Court Opinion

ID: 9664011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:59:39.443275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:01.064100
License: Public Domain

LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J.
¶ 120. (concurring). I join the decision and mandate of the court. While I share many of the concerns stated by Chief Justice Abrahamson in her concurring opinion, and join Part I of that opinion, I conclude that we should proceed with caution in light of the new rule we have adopted. By requiring electronic recording of custodial interrogations for juveniles in future cases where feasible, including without exception when questioning occurs at a place of detention, we may have already addressed the important concerns identified by the Chief Justice in Part II of her concurring opinion. In any case, we should certainly evaluate the effectiveness of electronic recording before deciding whether this court should create additional protections pursuant to our supervisory powers that are necessary to protect the rights of children. If the rule we create today eliminates conflicts in evidence attributable to flaws in human memory, reduces the number of disputes over the voluntariness of confessions, protects police officers wrongfully ac*203cused of improper tactics, enhances interrogations of juveniles, and protects the rights of the accused, then we need go no further. If problems persist, however, including the problem of false confessions by children, then I would agree with the Chief Justice that another look at a per se rule requiring the presence of an "interested adult" is warranted.
¶ 121. I nonetheless write separately because Jerrell's constitutional rights were violated in another manner. During the interrogation, Jerrell asked the police several times if he could call his parents. Each time his requests were denied. His requests constituted an invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Once he asked for his parents, all interrogation should have ceased until he was given an opportunity to consult with them.
¶ 122. In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the United States Supreme Court announced the procedures to be followed for the admissibility of statements obtained during a custodial interrogation. The requirement of warnings is not of import here. What is relevant is what happens when a suspect invokes his or her privilege:
If an individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. At that point he has shown that he intends to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege; any statement taken after the person invokes the privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise. ... If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present.
Id. at 473-74.
¶ 123. The rule in Miranda centered on the lawyer's special ability to help a client preserve his Fifth *204Amendment rights once the client was caught in the adversary process and also on the lawyer's role as "the protector of the legal rights of that person in his dealings with the police and the courts." Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 719 (1979). In Michael C., the United States Supreme Court declined to extend Miranda's implications to cover requests of a 16-year-old juvenile to speak to a probation agent during custodial interrogation.1 The Court premised its conclusion on the fact that a probation officer is an agent of the state that seeks to prosecute the alleged offender. Id. at 720. A request to speak to a probation officer, the Court stated, might well be consistent with a desire to speak with the police. Id. at 724.
¶ 124. The Court declined to create a separate waiver test for juveniles, stating "the totality-of-the-circumstances approach is adequate to determine whether there has been a waiver even where interrogation of juveniles is involved." Id. at 725. The totality-of-the-circumstances analysis, the Court wrote, "take[s] into account those special concerns that are present when young persons, often with limited experience and education and with immature judgment, are involved." Id. at 725. The Court ultimately concluded that "[wjhere the age and experience of a juvenile indicate that his request for his probation officer or his parents is, in fact, an invocation of his right to remain silent, the totality approach will allow the court the necessary flexibility to take this into account in making a waiver determination." Id. (emphasis added).
*205¶ 125. Since Michael C., the law regarding the privilege against self-incrimination has changed. Before Miranda, the principal issue in cases involving police interrogation was not whether a defendant had waived his or her privilege against self-incrimination, but whether his or her statement was voluntary. Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433 (1974). In Tucker, the police failed to advise the defendant of all of the Miranda warnings. The Court indicated that the procedural safeguards created in Miranda were not themselves rights protected by the constitution, but were instead measures to insure that the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination was protected. Id. at 444. The Court concluded that the police conduct at issue in Tucker did not abridge the defendant's constitutional privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, but departed only from the prophylactic standards laid down in Miranda to safeguard the privilege. Id. at 445-46.
¶ 126. Michael C. was decided subsequent to both Miranda and Tucker. As such, the focus was not on waiver or an invocation of the privilege, but was instead based on the traditional voluntariness analysis. It was not until later that the Court clarified that Miranda announced a constitutional rule, and was not created under the Court's supervisory powers. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 438 (2000). Over time, the Court has come to recognize two constitutional bases for the requirement that a confession be voluntary to be admitted into evidence: the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 433-34. The decision in Michael C. came prior to the Court's pronouncement in Dickerson that Miranda was grounded upon the constitution, and must be viewed in that light.
*206¶ 127. The Court has consistently recognized that the coerciveness of the custodial setting is of heightened concern when a juvenile is under consideration. See Haley v. Ohio, 332 U.S. 596, 599 (1948); see also Gallegos v. Colorado, 370 U.S. 49, 54 (1962). Constitutional distinctions between minors and adults are recognized for at least three reasons: "the peculiar vulnerability of children; their inability to make critical decisions in an informed, mature manner; and the importance of the parental role in child rearing." Bellota v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622, 634 (1979); Hardaway v. Young, 302 F.3d 757, 764 (7th Cir. 2002).
¶ 128. Just this term, in a decision striking down the death penalty for juvenile offenders, the Court once again recognized three general differences between juveniles under 18 and adults. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. _, 125 S. Ct. 1183, 1195 (2005). First, the Court recognized a lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility among the young that often result in impetuous actions and decisions. Id. The recognition of the comparative immaturity and irresponsibility of juveniles has led to almost every state prohibiting those under 18 years of age from voting, serving on juries, or marrying without parental consent. Id. Second, the Court acknowledged that juveniles are more susceptible to influence and psychological damage. Id. Accordingly, juveniles have less control, or less experience with control, over their own environment. Id. They lack the freedom that adults have to extricate themselves from a criminogenic setting. Id. Finally, the Court recognized that the character of a juvenile is not as well formed as that of an adult. Id.
¶ 129. Our Chief Justice has cited many reasons why young people lack the decision-making capacity and understanding of adults. Abrahamson, C. J., concur*207ring, ¶ 101. When a child is confronted with a difficult situation, custodial interrogation or otherwise, that child is more likely to want "mommy" or "daddy" to help that child out of a jam. Michael C., 442 U.S. at 730 (Marshall, J. dissenting). That request constitutes both an attempt to obtain advice and a general invocation of the right to remain silent. Id. at 729-30.
¶ 130. I agree with the majority that we must apply the totahty-of-the-circumstances analysis in evaluating the voluntariness of a confession. Majority op., ¶¶ 20-21. I conclude that the majority properly applied that analysis to the facts of this case. I also conclude, however, that Jerrell invoked his privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment when he asked the detective to call his parents during the interrogation. He clearly asked for help when he repeatedly asked for his parents, and at his age, those requests must be construed as requests to remain silent until he had an opportunity to speak with his parents. While a parent may not have the special ability of a lawyer to protect legal rights of a child, a parent is certainly the protector of that child in all other respects, and certainly could be counted upon to give proper advice to his or her child. In view of the recently recognized constitutional underpinnings of Miranda, a juvenile should be entitled to at least the same constitutional protections as an adult. When a juvenile asks for help, help should be provided. As such, his confession should be suppressed because it is involuntary, and because he invoked his privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment when he asked for his parents, but was not given an opportunity to consult with them.
¶ 131. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully concur.

 The Court noted that it had "not yet held that Miranda applies with full force to exclude evidence obtained in violation of its proscriptions from consideration in juvenile proceedings." Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 717 n.4 (1979). The Court assumed, without deciding, that Miranda applied. Id.