Page 81 - Juvenile Practice is not Child's Play

The failure to send for a 15-year-old’s parents and the failure to see to it that he has the advice of a lawyer or a friend

during an interrogation contribute to the involuntariness of his statement because of the increased coercive effect
from police that the youth may experience. See Gallegos, 370 U.S. at 53-54 (the absence of an adult or counsel are
critical factors in determining whether a minor’s statement is involuntary); Haley, 332 U.S. 596.

The officer began questioning 15-year-old F.L. at the school without ensuring that F.L.’s parents, a lawyer, or another
adult adviser were present to advise him, and instead convinced F.L. that he was “trying to help.” Further, when F.L.
repeatedly asked the officer to allow him to telephone his father, the officer consistently refused or ignored his

request. This deprived him of his entitlement to be accompanied by his parent in a juvenile processing office. Tex.
Fam. Code Ann. § 52.025(c). Despite F.L.’s requests for support, the officer continued to question F.L. and persuaded
him to make a written statement without any advice from his parents, a lawyer or adviser. Finally, when F.L. refused

to answer any more questions before speaking with his father and a lawyer, the officer brought him a telephone and
left the room, giving F.L. the impression that he could seek the support of his parent in private. The officer further
exploited F.L.’s youth and vulnerability by listening in on F.L.’s conversation with his father via intercom, and then
using the statement he allegedly overheard during the private conversation to detain F.L. overnight. The officer used

F.L.’s youth to coerce him into making statements and kept him from the advice and support of his parents or counsel.
Therefore, all statements allegedly obtained by the officer at the school and the police station must be suppressed as a
violation of due process.

Because he had no prior experience with law enforcement or the legal system, F.L. was confused about the events that
had transpired, and he did not understand why he was being questioned. Additionally, F.L.’s young age,
developmental immaturity and low IQ level would render any statement he gave in response to police questioning

involuntary. F.L. suffers from dyslexia and other severe learning disabilities and is currently a special education
student. This indicates cognitive limitations and suggests his inability to execute a valid Miranda waiver in any
meaningful sense. As a result, the statements must be suppressed for all purposes at trial, including for purposes of

impeachment. See Mincey, 437 U.S. at 398.

The circumstances of the officer’s interrogation of G.L both at the school and then at the police station clearly indicate
that his statements were involuntary. F.L.’s age and cognitive limitations at the time of each and every one of the

statements, combined with the officer’s refusal to ensure that he had the advice of a parent, lawyer or another adviser
while continuing to question him, rendered F.L.’s statements to the officer involuntary in violation of the Due Process
Clause and the Fifth Amendment. These statements must be suppressed as evidence against him at trial.