Juvenile Confession Suppressed

“Son, We Need to Talk”

By Monte E. Hester; Sept 2000

     A recent Ninth Circuit case addresses a juvenile’s rights upon being taken into custody. 

     In USA v. John Doe, a juvenile, 99-50250 (9^th Cir. July 20, 2000), the court reviewed a record which provided evidence that the defendant was a passenger in a pickup that was found to have drugs hidden in the gasoline tank as it was being inspected at a port of entry.  The defendant was placed in a detention cell at 3:00 a.m. after the drug discovery occurred.  At 6:30 a.m. the agent attempted to call the defendant’s parents, speaking to his sister who was informed of his arrest and told that she would be notified when they knew where her brother would be held and when he would be appearing before a judge.  The sister was not advised of the defendant’s Miranda rights.

     At 6:36 a.m. the defendant was read his rights and he signed an acknowledgement of understanding and waiver following which he made incriminating statements.  He was booked and locked up and was not brought before a magistrate until the next day at 10:30 a.m., some 32 hours after his arrest.

     The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress.  After a two day trial he was found guilty of importing drugs and sentenced to 18 months confinement.

     The appellate court found that a 3 ½ hour delay before he was read his Miranda rights, the delay in attempting to contact his parents, and the delay in bringing the defendant before a magistrate all violated the terms of 18 U.S.C.

§ 5033 and that there were no extenuating circumstances that would make such violations acceptable.  The code provision reads as follows:

 Whenever a juvenile is taken into custody for an alleged act of juvenile delinquency, the arresting officer shall immediately advise such juvenile of his legal rights, in language comprehensible to a juvenile, and shall immediately notify the Attorney General and the juvenile’s parents, guardian, or custodian of such custody. The arresting officer shall also notify the parents, guardian, or custodian of the rights of the juvenile and of the nature of the alleged offense.

  The district court, however, opined that the failure to advise the defendant of his Miranda rights and to bring him before a magistrate promptly in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 5033 did not affect the defendant’s due process rights and therefore constituted harmless error.

     The Ninth Circuit took a different view of the failure to advise the parents of their child’s Miranda rights, recognizing that informed parents may well tell a child not to make a statement and that the defendant was prejudiced by the inculpatory statement which he made.

     The Ninth Circuit further notes that Derrick v. Peterson, 924 F.2d 813, 819 (9^th Cir. 1990) did not stand from the proposition that parents had no right to advise their child to get an attorney, but only that they had no right to be present during the actual interrogation.  Indeed, the court stated that the Supreme Court has held that parents have the right to assist their children in a "meaningful way.”