Page 83 - Juvenile Practice is not Child's Play

conduct in the case was clearly designed to elicit a statement from F.L. Here, during an interrogation at the police

station for quite some time, F.L. tells some, but clearly not enough, information to satisfy police. Mid-way through his
conversation with the police, F.L. not only requested to speak with his father, but also asserted his right to counsel. It
was at this point that the officer brought a phone into the room and created the false impression that F.L. would have

privacy. The officer – who was well aware of F.L.’s strong desire to speak with his parents – engaged in conduct that
was the functional equivalent of custodial interrogation after F.L. had already invoked his right to counsel. Therefore,
all statements made by F.L. while on the phone with his father must be suppressed in violation of his Fifth
Amendment rights.

XVII.
Custodial interrogation in Detention Facility

F.L. was subject to custodial interrogation when he was interviewed at the detention facility. F.L.’s probation
officer and a Police Officer questioned F.L. not only about uncharged allegations but also specifically about the

offense in question. Although the officer initiated the discussion under the pretense of discussing uncharged
allegations, the officer ultimately asked F.L. about the charged offense. Such questioning constituted custodial
interrogation pursuant to Miranda and Innis.

Although F.L. was advised of his rights at the detention center, F.L. did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily
waive his Miranda rights before he was subject to custodial interrogation. Miranda, 384 U.S. 436. The question of
whether the waiver is valid depends upon the totality of the circumstances. Butler 441 U.S. at 374-75 (waiver factors

include the facts and circumstances of the case such as the background, experience and conduct of the defendant). For
many of the same reasons articulated above, F.L. did not make a knowing, voluntary or intelligent waiver of his
Miranda rights at the juvenile detention center two weeks after his arrest. At the detention center, F.L. was visibly

traumatized by the separation from his family, upset, and immediately dropped his head on the desk when officers
explained why they wanted to speak with him. F.L. had been in custody for over two weeks after expressly advising
the officer that he wanted a lawyer. Notwithstanding F.L.’s emotional state and refusal to speak for three and a half
hours, the police officer and the probation officer did not let him return to his cellblock and persisted in their efforts

to get him to talk.

Any statement that F.L. made in direct response to the officer’s question about the drug allegation three and a half
hours after the police arrived must be suppressed because F.L. did not make a valid waiver of his Miranda rights. As

noted above, although Miranda does not require an express or written waiver of Miranda rights, the government
cannot meet its burden to show that F.L. – a 15-year-old juvenile – knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived
his rights. The circumstances surrounding the interview combined with F.L.’s low intellectual capacity, limited