Court Opinion

ID: 9635295
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:46:05.765519+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:30.340386
License: Public Domain

ADKINS, Judge,
dissenting.
Because I believe there are at least three grounds upon which McIntyre’s statement to the police should have been excluded from evidence, I respectfully dissent.
I.
As the majority observes, courts have long applied special safeguards in cases involving police interrogation of youths charged with criminal activity, and in the use of statements obtained during interrogation. This vigilance reflects the common sense recognition that juveniles often labor under the disadvantages of immaturity, ignorance, inexperience and naivete, and are unable, therefore, to exercise competent judgment in protecting or advancing their interests.1 *627In Re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967); Gallegos v. Colorado, 370 U.S. 49, 82 S.Ct. 1209, 8 L.Ed.2d 325 (1962); Haley v. Ohio, 332 U.S. 596, 68 S.Ct. 302, 92 L.Ed. 224 (1948); Lewis v. State, 259 Ind. 431, 288 N.E.2d 138 (1972); State v. Benoit, 126 N.H. 6, 490 A.2d 295 (1985); In Re Lucas F., 68 Md.App. 97, 510 A.2d 270, cert. denied, 307 Md. 433, 514 A.2d 1211 (1986); Walker v. State, 12 Md.App. 684, 280 A.2d 260 (1971). For example, in reversing the murder conviction of a 15-year-old boy on the basis that incriminating statements elicited during custodial interrogation were violative of due process, though voluntary, the Supreme Court in Haley v. Ohio, 332 U.S. at 601, 68 S.Ct. at 304, 92 L.Ed. at 229, rejected the assumption “that a boy of fifteen, without aid of counsel has a full appreciation of his constitutional rights and is competent to make a knowing waiver. It perceptively observed:
Age 15 is a tender and difficult age for a boy of any race. He cannot be judged by the more exacting standards of maturity. That which would leave a man cold and unimpressed can overawe and overwhelm a lad in his early teens. This is the period of great instability which the crisis of adolescence produces.
332 U.S. at 599, 68 S.Ct. at 304, 92 L.Ed. at 228.
Similarly, in Gallegos v. Colorado, the Court considered the dilemma of a 14-year-old murder suspect held incommunicado for five days before a confession was obtained. In reversing the juvenile’s conviction, the Court rejected the argument that youth and immaturity are irrelevant considerations where confessions are obtained voluntarily, reasoning
[A] 14-year-old boy, no matter how sophisticated, is unlikely to have any conception of what will confront him *628when he is made accessible only to the police. That is to say, we deal with a person who is not equal to the police in knowledge and understanding of the consequences of the questions and answers being recorded and who is unable to know how to protect his own interests or how to get the benefits of his constitutional rights.
370 U.S. at 54, 82 S.Ct. at 1212, 8 L.Ed.2d at 328. This legal intuition, moreover, has been persuasively buttressed by empirical studies and scholarly articles that raise serious doubts about juveniles’ intellectual and psychological capabilities to comprehend constitutional rights. See, e.g., Feld, Criminalizing Juvenile Justice: Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court, 69 Minn.L.Rev. 141 (1984); Grisso, Juveniles’ Capacities to Waive Miranda Rights: An Empirical Analysis, 68 Calif.L.Rev. 1134 (1980); Ferguson & Douglas, A Study of Juvenile Waiver, 7 San Diego L.Rev. 39 (1970).
To effectuate special safeguards for juveniles, some courts equate a juvenile’s request for a parent or guardian as tantamount to an invocation of Fifth Amendment rights. See, e.g., People v. Rivera, 41 Cal.3d 398, 221 Cal.Rptr. 562, 710 P.2d 362 (1985); People v. Burton, 6 Cal.3d 375, 99 Cal.Rptr. 1, 491 P.2d 793 (1971); State v. Johnson, 719 P.2d 1248 (Mont. 1986); Sublette v. State, 365 So.2d 775 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1978), appeal dismissed, 378 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1979). Other courts have created an interested adult rule which requires that a juvenile have the opportunity to consult with an informed adult before making a valid waiver of constitutional rights. Lewis v. State, 259 Ind. 431, 288 N.E.2d 138 (1972); State In Interest of Dino, 359 So.2d 586 (La.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1047, 99 S.Ct. 722, 58 L.Ed.2d 706 (1978); In re E.T.C., 141 Vt. 375, 449 A.2d 937 (1982); People v. Castro, 118 Misc.2d 868, 462 N.Y.S.2d 369 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1983); see also Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 389 Mass. 128, 449 N.E.2d 654 (1983) (modified interested adult rule) and State v. Benoit, 126 N.H. 6, 490 A.2d 295 (1985) (heightened totality of the circumstances review for juvenile waivers).
