Questioning of minor

[atrie]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Oregon
My 15 year old son was approached by police on the street who said they wanted to ask him questions and they wanted him to go with them. They told him he HAD to go WITH them, so he agreed to even though he didn't want to. At the police station they started asking him questions and then he said he didn't want to talk. They kept asking him questions and trying to get him to say something. He asked them to call his parents, they refused. They kept asking questions. He said 'no' a few times to disagree with things they said. After a while I guess they decided to give up and told him they would call us. He told me the time they said that, and they didn't call us until about 45 minutes later. In that time he said they brought him in a soda and asked him if he was sure he didn't want to say anything, that is was his 'last chance'. When I got there they let him go with me and said they'd 'be in touch'.
This isn't a big 'criminal' investigation, just a small town, with cops who try to intimidate kids. It's like they're bored sometimes.

Can cops treat kids like this? Lying that they HAVE to go with them? And continuing to try to question a 15 year old after he said he didn't want to talk and to call his parents? Do I have legal rights to complain about any of this?

 

[racer72]

Can cops treat kids like this?

Nothing in your post suggests the police did anything illegal.

Lying that they HAVE to go with them?

When were the officers lying? The option to not going with them was probably being arrested. It appears he was legally detained.

And continuing to try to question a 15 year old after he said he didn't want to talk and to call his parents?

Nothing illegal about this. He should have asked for an attorney instead though.

Do I have legal rights to complain about any of this? .

Sure, file a complaint with your local police department. I don't see it going to far though.

 

[I'mTheFather]

I completely disagree with the previous response you received. The police are not allowed to question a minor without either a parent or an attorney being present. They can take a minor into custody, but they cannot question a minor without parental consent or without an attorney being present.

Where do you get your information???

 

[atrie]

Uh, ok, Completely opposite answers?

When were the officers lying? The option to not going with them was probably being arrested. It appears he was legally detained.

Well they didn't arrest him at any point so they obviously had no reason to? Didn't read him his rights or anything. I think they were lying when they said he HAD to go with them.

Nothing illegal about this. He should have asked for an attorney instead though.

So the magic word to make them stop is 'attorney'. Do they have to stop then?

When I got there I asked "was he arrested". They told me "no we were just having a friendly chat". Is there a difference between formal questioning and a "friendly chat"?

 

[racer72]

I completely disagree with the previous response you received. The police are not allowed to question a minor without either a parent or an attorney being present. They can take a minor into custody, but they cannot question a minor without parental consent or without an attorney being present.

Cite? Mine is a sheriff from Oregon.

 

[CdwJava]

I completely disagree with the previous response you received. The police are not allowed to question a minor without either a parent or an attorney being present. They can take a minor into custody, but they cannot question a minor without parental consent or without an attorney being present.

And, you have a legal source for this statement, right?

This is NOT true in my state, and as far as I know it is not true in Oregon, either.

 

[racer72]

Didn't read him his rights or anything.

Miranda is only required prior to questioning when one is arrested. Your son was not arrested.

I think they were lying when they said he HAD to go with them.

And I stated what probably would have happened if he refused.

So the magic word to make them stop is 'attorney'. Do they have to stop then?

Not really. The questioning could have continued. He also did not have to answer any of the questions.

Is there a difference between formal questioning and a "friendly chat"? .

Yep. His answers while being detained could not be used against him. If he was arrested, they could. But the info gained through the questioning could be used to obtain other evidence that could be used against him or others.

 

[CdwJava]

If your child were telling the entire truth of the matter, it might seem that there could be some malfeasance on the part of the police. However, experience tells me that you are probably not getting the COMPLETE story.

The police CAN conduct a voluntary transport of the juvenile. If they asked if they could talk to him and if he would go with them, he can certainly agree to that. If they forced him to go then it would have had to be because he was arrested, or because there was a lawful detention that might also justify transport (status offenses, or issues involving the welfare of the child are the most common such justifications). Why they transported him in this case is a question only the police can answer.

Miranda is generally only required with both custody and interrogation. Given your interpretation of events, they should probably have Mirandized him if they wanted to have any hope of using his statements in court.

