the Supreme court has upheld that police interviews of a minor without the presence of consent of a legal guardian or attorney are inadmissible.
that being said the child was could not have been legally mirandized.
To which Supreme Court are you referring?
The U.S. Supreme Court has broadened use of the Miranda warning for suspects, extending it to children questioned by police in school. By a 5-to-4 vote, the court said for the first time on Thursday that age must be considered in determining whether a suspect is aware of his or her rights.
http://www.npr.org/2011/06/17/137236801/high-court-age-must-be-considered-in-interrogationNot a bright line rule. Age is a consideration. Your overbroad statement is incorrect as written.
I guess I choose to err on the side of caution.
You interview a minor without a parent, get a confession and tell me it's going to hold up in your courts?
That says a lot about your judges.
The worst attorney will get it tossed.
Read the decision, not just the news article.
Federally, any detainment is an arrest. A custodial arrest, but, an arrest. Does a minor feed the right to leave?
Then if questioned they must be mirandized.
What possible reason would any honest cop have for NOT advising someone of this rights.
NONE.
the only reason would be to use intimidation to get information that an attorney or parent would tell the minor not to give.
So if an officer is asking a question with the intent of charging the suspect with any crime then Miranda murst be given. And if you question one of my kids, your going to either do it or meet my attorney.
