Miranda In Schools - Part I
Miranda
The Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona provided a safeguard to an individual’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Miranda is required when a person is subjected to “custodial interrogation”. That is, they are “in custody” (i.e. based on the law enforcement's action, a reasonable person would not feel free to leave) and being "interrogated" (words or acts by law enforcement that are “reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response). Finally, in Berkemer v. McCarty, the court made it clear that the location of the questioning is not important but rather whether the suspect understood the given situation.
Miranda in Schools
J.D.B v. North Carolina – Age Matters
J.D.B was a 13-year-old 7th-grade student who was suspected of two home break-ins. Police entered the school and informed the school's SRO and administrators they intended to question J.D.B. The SRO removed J.D.B. from class and escorted him to the conference room where the administrators and a police officer were waiting for him. The principal was silent throughout most of the interrogation except when he encouraged J.D.B. to “do the right thing”.
Subsequently, J.D.B. confessed and was charged. He appealed because his confession was made in violation of Miranda but the lower courts held that interrogation was non-custodial.
The Court highlighted that juveniles are less mature than adults, more susceptible to pressure, and more likely to confess. The Court also noted that students are in a different position than parents on school grounds. The opinion noted that students are compelled to attend school and can be punished for leaving making it more likely that someone in their position would not feel free to leave or terminate the interrogation.
The Court then remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether or not the child was “in custody” when he was questioned. In doing so the Court set the standard of whether a reasonable child of that age would feel if they were in custody.
Loco Parentis and SROs
School officials have always served as parents (loco parentis) and in most cases can provide consent for law enforcement to speak to students. This may sound surprising as most parents, even educators, would not allow law enforcement to speak to their children without them being present.
In 1975 only 1% of schools reported having police on site. Fast forward to 2018 and that number is upwards of 60% and in the last two years that number is likely at 80%. The increase was brought about by safety concerns amid the rise in school shootings.
Administrators, like law enforcement, lack the support they were accustomed to decades ago. When faced with a discipline issue oftentimes school officials will include the SRO school matters that were normally handled in-house with a school disposition. As a result, a student's confession will sometimes provide the SRO with cause for criminal charges as well as what punishment the school issued.
Over the last decade, parents, concerned that law enforcement sidestepped their children's rights, have taken action. Sociologists and student rights advocates have also expressed concern with what many call a “school to prison” pipeline. Administrators have also voiced frustrations with the inability to handle situations in the child's best interest when law enforcement is on campus. All parties appreciate the need for these officers but unfortunately, the law which protects students' rights is not clear and differs by jurisdiction.
Over the next month, we will be looking at how unclear the lines are concerning a student's 5th Amendment Right. Specifically, we will look at when Miranda is required, what districts can do to protect the rights of the students in their schools, and what parents can do to educate their children in the event they encounter a visit to the office involving a law enforcement officer.