*629Also realizing juvenile vulnerabilities, legislatures have uniformly enacted exclusive juvenile proceedings statutes, and some jurisdictions have statutorily provided special safeguards for juvenile waivers of constitutional rights. See, e.g., Colo. Rules of Juvenile Procedure, Chapt. 28, Rule 3 (1987) (requires that both parent and juvenile be notified of constitutional rights); Conn.Gen.Stat.Ann. §§ 46b-136 and 46b-137 (West 1987) (the former requires the appointment of counsel even in absence of a request by a juvenile and the latter disallows statements, admissions or confessions made by a juvenile unless made in the presence of a parent or guardian); Tex. Family Code Ann. § 51.09 (Vernon 1986) (requires waiver of constitutional rights to be made by juvenile and attorney of the juvenile).
In Maryland, the Juvenile Causes Act, Code, (1973, 1984 Repl.Vol.), Cts. & Jud.Proc. Art. § 3-801 et seq., provides a panoply of statutory safeguards for juveniles, and reflects a strong public policy commitment to juvenile welfare. Indeed, in recognition that juvenile offenders are different from adult offenders, it has often been acknowledged that the Juvenile Causes Act, insofar as it relates to juvenile misconduct, is protective and rehabilitative in nature, rather than retributive and penal. In re Dewayne H., 290 Md. 401, 430 A.2d 76 (1981); In re David K., 48 Md.App. 714, 429 A.2d 313 (1981); In re Davis, 17 Md.App. 98, 299 A.2d 856 (1973). Of special note are § 3-821 which mandates that a juvenile is entitled to assistance of counsel at every stage of a juvenile proceeding, see In re Gault, supra, and § 3-814(b) which requires that “[i]f a law enforcement officer takes a child into custody he shall immediately notify, or cause to be notified, the child’s parent, guardian or custodian of the action.” 2
Juvenile waivers, therefore, present issues of both constitutional and public policy dimensions. Statements obtained *630from juveniles during police interrogations invite special caution and should be carefully scrutinized, not simply for evidence of physical or psychological coercion, but for some demonstration that the juvenile comprehended his constitutional rights and the implications of any waiver of those rights.
We must approach this case with these considerations in mind—considerations with which the majority does not disagree. What the majority does do is reject the rule of Burton and the interested adult rule in favor of a totality of the circumstances approach when testing the validity of a juvenile’s waiver of Miranda rights. While I strongly disagree with the majority’s application of the totality analysis to the facts of this case (of which more later), I also cannot accept its rejection of the Burton doctrine or the interested adult rule.
II.
Turning first to the Burton doctrine, I note that in the context of a young person’s waiver of Miranda protections the totality analysis does not come into play if the youthful defendant has requested an attorney. If that request is made or if the defendant indicates a desire to remain silent, all interrogation must cease. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); see also Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980); Radovsky v. State, 296 Md. 386, 464 A.2d 239 (1983). If a request for an attorney is made, but interrogation continues, despite the request for and without the presence of counsel, any statement made is per se inadmissible. Id.; see also Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); Orozco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324, 89 S.Ct. 1095, 22 L.Ed.2d 311 (1969). Totality review is generally not invoked under these circumstances.
In the case before us it is undisputed that McIntyre twice asked for his mother. I think this was tantamount to a request for an attorney. Interrogation should have stopped. In Burton, supra, the California Supreme Court *631enunciated a per se rule that when “a minor is taken into custody and is subjected to interrogation, without the presence of an attorney, his request to see one of his parents, made at any time prior to or during questioning, must, in the absence of evidence demanding a contrary conclusion, be construed to indicate that the minor suspect desires to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege.” 6 Cal.3d at 383-384, 99 Cal.Rptr. at 5, 491 P.2d at 798. The court was persuaded to adopt this rule because it is simply “fatuous to assume a minor in custody will be in a position to call an attorney for assistance____” 6 Cal.3d at 382, 99 Cal.Rptr. at 5, 491 P.2d at 797. This mirrors a similar rationale offered in Commonwealth v. Cain, 361 Mass. 224, 229 n. 3, 279 N.E.2d 706, 710 (1972), where the court observed that the Miranda warning of a right to assistance of counsel is “hollow” when a juvenile is “denied access to his father who, practically speaking, [is] the only avenue through which he could effectively evaluate and, if he wished, exercise the right to counsel.” When juveniles request to see a parent or guardian, they are seeking assistance and protection from the only people they are familiar with, and while perhaps constitutionally imprecise, it cannot be doubted that the request is the equivalent of a request for legal assistance.
