Page 71 - Juvenile Practice is not Child's Play

II.

Custodial Interrogation at school leading to evidence previously known of by officer
On or about the ____ day of ____, 20____, said Respondent was taken into custody by School Resource

Officer and was interrogated. As a result of said interrogation, an oral confession was received from the Respondent
and statements were obtained which confirmed the existence of certain incriminating physical evidence previously
known to the officer.

F.L.’s statement, even if given voluntarily, only reiterated what the officer already believed to be true and did not lead
to physical evidence not previously known to the officer. As such, the statement must be suppressed because it leads
only to physical evidence previously known to the police. Matter of R.L.S., 575 S.W.2d 665, 666 (Tex. Civ. App.—El

Paso 1978, no writ)(holding inadmissible an otherwise valid oral confession because there was no showing that it led
police to physical evidence about which they did not already have knowledge.)

III.

Custodial Interrogation at school leading to evidence NOT previously known of by officer
ALL STATEMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE AT THE SCHOOL AND AT THE POLICE STATION WERE

OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF MIRANDA

On or about the ____ day of ____, 20____, said Respondent was taken into custody by School Resource
Officer and was interrogated. As a result of said interrogation, an oral confession was received from the Respondent
and statements were obtained which led to the seizure of certain incriminating physical evidence.

The actions of the School Resource Officer violated the constitutional and statutory rights of the Respondent under
the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 9 of the
Texas Constitution, Article 38.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and Sections 52.02, 51.09, 51.095, 51.17,
and 54.02 of the Texas Family Code.

The government may not use statements “stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it
demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.” Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966). In order to use a statement that is the product of custodial interrogation, the

government must satisfy the burden of provinNot only that Miranda warnings were given, but also that “the
defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or
appointed counsel.” Id. at 475.