U.S. 436 (1966), must be fully observed during the
custodial interrogation of juveniles by law enforcement
officers. The obligation to administer the Miranda
warnings also extends to someone acting in an official
capacity as an agent of the police. For instance, in J.P.B.
a group instruction supervisor at a State-maintained
custodial institution was found to be acting as a State
agent by apprising a probation officer and State troopers
of incriminatory information learned from a juvenile
resident of the facility, and, subsequently, upon the
trooper’s request, further questioning the youth.
In re A.B., 278 N.J. Super. 380 (Ch. Div. 1994). A
juvenile offender participating in the Juvenile Intensive
Supervision Program (JISP) was not subject to custodial
interrogation for Miranda purposes, when a JISP officer
without the authority to make an arrest questioned the
juvenile in his mother’s living room and in the mother’s
presence, regarding a white powdery substance
discovered by the mother hidden in the juvenile’s bed.
The mere fact that the juvenile had a general obligation,
as a participant in the JISP program, to truthfully answer
the officer’s questions was not sufficient to convert an
otherwise noncustodial situation into custodial interro-
gation.
In State ex rel. O.F., 327 N.J. Super. 102 (App. Div.
1999), a 13 year old juvenile was subjected to “custodial
interrogation” during an interview with two officers at
the prosecutor’s office, so as to trigger Miranda
requirements, where the juvenile was told that he was
lying and that the police had contrary information,
interrogation was intense and included frequent
assertions that the juvenile was withholding information,
the juvenile was in an isolated room, his mother
permitted police to take him into the room, and the
mother was locked outside in the lobby. The statement
was taken in violation of Miranda and was also
involuntary.
State in the Interest of R.W., 115 N.J. Super. 286, 295
(App. Div. 1971), aff’d o.b. 61 N.J. 118 (1972); State in
the Interest of R.M., 105 N.J. Super. 372, 378 (J. & D.R.
Ct. 1969). Every effort should be made to insure a
youth’s comprehension of the warnings by explaining the
Miranda rights. A clearly expressed waiver of these rights
must be obtained from the juvenile prior to
interrogation. In construing the validity of a waiver of
constitutional rights by a minor, his age, education,
mental capacity, background and prior criminal
experience are to be considered.
In State in the Interest of S.H., 61 N.J. 108 (1972), a
10 year old mental defective, was found incapable of
understanding the Miranda warnings. Under those
circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the juvenile
clearly could not knowingly and intelligently waive his
Fifth Amendment rights.In Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979), a
juvenile who was taken into custody on suspicion of
murder was fully advised of his Miranda rights prior to
questioning at the station house. At the beginning of the
interrogation, the juvenile, who had a prior police record,
asked for his probation officer. After the police refused
this request, the juvenile agreed to speak without an
attorney and proceeded to incriminate himself in the
murder. The United States Supreme Court ruled that a
juvenile’s request to speak with his probation officer does
not per se constitute an invocation of the juvenile’s Fifth
Amendment right to be free from compelled self-
incrimination. Therefore, his subsequent incriminating
statements did not have to be suppressed on the grounds
that the police did not cease interrogating the juvenile.
The question, whether a juvenile has waived his rights to
remain silent and to have the assistance of counsel and
accordingly whether any statement resulting from the
juvenile’s interrogation is admissible at trial, is to be
resolved by examining the totality of the circumstances
surrounding the interrogation.- Presence of a Juvenile’s Parents During
Interrogation
State v. Presha, 163 N.J. 304 (2000). The
interrogation of a juvenile, especially in an environment
such as a police station, without his parents or guardian,
is considered likely to have a harmful effect upon his mind
and will. When younger offenders are in custody, the
parent serves as a buffer between the juvenile, who is
entitled to certain protections, and the police, whose
investigative function brings the officers necessarily in
conflict with the juvenile’s legal interests. Parents are in
a position to assist juveniles in understanding their
rights, acting intelligently in waiving those rights, and
otherwise remaining calm in an unfamiliar setting.
Therefore, whenever possible, a parent or legal guardian
should be present in the interrogation room. The adult’s
absence should be viewed as “highly significant” and
given enhanced weight when balanced against the
totality of circumstances in evaluating the juvenile’s
waiver of rights. For a juvenile under the age of 14, the
adult’s absence will render the juvenile’s confession
inadmissible as a matter of law, unless the parent is
unwilling to be present or is “truly unavailable.”