Furthermore, a request for a parent is distinguishable from a request to see a probation officer like that in Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 99 S.Ct. 2560, 61 L.Ed.2d 197, reh’g denied, 444 U.S. 887, 100 S.Ct. 186, 62 L.Ed.2d 121 (1979). There the Court held that a juvenile’s request to see his probation officer was not a per se invocation of Fifth Amendment rights under Miranda. A probation officer has an ultimate loyalty to the State, and because of this obvious conflict of interest, cannot offer a juvenile meaningful assistance in the exercise of constitutional rights. See People v. Castro, 118 Misc.2d at 880, 462 N.Y.S.2d at 377.
Moreover, because of the uniqueness of the parent-child relationship—legally, morally and psychologically—when a child, facing police interrogation, requests to see his parent, *632“it is unrealistic to attribute no significance to his call for help from the only person to whom he normally looks—a parent or guardian.” 6 Cal.3d at 382, 99 Cal.Rptr. at 5-6, 491 P.2d at 797-798; see also United States ex rel. Riley v. Franzen, 653 F.2d 1153 (7th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1067, 102 S.Ct. 617, 70 L.Ed.2d 602. Though holding Fare dispositive in a case involving a juvenile request for a parent, the court reasoned
[a] parent may significantly aid a juvenile in asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege. The parent may be, or be able to provide, an attorney for the child. Even a lay parent, unlike a probation officer, may not encourage the suspect to talk with the police or feel bound to report any confession which the child may make in confidence.
653 F.2d at 1160.
To be sure, other courts, like the majority, have interpreted Fare as rejecting the Burton approach as applied to juvenile requests for a parent. See, e.g., Franzen, 653 F.2d at 1161; State ex rel. Juv. Dept. v. Gibson, 79 Or.App. 154, 718 P.2d 759 (1986). These cases have seized upon Fare’s selective Miranda analysis of the unique role an attorney plays in protecting a defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege. See also People v. Rivera, 41 Cal.3d 388, 221 Cal.Rptr. 562, 710 P.2d 362 (1985) (Mosk, J., dissenting); but see State v. Johnson, 719 P.2d 1248 (Mont.1986) (rejecting Fare approach on state constitutional grounds.)3 I am unpersuaded, nevertheless, to extend the narrow holding of Fare to include a juvenile’s request for a parent, especially in light of the fact that the Fare Court did not examine this compelling issue. See Fare, 442 U.S. at 725, 99 S.Ct. at 2572, 61 L.Ed.2d at 213.
III.
Other jurisdictions have adopted the interested adult rule which provides a more comprehensive safeguard to juve*633niles facing police interrogation. Under this rule, before a juvenile may effect a valid waiver of constitutional rights, the State must demonstrate that a “parent or interested adult was present, understood the warnings and had the opportunity to explain [the] rights to the juvenile so that the juvenile understands the significance of waiver of [those] rights.” Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 389 Mass, at 134, 449 N.E.2d at 657. Accord Lewis v. State, 259 Ind. 431, 288 N.E.2d 138 (1972); State In Interest of Dino, 359 So.2d 586 (La.1978). It has been construed as a per se rule; the absence of meaningful parental consultation essentially creates an irrebuttable presumption the waiver was invalid. See State v. Rebstock, 418 So.2d 1306 (La.1982), cert. dismissed, 459 U.S. 1190, 103 S.Ct. 841, 74 L.Ed.2d 1032 (1983).
The Massachusetts rule, however, is a modified version of the interested adult rule. For juveniles under the age of 14, no waiver of constitutional rights can be effective without the state’s demonstration that the meaningful adult consultation took place. For juveniles 14 or older,
there should ordinarily be a meaningful consultation with the parent, interested adult, or attorney to ensure that the waiver is knowing and intelligent. For a waiver to be valid without such a consultation the circumstances should demonstrate a high degree of intelligence, experience, knowledge, or sophistication on the part of the juvenile.
