miranda warning” before being interrogated.
If either of these conditions was violated -- or if the child was not given a Miranda warning at all -- any confession the child makes will be inadmissible to prove the minor's guilt during a California juvenile adjudication hearing or a criminal trial.
1. What is a Miranda warning?
2. Can police ever question a juvenile without reading a Miranda warning?
3. What is the effect of a Miranda warning?
4. How does someone invoke the right to remain silent?
5. Can a child waive his or her Miranda rights?
6. Do parents have to consent before the police can question their child?
7. Do parents have the right to be present when their child is interrogated?
8. What should my child do if he/she is arrested?
9. Does my child have Miranda rights at school?
10. What remedies are there if a juvenile's Miranda rights are violated?
11. Can a minor sue if his or her Miranda rights were violated?
12. What other constitutional rights do juveniles have?
“Miranda warnings” advise people who are arrested of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. They are the result of the famous United States Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona.
Is being asked questions designed to illicit an incriminating response.
Unlike what is often see on TV, the police do not normally need to give Miranda warnings as soon as they arrest someone. Based on the Supreme Court ruling in Miranda, rights must only be read if and when they begin interrogating a suspect who is in custody.
When is a child considered to be “in custody”?
California law requires a Miranda warning any time a law enforcement officer takes someone under 18 into custody.
Example: A sheriff's deputy in Mission Viejo discovers broken glass and wet gang graffiti on a building. A block away he comes across teenagers Alex and Bobby who are carrying large backpacks and wearing the gang's colors.
The officer suspects that Alex and Bobby may be guilty of violating Penal Code 594, California's vandalism law. He stops and asks them what they are doing. The officer does not need to give the boys a Miranda warning because they are free to go.
But let's say that based on their answers, the officer decides to arrest Alex and Bobby and place them in temporary custody at Orange County Juvenile Hall. As soon as the cop places the boys under arrest he must read them their Miranda rights – even if he never asks them another question.
After reading a Miranda warning, the police will ask if the suspect understands his or her rights. If the suspect says “yes,” the officer will ask whether the suspect wishes to talk.
If the suspect invokes his right to remain silent, the officer must stop asking questions.
But if the suspect talks or agrees to talk, he or she waives the right to remain silent. Anything he or she says afterward can be used to prove the suspect's guilt in court.
No special words are required to invoke the right to remain silent. But a suspect must affirmatively invoke this right.10 Simply remaining silent is not enough.
The police have probably not violated Avery's Miranda rights because it is not clear why he asked to call his mother.
But… if Avery had said he wanted to call his mother so she could call a lawyer for him that would be different. Or he could have specifically said he was invoking his right to right to remain silent.
A child may waive Miranda rights, but only if the waiver is voluntary. And, as we discuss in Section 5.2, below, in California a child aged 15 or younger may not waive Miranda rights unless the child has consulted with a lawyer.
If the answer to one or more of these questions is “yes,” a confession might not be voluntary.
No. In California, the police may generally question minors without their parents' consent.
But, as noted above, a juvenile interrogation must be voluntary. If a child asks to have a parent present and the request is denied, a judge may decide the child's participation was not voluntary.
No. Parents have no constitutional right to be present when their children are interrogated. Therefore it is often up to the child to protect his or her rights.
But police can be tricky. With few exceptions, they are not a child's friend. If they suspect a juvenile child of a crime, their job is to build a case against that child.
We recommend, therefore, that children politely decline to answer a cop's questions – other than to give their name – without first speaking to a lawyer.
Are my conversations with my child private when he or she is custody?
Often the police will let a parent visit a child in custody. Such visits are not private.
Police interrogation rooms often have secret video and/or audio recording equipment.
So even when officers lets parents have "time alone" with their child, the conversation might be monitored. Anything the child or parent says can then be used against the child in court.
For this reason, we recommend calling an experienced California juvenile defense lawyer before seeing your child. Conversations between clients and lawyers are privileged. This means that they are privileged and cannot be used to incriminate the child.
Be polite and not resist.
Remain calm and not panic.
Give his or her name.
Be aware that the cop is not a friend.
State clearly that he/she is invoking the right to remain silent.
Never, under any circumstances, confess or write an "apology" letter.
Minors have constitutional rights even when they are at school. This includes the right to be given a Miranda warning if being questioned by the police while in custody on school grounds.
But the issue of whether a child is in custody when questioned by police at school is a thorny one.
Children are not generally free to leave school grounds during school hours. So many lawyers –our California juvenile criminal defense lawyers included -- believe children must be read Miranda rights before being questioned at school.
One factor that may tip the balance is the child's age.
A child's age and the Supreme Court decision in J.D. B. v. North Carolina.
The United States Supreme Court considered school interrogations in a 2011 case called J.D. B. v. North Carolina. In the J.D.B. case, the police interrogated a 13-year-old at school on suspicion of burglary. They did not give the child a Miranda warning first.
Example: The Riverside County Sheriff's Office is called after heroin is found in the boys' bathroom at a local junior high. Someone tells the officers that Jerry, a 12-year old, was seen coming out of the bathroom just before they drugs were found.
The officers call Jerry into a conference room and lock the door. They do not give him a Miranda warning. Instead, they tell Jerry that he'll be in serious trouble if he doesn't answer their questions.
