On Point blog, page 1 of 1
COA holds that juvenile interrogated in “closet size” room by SRO was not in custody; finds evidentiary error harmless, and affirms
State v. K.R.C., 2023AP2102, 10/30/24, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
In a “close” suppression appeal, COA confronts a fact pattern arising from the intersection between policing and school discipline, finds that a reasonable 12-year old would have felt free to walk away from interviews with law enforcement and school authorities on school grounds, and finds the repeated injection of inadmissible evidence at the court trial harmless.
COA finds portions of juvenile suspect’s statements during marathon interrogation involuntary due to coercive interrogation techniques, but juvenile was not in custody for Miranda purposes; circuit court’s order suppressing all statements affirmed in part and reversed in part.
State v. Kruckenberg Anderson, 2023AP396-CR, 7/25/24, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity
The tragic death of a newborn baby in the bucolic countryside of southwest Wisconsin prompted aggressive interrogation techniques by law enforcement that the Court of Appeals considered coercive in light of the suspect’s age of 16. But the court found that a reasonable 16-year old would have felt free to leave when the police told him repeatedly he was not under arrest and did not have to answer questions; law enforcement therefore did not have to advise the suspect of his Miranda rights. The COA affirmed in part and reversed in part the circuit court’s order suppressing the defendant’s statements.
Detention of juvenile to investigate car crash didn’t amount to custody requiring Miranda warnings
State v. D.R.C., 2019AP1155, District 2, 5/13/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Police detained, initially handcuffed, patted down, and then questioned D.R.C. about his involvement in a car crash from which he had fled. The court of appeals holds the officers’ actions were part of an investigatory Terry stop and didn’t amount to custody requiring that D.R.C. be given Miranda warnings before being questioned.
Retractable juvenile confessions
Should people be able to retract uncounseled Miranda waivers elicited by law enforcement officers while they were juveniles? This UCLA law review article by Loyola Law School Professor Kevin Lapp explores the problems with interrogating juveniles and the pros and cons of retractable Fifth Amendment waivers.
Juvenile in residential facility was in custody for Miranda purposes
State v. J.T.M., 2015AP1585, 7/19/16, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
A detective interrogated 16-year-old J.T.M. while he was in a juvenile residential facility without first giving Miranda warnings. Because J.T.M. was in custody and wasn’t given the warnings, his statement regarding a sexual assault allegation must be suppressed.
Miranda – Custody – High School Student not in Custody Despite Detention, Frisk and Incriminatory Questioning
State v. Colin G. Schloegel, 2009 WI App 85
For Schloegel: Sarvan Singh
Issue/Holding: High school student Schloegel was not in custody for Miranda purposes, notwithstanding that he was frisked by police officer, compelled under school policy to consent to search of his car and asked, prior to formal arrest, incriminatory questions; analogy to State v. Dale Gruen, 218 Wis.
Custody — Juvenile Suspect
A.M. v. Butler, 360 F.3d 787 (7th Cir. 2004)
Issue/Holding1:
In determining whether a person is “in custody,” the question is whether, examining the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in the petitioner’s position would have felt “at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.” Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 (1995). In making this determination, “the only relevant inquiry is how a reasonable man in the suspect’s position would have understood his situation.”Berkemer v.