389 Mass, at 134, 449 N.E.2d at 657; see also Commonwealth v. MacNeill, 399 Mass. 71, 502 N.E.2d 938 (1987) (In re-affirming this standard, court approved the trial judge’s determination of a voluntary waiver in the absence of parental consultation where the trial judge expressly employed special caution in view of the defendant’s youth).
This standard creates a per se interested adult rule for juveniles under 14, and mandates a vigorous review of any waiver made by a juvenile 14 or older in the absence of any meaningful adult consultation. This approach may be viewed as a species of the totality of the circumstances analysis, but it differs from the conventional totality ap*634proach in that it mandates a heightened review of juvenile waivers, and expressly weighs the absence of an interested adult more heavily than other factors. The Massachusetts rule also has the benefit of providing guidance to police who seek to question juvenile suspects or defendants, and strongly discourages police authorities from preventing family contact. Moreover, it assures that an unsophisticated and inexperienced juvenile will not journey through the criminal justice process alone and unguided.
Maryland should adopt the Massachusetts approach as part of its constitutional totality analysis, see In Re Lucas F., 68 Md.App. 97, 510 A.2d 270 (1986), because the approach is consistent with our strong state policy of affording special safeguards to juveniles taken into police custody, Cts. & Jud.Proc. Art. § 3-814(b), and is not inconsistent with the Fare analysis, which did not even address the issue of juvenile waiver in the absence of parental consultation.
In the case before us, there is no question the waiver failed to meet the heightened standard. Mclntrye made the waiver and subsequent statement without the benefit of any parental consultation, and as the following discussion will reveal, the State adduced no evidence that would suggest Mclntrye was so extraordinary a juvenile as to possess a high degree of intelligence, experience, sophistication or knowledge; the absence of his mother, therefore, is fatal to the validity of the waiver.
IY.
A conventional totality analysis, as applied in Maryland, also requires reversal in this case. In holding that the trial judge properly determined that McIntyre waived his constitutional rights voluntarily, the majority opinion accurately recites the well established tenets of the totality standard. I cannot, however, approve the majority’s application of that standard to the facts of this case. A thorough examination of the record reveals that the majority’s totality analysis lacks the rigor that is constitutionally mandated. Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 99 S.Ct. 2560, 61 L.Ed.2d *635197, reh’g denied, 444 U.S. 887, 100 S.Ct. 186, 62 L.Ed.2d 121 (1979); Lodowski v. State, 302 Md. 671, 490 A.2d 1228 (1985); vacated, — U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 1452, 89 L.Ed.2d 711, on remand, 307 Md. 233, 513 A.2d 299 (1986) (Lodowski II).
While the record in this case is woefully sparse, the facts demonstrated vividly the character of the arrest and custodial interrogation, and necessitate, therefore, a brief factual recapitulation. The State’s only witness concerning these events was Detective Myers, one of the investigating officers. He testified that at 7:00 a.m., in an orchestrated arrest, a unit of the Howard County Special Operations Section, described repeatedly by Detective Myers as a “SWAT” team, arrested McIntyre in front of his home as he was going off to school. McIntyre was handcuffed, placed in a “SWAT” vehicle, and then transported to an unmarked police car, occupied by Detective Myers and his investigating partner. On cross examination at the suppression hearing, Detective Myers conceded that at that time McIntyre was quite nervous. After receiving Miranda warnings, McIntyre requested to see his mother and was refused.
Upon arriving at the police station, he was placed in an interrogation room, and verbally warned of his Miranda rights. He did not ask any questions about those rights nor did he request a lawyer. He did, however, ask again to see his mother and was refused. After stating he understood his Miranda rights, McIntyre waived those rights orally and by signing a waiver form. The police detectives then commenced their interrogation which lasted nearly an hour. During the interrogation, McIntyre provided “exculpatory” statements, including alibi witnesses, that aided the police in their investigation of the crime, and were used against him at trial.
It is significant that the State adduced no evidence as to McIntyre’s intelligence, maturity, knowledge, or access to his parents, (a factor particularly relevant where a juvenile is arrested in front of his home at 7:00 a.m.) or as to any prior experience with the criminal justice system. Only his *636age, specific grade level, and the general character of the arrest and custodial interrogation were presented through the testimony of Detective Myers.
