Claris Law Legal Blogging Community

Editor: Tampa Criminal Attorneys
Profession: Tampa Defense Attorneys

Category: Firm News

Representing juveniles is always interesting in that juvenile cases can many times raise a number of Fourth Amendment Issues. A recent case we resolved involved not only Fourth, but also some 5th Amendment issues. It doesn't take long to figure out the common theme of almost all juvenile crime. It is, without question, co-defendants. The more people involved in the commission of a crime the more difficult it is to defend. What usually makes matters worse in these cases is the fact that once juveniles have been caught they will usually give a statement to law enforcement that implicates themselves and their friends (co-defendants). Most prosecutors will tell you a good portion of their juvenile cases are made by offering a deal to a co-defendant in exchange for in-court testimony against another co-defendant(s). This strategy can sometimes lead to all the co-defendants entering pleas in their cases. However, in a number of instances you have situations where law enforcement may have acted prematurely by either detaining a juvenile too soon, or taking a statement from a juvenile without taking the proper steps in order to ensure the statement was voluntarily made. In this case the officers failed in both regards.

This case starts with a number (5) of juveniles breaking into a cart barn at a local golf course. Fifteen golf carts were stolen damaged ($30,000.00 worth of damage). Some were found in the lakes surrounding the golf course. Our client was one of two of the juveniles found walking nearby shortly after the break-in. Initially, they were confronted by golf-course security. When police arrived they stopped the two juveniles and questioned them about the break-in. One Hillsborough county sheriff deputy talked to the co-defendant, and the other spoke to our client.

Had the deputies spoken to the golf course security before approaching the juveniles they may have been armed with the reasonable suspicion necessary to conduct a temporary detention of my client. Many officers approach juveniles much differently than adults. They expect to encounter a frightened juvenile that is not only terrified of going to jail, but also of what their parents are going to do to them (at least when you are in an upscale golf community). Ultimately, they expect a lot of cooperation. Juveniles share the same privacy rights as the rest of us, but because of age, and an expectation of cooperation, law enforcement gives less consideration to their rights. The Deputy only knew that a burglary had occurred at the golf club. He didn't know the age of the suspects, what they looked like, or what they were wearing. This lack of information made the detention of my client illegal. We filed a Motion to Suppress the stop of the client, and another motion to suppress the statement he gave law enforcement.

Shortly after he was stopped the Deputy read Miranda to him. According to the Deputy the juvenile chose to waive his Miranda rights and answer the officer's questions. There is no bright-line rule that renders a confession by a juvenile involuntary, but the burden is much higher when determining a juvenile's waiver of Miranda as opposed to an adult's waiver of the Miranda rights. Here, the officer claimed that my client made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights. However, when you look at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the statement the Court decided the waiver of Miranda was not voluntary. Some issues the Court considers in making that determination are the following:

1) The manner in which the Miranda rights were administered, including any cajoling or trickery.
2) The suspect's age (in our case he was 15 years old), experience, background, and intelligence.
3) The fact that the suspect's parents were not contacted, and the juvenile was not given an oppurtunity to consult with his parents before questioning
4) The fact that the questioning took place in the station house, and
5) The fact that the interrogators did not secure a written waiver of the Miranda rights at the outset

In our case the parents were contacted, but the juvenile was never given an opportunity to consult with them. During his statement to the Deputy our client did admit involvement in the crimes.

We filed two motions claiming the stop of our client was unlawful and another motion claiming that the juvenile's statement to police should be suppressed because he did not voluntarily waive his Miranda rights.

After Judge Campbell heard the State's evidence as to the stop of our client she granted our motion to suppress the evidence emanating from the stop. Because the granting of our motion to suppress the stop was dispositive of the case, the Court had no reason to address our second motion.

If you should have any questions about unlawful stops and/or how law enforcement should legally take someone's statment call us at 813-228-7095 or link to Tampa criminal attorney.