Justices side with law enforcement in interrogation of juveniles
Divided court rules age not a factor in police custody cases
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court clashed Tuesday over whether police must take extra care when questioning young people about crimes, narrowly siding with officers in their interrogation of a 17-year-old murder suspect in California.
The case is one of four that justices are using this year to clarify police responsibilities in using the familiar Miranda warning that begins "You have the right to remain silent."
Tuesday's decision was a limited victory for law enforcement.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the 5-4 majority, said the court has never said that police must make special concessions to younger suspects as part of the requirements in the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona ruling.
But the decision left open the door for future challenges of questioning of young people.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in a separate opinion, said that there may be cases in which age is a factor.
Michael Alvarado, then 17, had been questioned for more than two hours at a police station while his parents were forced to wait outside.
Police contend they did not have to tell Alvarado his rights because he was not in custody and could have left the station.
In a dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said that ordinary common sense is all that is required to know that Alvarado was under police control and would not have understood that he could walk out of the interview.
"A reasonable person would not have thought he was free simply to pick up and leave in the middle of the interrogation," Breyer wrote on behalf of himself and the three other liberal-leaning justices: John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Alvarado is serving a sentence of 15-years to life in prison for his part in a 1995 murder at a shopping mall in Santa Fe Springs, California.
His case was a prelude to the court's consideration this fall of another youth issue: the constitutionality of executing underage killers.
The Supreme Court has two more Miranda cases to decide before ending the term by July. The other cases involve how much leeway police have when they mistakenly or deliberately fail to tell suspects their rights. The fourth case was settled in January, in a ruling reminding police that before they try to get confessions from criminal suspects facing formal charges, they must first tell them they have a right to see a lawyer.
The case is Yarborough v. Alvarado, 02-1684.
Copyright 2004 The
Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