The trial judge concluded from the testimony of Detective Myers that McIntyre’s waiver of his rights was voluntary. The trial judge did not make any factual findings as to McIntyre’s “age, experience, education, background, and intelligence, and into whether he has the capacity to understand the warnings given him, the nature of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the consequences of waiving those rights.” Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. at 725, 99 S.Ct. at 2572, 61 L.Ed.2d at 212. Indeed, the majority opinion concedes this, at 623-625, but concludes that the trial judge “did determine with sufficient clarity that there was a knowing and voluntary waiver of constitutional rights [that] satisfied the preponderance of the evidence test.” At 625. Of course, under an independent constitutional appraisal, “the record must demonstrate with unmistakable clarity that the trial court made the necessary factual findings to support its conclusion that the waiver was valid----” At 623. It is, therefore, at this juncture that I must part company with the majority’s totality analysis.
Our analysis in Lodowski v. State, 307 Md. 233, 513 A.2d 299 (1986) (Lodowski II) is instructive on the absolute necessity of an adequate record to engage in an independent constitutional appraisal of a waiver of constitutional rights. In Lodowski II, the validity of a Miranda waiver was challenged, and in our totality of the circumstances analysis, we found that “[a]t the suppression hearing ... the judge made only one finding of fact—that Lodowski did not at any time request a lawyer.” 307 Md. at 252, 513 A.2d at 309. We concluded that meager factual finding was not enough to illuminate the issue of voluntariness, and consequently reversed the defendant’s conviction. We explained that a sufficient record to determine voluntariness under an independent constitutional appraisal requires that the trial judge “announce the necessary factual findings *637and his determination of voluntariness based thereon.” 307 Md. at 256, 513 A.2d at 311.
In the present case, at the close of the suppression hearing, the trial judge made the following statement: “Well, it seems to me from hearing the evidence that the statement was given voluntarily without any undue inducements, and that Miranda warnings were given____” It is self-evident that at most the only factual finding made by the trial judge was that Miranda warnings were given, and this fact is undisputed. What is also clear from this statement is that the trial judge reached a legal conclusion that the waiver was voluntary without making any of the necessary factual findings as to the juvenile’s maturity, knowledge, intelligence, education, experience or capacity to comprehend both his constitutional rights, and any waiver of those rights. See Fare and Lodowski II, supra.
It is apparent that the trial judge made no specific factual findings on the issue of waiver; accordingly, there are no factual findings to which we need give deference. It is also apparent, in view of the lack of factual findings, that his legal conclusion as to voluntariness cannot withstand an independent constitutional review. While the Court acknowledges that the trial judge did not specifically consider the relevant criteria in evaluating a juvenile waiver of constitutional rights, it concludes that the trial judge properly found a valid waiver. In doing so, the Court offers a dangerously inconsistent analysis.
For example, it is correctly stated that “[Maryland] cases recognize the importance of parental involvement in a juvenile’s decision to waive Miranda rights, and they consider this a factor in evaluating the validity of the juvenile’s waiver.” At 620. It is also correctly stated that the age of a juvenile and access to parents are very important factors in evaluating the validity of a waiver. Yet, the majority excuses the failure of the trial judge to consider these factors by rationalizing that the statements given by McIntyre were exculpatory, and that he failed to offer testimony at the suppression hearing.
*638This rationale is unpersuasive. Whether a defendant’s statement is exculpatory or inculpatory is irrelevant to a Miranda inquiry; Miranda itself admonishes that
no distinction may be drawn between inculpatory statements and statements alleged to be merely “exculpatory.” If a statement made were in fact truly exculpatory it would, of course, never be used by the prosecution.
Miranda, 384 U.S. 436, 477, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1629, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 725 (1966). It is also undisputed that the statement made by McIntyre aided the police in their investigation, and was used against him at trial. Further, the exculpatory nature of an admission has not traditionally been a factor in an independent constitutional appraisal of a voluntary waiver of rights.
Moreover, it is the State that bears the burden of establishing that the constitutional standard was met by a preponderance of the evidence, and it is, therefore, the State’s obligation at a suppression hearing to build a record that, upon review, will reflect with “unmistakable clarity” that the waiver was voluntary. The defendant’s election not to testify at a suppression hearing cannot operate as a penalty when the State fails to satisfy its burden or the trial judge fails to make adequate factual findings. State v. Raithel, 285 Md. 478, 487, 404 A.2d 264, 269 (1979).
This case is also factually inapposite to several of the cases cited by the majority for support. In Miller v. State, 251 Md. 362, 247 A.2d 530 (1968), the juvenile did not request to see a parent before waiving his constitutional rights. Moreover, the juvenile initiated an interview with the police for the purpose of making a confession. Here, it is not apparent from the record that McIntyre initiated or even encouraged a dialogue with police, and he did not waive his rights and offer a statement until after his requests to see his mother were denied.
