Cheryl L. Kates
Syracuse University
3L

    In light of the increasing violence in schools today and in the aftermath of Columbine, police in schools to increase the likeliness of safety, has been generally looked upon as a good thing. I am here to warn you that police in schools can also lead to civil liberties issues. When police function as resource officers, they must conduct investigations when something occurs at the school. This often involves interrogating students. Where do we draw the line? Police are specially trained in interrogation techniques. Doesn’t the minor student have a right under the Fifth Amendment to be protected from self-incrimination? Doesn’t the minor students have the right to have access to their parents or an attorney? The answer is yes!

    An individual has the right to be advised against self-incrimination before being questioned by a police officer in conjunction with a crime. The Miranda Act states that before a police officer can interrogate an individual they must be advised of the right to remain silent and that they have the right to an attorney. Miranda vs. Arizona 396 US 868, 905 Ct. 140, 24 L.Ed. 2d 1220 (1969).

    In determining whether custodial interrogation has taken place, requiring Miranda warnings, the court weighs several factors. It is an objective analysis examining if the subject was physically deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, or led to believe as a reasonable man, that he was so deprived. People v. Rodney P. 21 NY2d1, 233 NE2d 255 286 NYS 2d 225 (1967). In a school setting things that would be imperative to this analysis would be: Was the offense a criminal act?; Is there going to be an arrest?; Were other school officials present during questioning?; Who did the questioning?; Could the student leave?; Was the door to the room open or shut?; Was the officer in uniform, wielding a gun?.

    How do we decide whether a reasonable man would believe he was deprived of freedom? This issue is discussed in Brendan H. v. Family Court of NY 82 Misc. 2d 1077 372 NYS 2d 473 (1975). In this case, the interrogation took place at the school by a school official having no power of arrest, and following which, the respondent could leave, upon the arrival of his parent, or to return to classes. The court found under these circumstances the child could not had believed he was in custody. The court also based it’s reasoning on the fact that a school official is neither trained nor experienced in the psychologically coercive techniques of the police.

    Other jurisdictions have dealt with police as resource officers specifically. In In Re; JC, 59150 2d 315, 1991 Fla. App. Lexis 12772 (1991), a high school student was sent to the principal’s office because he allegedly smoked pot on school property. The assistant principal questioned the student, soliciting a confession. A sheriff assigned to the school, as a resource officer was present. If a policeman stands mute and does not participate, his mere presence does not render it a custodial interrogation. In In Re; Drolshagon, 280 SC 84, 310 SE 2d 927 (1984), the court reasoned that had there been any participation on the part of the deputy, Miranda warnings would have been required.

    An additional case, Tibiatowski, involved the questioning of a student by a police officer serving as a resource officer in relation to a BB gun. This court reasoned that when an uniformed officer summons a juvenile from the classroom to the office and actively participates in the questioning, the circumstances suggest the coercive influence of the police officer and can be associated with a custodial interrogation. State v. Tibiatowski, 590 NW 2d 305 (1990), quoted in: In Re; Welfare of GSP, 610 NW 2d 651 (Minn. Supp. 2000). The question remains whether the school has a right to deny the student access to their parent or an attorney when they are being interrogated? The answer is no. People v. Bentley, 155 Misc. 2d 169, 587 NYS 2d 54 (NY Supp.) (1992). A case involving a 14 year- old that was questioned regarding a murder that was isolated from his parent that was most likely to help him, held relied on People v. Townsend, 33 NY 2d 37, 300 NE 2d 722, 347 NYS 2d 187, 1973 Lexis 1075 (1973), finding it is impermissible to use a confession even if it be otherwise voluntary, when in the course of extracting such confession, the most likely avenue in which the assistance of counsel may be obtained, being a parent, is deception and trickery.

    In conclusion, while safety in schools is an important thing, the use of police officers as security brings a high potential that the student’s civil liberties can be violated.

About the author

Send mail to Webmaster with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2001 Syracuse University Central New York American Civil Liberties Union
Last modified: September 15, 2001