Knight Ridder Newspapers
Jun. 2, 2004 12:00 AM
WASHINGTON - A sharply split Supreme Court said Tuesday that police don't always have to give juveniles the Miranda warnings before questioning them, handing an important but narrow victory to law enforcement authorities.
The court said a Los Angeles County Sheriff's detective didn't violate a 17-year-old's constitutional rights when she questioned him for two hours at a police station before advising him of his right to end the interview or have a lawyer present.
Michael Alvarado confessed during the interrogation to helping a friend commit
a murder at a California shopping mall. But his lawyers tried to have the confession
tossed out at trial, saying the officer failed to properly warn Alvarado of
his rights.
Five justices said Tuesday that the confession was fine because Alvarado wasn't
technically in custody when he was questioned.
They also rejected arguments that the fact that Alvarado was a minor required police to interrogate him more cautiously.Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that "fair-minded jurists could disagree over whether Alvarado was in custody" at the police station where he was brought by his parents.
A state court had ruled earlier that the interrogation was proper because Alvarado
wasn't technically in custody, but a federal appeals court later rejected that
decision.
The federal appeals court, Kennedy wrote, was "nowhere close to the mark"
when it called the state court's decision "unreasonable."
Kennedy also said that police couldn't have legally considered Alvarado's age
in determining how to treat him. Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice William
Rehnquist and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Sandra Day O'Connor.
O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion, saying she believed age could be considered
sometimes in Miranda cases, but that in Alvarado's case, it didn't matter because
he was nearly 18 at the time of the questioning.