If you wish, you can complain to the agency administration. You can also consult an attorney to see if there is any legal action that can be taken (I doubt there would be any potential award risk the cost, but you can consult an attorney anyway).

You might also consider the possibility that your son is involved in some stuff that is not entirely legal. There is probably a reason that the cops focused in on him.

 

[atrie]

And I stated what probably would have happened if he refused.

But why would they have arrested him? (I know you can't really answer that since I'm not spelling the whole thing out) But, if they weren't going to otherwise arrest him, how could they have arrested him if he'd said "no thanks I don't want to go". Wouldn't they need a good reason for arresting him? Surely they can't arrest him for 'refusing a friendly chat'?

Not really. The questioning could have continued. He also did not have to answer any of the questions.

It all seems very intimidating for a 15 year old. Being locked in a room at a police station with a couple of cops asking question after question...We weren't contacted until it had been almost 2 hours since they approached him.

Yep. His answers while being detained could not be used against him. If he was arrested, they could. But the info gained through the questioning could be used to obtain other evidence that could be used against him or others.

Ok.

 

[atrie]

If they asked if they could talk to him and if he would go with them, he can certainly agree to that. If they forced him to go then it would have had to be because he was arrested, or because there was a lawful detention that might also justify transport (status offenses, or issues involving the welfare of the child are the most common such justifications).

Well they didn't force him by picking him up and throwing him in the car. But it certainly seemed like he felt he was under pressure from what they were saying to comply. He only agreed to go because he felt that he really did have to go. I wouldn't call it a completely 'voluntary' transport. I think he felt that he couldn't walk away from them.

Given your interpretation of events, they should probably have Mirandized him if they wanted to have any hope of using his statements in court.

Maybe they were just trying to scare him this time. It felt a lot like they were out to scare him.

If you wish, you can complain to the agency administration. You can also consult an attorney to see if there is any legal action that can be taken (I doubt there would be any potential award risk the cost, but you can consult an attorney anyway).

Ok.

You might also consider the possibility that your son is involved in some stuff that is not entirely legal. There is probably a reason that the cops focused in on him.

I do know what it's about. It's about a single event.

 

[HighwayMan]

They told him he HAD to go WITH them...

If that's true then it sure sounds like an arrest to me.

 

[justalayman]

atrie;3083013]Well they didn't force him by picking him up and throwing him in the car. But it certainly seemed like he felt he was under pressure from what they were saying to comply. He only agreed to go because he felt that he really did have to go. I wouldn't call it a completely 'voluntary' transport. I think he felt that he couldn't walk away from them.

then it wasn't a voluntary transport



he was arrested. An arrest does not always mean you are taken in and booked. The fact he believed he was not free to go alone can be construed as an arrest sometimes. Couple that with the fact he was transported with the belief he had no option, he was arrested. Being arrested doesn't always mean handcuffs and tossed in jail. It is more a description of an action where the police remove your liberty to walk away from the situation.

regardless, I can find nothing that requires a parent be notified of such an action or that a minor cannot be questioned without the presence of a parent or attorney.

 

[CdwJava]

There are few circumstances absent an arrest where the police can involuntarily transport someone away from where they are. With a minor it might come as a result of a status offense, it might be in an effort to protect them from harm, or it might be as an arrest. However, an ARREST would require probable cause to believe that a crime had occurred and that the person arrested had committed the crime. if they transported him for questioning and lacked any other lawful cause to justify the transportation, the officers could be in deep DEEP kimshee!

However, I suspect that there is more to this.

 

[Indiana Filer]

Quote Originally Posted by LdiJ View Post
I completely disagree with the previous response you received. The police are not allowed to question a minor without either a parent or an attorney being present. They can take a minor into custody, but they cannot question a minor without parental consent or without an attorney being present.

And, you have a legal source for this statement, right?

This is NOT true in my state, and as far as I know it is not true in Oregon, either.

Not true in Indiana either.

 

[atrie]

he was arrested.

I asked them if he was and they informed me that he was NOT arrested...they can't lie about that to the parent of a juvenile can they?