Jerry asks to talk to his mother, but his request is denied. After an hour of questioning, Jerry confesses that the drugs were his.
A juvenile judge decides that Jerry did not understand that he could leave. As a result, he should have been given a Miranda warning. And since Jerry wasn't read his rights, his “confession” is not admissible.
The general remedy for a Miranda violation is for the court to exclude any subsequent statements from the prosecution's case-in-chief. But unless the confession was coerced, it may still be used to impeach the suspect.
Let's take a closer look at the differences between the various possible scenarios.
If Miranda rights were violated, a subsequent confession cannot be used as part of the prosecution's main case.
But unless the confession was coerced, the prosecutor can still use it to impeach the suspect's testimony.23 This means if the suspect changes his/her story at trial, the statement(s) can be used to try to prove that he or she is lying.
Example: A security guard at Target catches 14-year-old Callie with unpaid makeup in her jacket pocket. She tells him she planned to pay for the makeup, but he doesn't believe her. Instead he calls the police and Callie is arrested under Penal Code 459.5 PC California's law against shoplifting .
The officer does not read Callie a Miranda warning. Callie then tells the officer she is sorry for taking the makeup and begs him not to arrest her.
A prosecutor cannot use Callie's apology to prove she is guilty of shoplifting. But if Callie were to testify that she never had any makeup in her pocket, the prosecutor could use the apology to impeach her testimony.
A coerced confession is considered more serious than other Miranda violations. A confession that is coerced must be excluded from a trial for all purposes.
Example: Daniel is arrested for possession of cocaine under Health and Safety Code 11350. The officers read him his Miranda rights. Daniel then invokes his right to remain silent and asks to speak to a lawyer.
The officers leave Daniel in a room alone for the next three hours. When he asks to use the bathroom, they refuse his request because he is being “uncooperative.” Daniel then “confesses” to the crime.
At Daniel's adjudication hearing, Daniel denies he has ever used cocaine. The prosecutor tries to introduce Daniel's “confession” in order to prove that Daniel is lying. But because the “confession” was coerced, the prosecutor cannot use it for any purpose.
What happens if a minor changes his or her statement at trial?
Sometimes a minor will allegedly make an incriminating statement but then deny it at his or her California juvenile adjudication hearing. When this happens, the prosecutor can ask for a continuance (a “time-out”).
The officer will then be allowed to testify about the alleged statements. But if the police did not properly “Mirandize” the child, the child's California juvenile defense lawyer may be able to get the testimony excluded.
A lawsuit for violation of Miranda rights can result in the recovery of compensatory damages such as medical bills and emotional distress. And in very serious cases of Miranda violations, a minor might also be able to recover punitive damages in California.
Technically, the juvenile delinquency system is part of the civil law system and not the criminal justice system.
But as we discuss in our related article, Juvenile Criminal Defense in California, a juvenile adjudication can have serious consequences. Minors can be sent to juvenile hall or the California Youth Authority.
So minors in the juvenile court system are entitled to constitutional protections to make sure their rights are not violated.
The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The right to call a parent when detained.
The right to call an attorney when detained.
The right to be notified of the charges against him/her.
The Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
The right to call and cross-examine witnesses at trial.
The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
The rights of kids in the juvenile justice system were set forth in an important 1967 United States Supreme Court case. The case -- In re Gault -- arose out of the arrest of a 15-year-old boy in Arizona.
The minor (Gerard Gault) was charged with making a lewd phone call to a neighbor. Law enforcement arrested and detained him, but never notified his parents. The petition against him did not contain any facts. After the merest semblance of a trial, he was sent to a juvenile facility.
Thanks to the Gault case, as well as other court cases and statutory provisions, children in the California juvenile system have the rights set forth above.
If your child has been charged with a crime, we invite you to contact us for a free consultation.
Our California juvenile defense attorneys can help ensure that child's rights are protected to the fullest extent possible.
Call us at 855-LawFirm or complete the form on this page to discuss your case with an experienced juvenile lawyer.
We can get to work immediately on restoring your peace of mind and getting your child home.
We can also help if your child needs a juvenile child defense lawyer in Nevada.
People v. Maestas (1987) 194 Cal. App. 3d 1499.
California Welfare and Institutions Code 625.6(a).
Welfare & Institutions Code Section 625.6.
People v. Taylor (1986) 178 Cal. App. 3d 217.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1.
Same. See also Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964).
People v. Smith, 40 Cal.4th 483 (2007).
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 US 370 (2010).
In re Aven S., 1 Cal.App.4th 69, 71 (1991).
People v. Massie, 19 Cal.4th 550, 576 (1998).
Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936); Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991); People v. Neal, endnote ___.
Same. See also People v. McClary, 20 Cal.3d 218 (1977).
People v. Neal, endnote 11.
Same. See also People v. Esqueda, 17 Cal.App.4th 1450 (1993) and In re Aven S, endnote 9.
Welfare & Institutions Code Section 625.6(a).
Welfare and Institutions Code 625.6(c).
Welfare and Institutions Code 625.6(d).
People v. Neal, 31 Cal.4th 63 (2003).
Welfare and Institutions Code 701.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.