Court Opinion

ID: 9427636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:21:28.582564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:08.699229
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Marshall,
with whom Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Stevens join,
dissenting.
In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), this Court sought to ensure that the inherently coercive pressures of custodial interrogation would not vitiate a suspect’s privilege against self-incrimination. Noting that these pressures “can operate very quickly to overbear the will of one merely made aware of his privilege,” id., at 469, the Court held:
“If [a suspect in custody] indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. At this point he has shown that he intends to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege; any statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise. ... If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interro*729gation must cease until an attorney is present.” Id., at 473-474 (footnote omitted).
See also id., at 444-445.
As this Court has consistently recognized, the coerciveness of the custodial setting is of heightened concern where, as here, a juvenile is under investigation. In Haley v. Ohio, 332 U. S. 596 (1948), the plurality reasoned that because a 15%-year-old minor was particularly susceptible to overbearing interrogation tactics, the voluntariness of his confession could not “be judged by the more exacting standards of maturity.” Id., at 599. The Court reiterated this point in Gallegos v. Colorado, 370 U. S. 49, 54 (1962), observing that a 14-year-old suspect could not “be compared with an adult in full possession of his senses and knowledgeable of the consequences of his admissions.” The juvenile defendant, in the Court’s view, required
“the aid of more mature judgment as to the steps he should take in the predicament in which he found himself. A lawyer or an adult relative or friend could have given the petitioner the protection which his own immaturity could not.” Ibid.
And, in In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1, 55 (1967), the Court admonished that “the greatest care must be taken to assure that [a minor’s] admission was voluntary.”
It is therefore critical in the present context that we construe Miranda’s prophylactic requirements broadly to accomplish their intended purpose — “dispel [ling] the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings.” 384 U. S., at 458. To effectuate this purpose, the Court must ensure that the “protective device” of legal counsel, id., at 465-466, 469, be readily available, and that any intimation of a desire to preclude questioning be scrupulously honored. Thus, I believe Miranda requires that interrogation cease whenever a juvenile requests an adult who is obligated to represent his interests. Such a *730request, in my judgment, constitutes both an attempt to obtain advice and a general invocation of the right to silence. For, as the California Supreme Court recognized, “ ‘[i]t is fatuous to assume that a minor in custody will be in a position to call an attorney for assistance,’ ” 21 Cal. 3d 471, 475—476, 579 P. 2d 7, 9 (1978), quoting People v. Burton, 6 Cal. 3d 375, 382, 491 P. 2d 793, 797 (1971), or that he will trust the police to obtain a lawyer for him.1 A juvenile in these circumstances will likely turn to his parents, or another adult responsible for his welfare, as the only means of securing legal counsel. Moreover, a request for such adult assistance is surely inconsistent with a present desire to speak freely. Requiring a strict verbal formula to invoke the protections of Miranda would “protect the knowledgeable accused from stationhouse coercion while abandoning the young person who knows no more than to ask for the . . . person he trusts.” Chaney v. Wainwright, 561 F. 2d 1129, 1134 (CA5 1977) (Goldberg, J., dissenting).
On my reading of Miranda, a California juvenile’s request for his probation officer should be treated as a per se assertion of Fifth Amendment rights. The California Supreme Court determined that probation officers have a statutory duty to represent minors’ interests and, indeed, are “trusted guardian figure [s] ” to whom a juvenile would likely turn for assistance. 21 Cal. 3d, at 476, 579 P. 2d, at 10. In addition, the court found, probation officers are particularly well suited to assist a juvenile “on such matters as to whether or not he should obtain an attorney” and “how to conduct himself with police.” Id., at 476, 477, 579 P. 2d, at 10. Hence, a juvenile’s request *731for a probation officer may frequently be an attempt to secure protection from the coercive aspects of custodial questioning.2
This Court concludes, however, that because a probation officer has law enforcement duties, juveniles generally would not call upon him to represent their interests, and if they did, would not be well served. Ante, at 721-722. But that conclusion ignores the California Supreme Court’s express determination that the officer’s responsibility to initiate juvenile proceedings did not negate his function as personal adviser to his wards.3 I decline to second-guess that court’s assessment of state law. See Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, 626 (1875); General Trading Co. v. State Tax Comm’n, 322 U. S. 335, 337 (1944); Scripto, Inc. v. Carson, 362 U. S. 207, 210 (1960).4 Further, although the majority here spec*732ulates that probation officers have a duty to advise cooperation with the police, ante, at 721 — a proposition suggested only in the concurring opinion of two justices below, 21 Cal. 3d, at 479, 579 P. 2d, at 11-12 (Mosk, J., joined by Bird, C. J., concurring) — respondent’s probation officer instructed all his charges “not to go and admit openly to an offense, [but rather] to get some type of advice from . . . parents or a lawyer.” App. 30. Absent an explicit statutory provision or judicial holding, the officer’s assessment of the obligations imposed by state law is entitled to deference by this Court.
Thus, given the role of probation officers under California law, a juvenile’s request to see his officer may reflect a desire for precisely the kind of assistance Miranda guarantees an accused before he waives his Fifth Amendment rights. At the very least, such a request signals a- desire to remain silent until contact with the officer is made. Because the Court’s contrary determination withdraws the safeguards of Miranda from those most in need of protection, I respectfully dissent.

 The facte of the instant case are illustrative. When the police offered to obtain an attorney for respondent, he replied: “How I know you guys won’t pull no police officer in and tell me he’s an attorney?” Ante, at 710. Significantly, the police made no attempt to allay that concern. See 21 Cal. 3d, at 476 n. 3, 679 P. 2d, at 10 n. 3.

 The Court intimates that construing a request for a probation officer as an invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege would undermine the specificity of Miranda’s prophylactic rules. Ante, at 718. Yet the Court concedes that the statutory duty to “advise and care for the juvenile defendant,” 21 Cal. 3d, at 477, 579 P. 2d, at 10, distinguishes probation officers from other adults, such as coaches and clergymen. Ante, at 723. Since law enforcement officials should be on notice of such legal relationships, they would presumably have no difficulty determining whether a suspect has asserted his Fifth Amendment rights.
Although I agree with my Brother Powell that, on the facts here, respondent was not “subjected to a fair interrogation free from inherently coercive circumstances,” post, at 734, I do not believe a case-by-case approach provides police sufficient guidance, or affords juveniles adequate protection.

 In filing the petition and performing the other functions enumerated ante, at 720-721, n. 5, the probation officer must act in the best interests of the minor. See In re Steven C., 9 Cal. App. 3d 255, 264—265, 88 Cal. Rptr. 97, 101-102 (1970).

 One thing is certain. The California Supreme Court is more familiar with the duties and performance of its probation officers than we are.
Of course, “[i]t is peculiarly within the competence of the highest court of a State to determine that in its jurisdiction the police should be subject to more stringent rules than are required as a federal constitutional minimum.” Oregon v. Hass, 420 U. S. 714, 728 (1975) (Marshall, J., dissenting). See also People v. Disbrow, 16 Cal. 3d 101, 545 P. 2d 272 *732(1976) (refusing to follow Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222 (1971)); Brennan, State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights, 90 Harv. L. Rev. 489 (1977).