Miranda By Jurisdiction
Miranda in Schools – Part II
In Part I, here, we did a brief review of Miranda and focused on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in J.D.B. v. North Carolina which allowed for courts to consider age when determining the circumstances of an interrogation.
In this article, we are going to review how different courts across the country have applied that guidance to interrogations by SROs or outside law enforcement in a school setting. You will see that the outcome of each case shows the diversity of how the 5th Amendment is applied to students.
There are two settings where a student interrogation will likely occur in a school. They are:
1. Administrator and Student Alone
2. Administrator, SRO, and Student
Jurisdictions have ruled differently on each of these interrogation environments save the last where courts have typically held that students must be given Miranda warnings and the waiver of such warnings is typically given a higher standard. As such, school officials need to look carefully at the law in their state prior when developing policy with regards to how to proceed with school interrogation involving law enforcement.
I. Administration and Student Interrogation – No Miranda Required
Just as parents do not need to provide their children with Miranda rights when they return home after curfew, school officials acting in loco parentis, do not need to provide students with their rights when conducting interrogations at school.
The Indiana Supreme Court looked at this issue in 2018 in D.Z. v. the State of Indiana. In that case, the principal requested assistance from the SRO to locate D.Z. for decorating the bathroom with sexual graffiti. Once D.Z. was located, he was taken into the office by the principal where he confessed. The principal subsequently told the SRO who D.Z. later confessed to again. While the principal did relay the information to the SRO, the court focused on the fact that the school official was not acting as an agent of law enforcement.
Likewise in Commonwealth v. Ira I, the Massachusetts Supreme Court overturned a lower court decision reinforcing that interrogations by solely school officials do not require Miranda unless they are acting in concert with law enforcement.
Finally, in N.C. v. Commonwealth, the Kentucky Supreme Court (see more below) noted that when school officials question students about discipline or safety alone the interrogation is non-custodial and Miranda is not required.
II. Administrator, SRO, and Student – Miranda Differs by Jurisdiction
Kentucky - N.C. v. Commonwealth – Miranda Required for Criminal Charges
In this case, N.C. was taken to the office concerning hydrocodone pills and was questioned in the presence of the SRO. N.C. admitted to the principal that he had given three pills out upon which the principal left the room to retrieve the pills. After the principal’s departure, the SRO informed N.C. that he would be charged with a crime.
Even though the SRO was not directly involved in the questioning, the KYSC focused on several facts. First, the principal and the SRO had a “loose routine” of questioning students in this manner, indicating administration was acting in concert with law enforcement. Second, focusing on the USSC ruling in J.D.B. v. North Carolina, the court stated that "no reasonable student would have believed that he was at liberty to remain silent, or to leave…” Finally, the Court noted that the principal had informed N.C. that this was a school matter thus it was unlikely that N.C. thought it was a criminal matter.
New Mexico has provided even more protection for students' rights. In State v. Antonio T., the court stated that an officer’s presence alone while an administrator asked questions was sufficient to trigger Miranda as such presence transformed the otherwise routine trip to the principal’s office.
Texas on the other hand implements a two-factor test to determine if Miranda is required. First, a TX court will evaluate if under the totality of the circumstances the student was in custody (i.e., their movement was restricted). Second, the court will determine if the students' movement was restricted then would a reasonable child of the same age feel free to leave.
TENNESSEE
R.D.S. v. State of Tennessee – Custodial Interpretation
In the above case, a student (G.N.) was taken to the principal’s office based on concerns he was under the influence. After G.N. arrived in the office the principal summoned the SRO to his office as well. G.N. initially indicated that he had taken cough syrup but the SRO was skeptical because of the time which had passed. As the investigation continued, G..N. told the SRO that he had been in R.D.S.'s truck in the school parking that morning. At that point, the SRO decided to search R.D.S.'s truck.
Subsequently, the SRO found R.D.S. and informed him he was going to search his truck. R.D.S. followed the SRO to the truck where marijuana was found. When confronted about the marijuana, R.D.S. admitted that it was his. At trial, R.D.S. moved to suppress his admission because he was not provided his Miranda rights.
The TNSC focused on whether R.D.S. was in custody and noted that such determination was to be based on the objective viewpoint of the suspect. The majority opinion of the court indicated that since R.D.S. was not confined to the office and the questioning took place in the parking lot there was not enough evidence to overturn the Court of Appeals' decision that R.D.S. was not in custody at the time of the questioning.
It is important to note that 2 of the 5 justices did not participate in this decision. Additionally, another justice, while agreeing on the Miranda issue, showed concern for the search but dismissed the issue as it wasn't raised at trial. This dissent should provide schools with cause about SRO-instigated searches of students on campus.
The Search – See my prior article on school searches to review the 4th Amendment issue present in this case. Essentially, the TNSC focused on whether the SRO was acting as a school official or a law enforcement agent when searching the truck. If the latter, the search would likely not have been valid as it lacked probable cause.
Final Note
While the jurisdictions vary as to when students must be provided Miranda warnings some similarities are important to note. First, if there is an immediate danger to the students or school, generally courts will allow questioning without Miranda. Second, the extent to which law enforcement and administrators are “in concert” together usually will require SROs to provide Miranda warnings. In People v. Kay, the California court found that an admission to a principal in the SRO presence was not custodial interrogation because school officials were not acting in concert with law enforcement.
See our resource page for information, it can be found under, "SRO, Miranda and the 5thAmendment”