ILNews

COA: admitting teen's confession was a fundamental error

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana Court of Appeals decision today places a burden on police officers to make sure interview room video cameras don’t infringe upon meaningful consultation when a juvenile is involved.

The appellate court reversed a teen’s adjudication for committing what would be felony child molesting because he wasn’t given meaningful consultation with his guardian as required by Indiana’s juvenile waiver of rights statute. They found the video cameras that recorded the consultation between the two was an improper police presence and infringed on privacy necessary to any meaningful consultation.

S.D. was accused of molesting one of the children his guardian watched in her home daycare. He went with his guardian to the police to speak with Detective Chris Lawrence. He and his guardian were initially alone in the small interview room and noted the cameras in it. S.D. told the detective he didn’t care if his guardian was present during questioning, so she left. Detective Lawrence told S.D. he wasn’t under arrest and was free to go at any time. He questioned S.D. about the incident, said he didn’t think S.D. was telling the truth, and sat close to S.D. and spoke to him in a low voice near the end of the interview.

S.D. changed his story several times, eventually confessing to molesting the girl. He was then put in handcuffs. At his hearing, S.D. moved to suppress his videotaped statement. S.D. was found to have committed Class C felony child molesting if committed by an adult.

In S.D. v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-1004-JV-442, the appellate court addressed the admission of the confession as to whether it constituted a fundamental error. S.D. claimed he wasn’t afforded meaningful consultation as required by Indiana’s juvenile waiver of rights statute because the consultation was videotaped. The issue was whether he was subject to a custodial interrogation when he confessed. The judges agreed that Detective Lawrence interrogated him and found the evidence supported a reasonable person in similar circumstances wouldn’t believe he was free to leave, so S.D. was in custody when he confessed. Because of this, the juvenile waiver statute applies and he was entitled to meaningful consultation with his guardian, wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik.

“Consultation can be meaningful only in the absence of police pressure,” she wrote. “Privacy is essential to a meaningful consultation. The meaningful consultation requirement is met only when the State demonstrates actual consultation of a meaningful nature or the express opportunity for such consultation, which is then forsaken by the juvenile in the presence of the proper authority, so long as the juvenile knowingly and voluntarily waives his constitutional rights.”

S.D. and his guardian were videotaped during their consultation and they were aware of the video cameras. This constituted an improper police presence and infringed on the privacy necessary to any meaningful consultation. The burden is on the state to demonstrate that S.D. and his guardian were afforded meaningful consultation; the burden isn’t on the juvenile to ask for it, she continued.

“We acknowledge that our decision places a burden on police officers to ensure that interview room video cameras do not infringe upon meaningful consultation when a juvenile is involved. However, in light of the purpose of the meaningful consultation requirement – to provide a juvenile with a ‘stabilizing and comparatively relaxed atmosphere in which to make a serious decision that could affect the rest of his life’ – we cannot say that such a burden is too onerous,” wrote Judge Vaidik.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT