Credit: Denis Larkin

In State in the Interest of A.A, decided on Jan. 15, the New Jersey Supreme Court established a reasonable and, in our view, appropriate procedure which should be followed before custodial statements of a juvenile may be admitted into evidence.

In A.A. the juvenile's mother was called to the police station where her detained 15-year-old son was being held. She was told that her son "shot someone." Five police officers were in the room within 10 to 15 feet of A.A. while he and his mother spoke through the gate of the holding cell in which the juvenile was detained. A detective testified that he overheard the conversation and that the mother began to cry and left the room. No Miranda warnings were given to A.A. either in his mother's presence or otherwise. The Family Part judge admitted the statements upon finding there was no "police interrogation or its functional equivalent," and therefore no Miranda warnings were required. In concluding that the juvenile's statements were both inadmissible and were not harmless at the juvenile's hearing, the Supreme Court repeated prior holdings that interrogation includes not only direct questioning but also "any words or actions on the part of the police … that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response," and in the case of a juvenile, that an admission "must be voluntary, in the sense not only that it was not coerced or suggested, but also that it was not the product of ignorance of rights or of adolescent fantasy, fright or despair."

Since 1972 the law of New Jersey has been that "wherever possible … no child should be interviewed except in the presence of his parents or guardian," and since State v Presha, 163 NJ 304, was decided in 2000, the product of interrogation of a juvenile under 14 is not admissible in the absence of a parent or legal guardian "unless the adult was unwilling to be present or truly unavailable." Police have an obligation to endeavor to find a parent or guardian before interrogation of a juvenile begins. The parent or guardian must be present to assist the juvenile in a meaningful way.

Here, the police should have known it was reasonably likely that A.A. and his mother would talk about the matter but provided neither warnings nor a location in which they could talk privately without being overheard. As already noted, the court concluded that the juvenile's statement was inadmissible and that its admission was not harmless error.

To reinforce the protections of our state law, which is even more protective than the federal Constitution, the court provided the following additional guidance:

"The police should advise juveniles in custody of their Miranda rights—in the presence of a parent or legal guardian—before the police question, or a parent speaks with, the juvenile. Officers should then give parents or guardians a meaningful opportunity to consult with the juvenile in private about those rights… That approach would enable parents to help children understand their rights and decide whether to waive them… If law enforcement officers do not allow a parent and juvenile to consult in private, absent a compelling reason, that fact should weigh heavily in the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the juvenile's waiver and statements were voluntary."

We can envision nothing more appropriate or fair in the administration of juvenile justice. Independent of the right to counsel, a juvenile is entitled to meaningful support and assistance from a caring parent or guardian before saying anything to a police officer, as well as anything that can be heard or overheard, while in custody.