Similarly, in Bean v. State, 234 Md. 432, 199 A.2d 773 (1964), there was no request to see a parent by the juvenile, and the Court specifically considered this fact, as well as *639the juvenile’s age and mental ability, in determining the voluntariness of the waiver and subsequent confession. In Green v. State, 236 Md. 334, 203 A.2d 870 (1964), the parent was notified of the juvenile’s arrest, but declined to come to the police station. In upholding the validity of the juvenile’s waiver and confession, the Court reasoned that there was no evidence that the police prevented family contact. In the instant case, the police not only prevented McIntyre from contacting his mother, but accomplished his arrest in a fashion that ensured his family would be unaware of his arrest. It should also be noted that Bean may be legally inapposite as well, because in that pre-Miranda case, the Court applied an abuse of discretion standard, rather than an independent constitutional appraisal, in determining whether the trial court properly concluded that the waiver and subsequent confession was voluntary.
The majority also relies heavily on selected aspects of Fare v. Michael C.. It is true that in the Fare totality of the circumstances analysis the Court did not perceive any special factors that would indicate the juvenile was unable to understand his actions or that improper interrogation tactics were used. The majority’s reliance, however, is misplaced for in Fare the Court reached its conclusion with the aid of a fully developed record. The juvenile there was 16 years old with a long history of experience with the justice system. Here, no evidence was adduced by the State to establish McIntyre was experienced, sophisticated or even knowledgeable about the criminal justice system, and any conclusion concerning his capacity to understand and waive his constitutional rights is speculative.
Furthermore, under Fare the majority’s analysis is deficient because the trial judge refused to take into account the age and experience of the juvenile in order to determine whether his requests for his mother were an invocation of the right to remain silent. Indeed, while Fare rejected the notion that a request for a probation officer was a per se invocation of Miranda rights, the Court did not foreclose *640the possibility that under a totality analysis a juvenile’s request for a parent may constitute an invocation of the right to remain silent. 442 U.S. at 725, 99 S.Ct. at 2572, 61 L.Ed.2d at 213. The majority acknowledges this and reasons that it is “implicit” from the record that the trial judge applied the totality test in determining that McIntyre’s requests to see his mother were not an invocation of his right to remain silent. At 625. What is explicit from the record, however, is that the trial judge refused to consider the issue at all as evidenced by his statement at the close of the suppression hearing:
I don’t know of any right that a person has to have their mother present during the taking of any statement, and I don’t believe it’s reasonable or sensible for trial courts to be making new rules____
Because the trial judge did not consider this issue at all, the majority’s ability to engage in an appropriate totality analysis is irreparably impaired.
Just as the constitutional commands of Miranda cannot sink to a mere perfunctory recital, so the same must be expected of any independent constitutional appraisal of a voluntary waiver of constitutional rights by a juvenile. Because the majority has declined to apply the appropriate constitutional principles and has failed to afford appropriately vigorous analysis under the principles it does apply, I dissent. I would reverse the judgment below and remand for a new suppression hearing and a new trial. Lodowski v. State, 307 Md. at 256, 513 A.2d at 311.
Judge COLE has authorized me to state that he concurs with the views expressed herein.

. Our treatment of juveniles outside the criminal arena mirrors this rationale. The law generally allows minors to disavow contracts, McBriety v. Spear, 191 Md. 221, 60 A.2d 528 (1948); Monumental Bldg. Ass’n v. Herman, 33 Md. 128 (1870); forbids minors to purchase liquor, Md.Code (1957, 1982 Repl.Vol.) Art. 27 § 400A; restricts the *627freedom of children to marry, Md.Code (1984, 1986 Cum.Supp.) Family Law Art. § 2-301, and obtain driving privileges, Md.Code (1977, 1984 Repl.Vol.) Transportation Art. § 16-103; regulates their school attendance, Md.Code (1978, 1984 Repl.Vol. 1986 Cum.Supp.) Education Art. § 7-301, and employment activities, Md.Code (1977, 1985 Repl.Vol.) Art. 100 § 4—§ 14—to name only a few examples.

. Whether the latter subsection applies to a juvenile who, as here, has been charged as an adult is an issue not presented by the petition for certiorari.

. No issue of State constitutional grounds is before us in this case. The petition for certiorari raised only federal constitutional questions.