So your seventeen-year-old daughter is arrested with
a van full of marijuana in her car. She
is questioned by police, and she confesses to being on her way to a party. She is convicted and sentenced to eighteen
months confinement. Do the confession
and the conviction stand? According to
the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal, the answer is no. The Court recently ruled that before a
Federal agent can begin the interrogation of a minor, the minor’s parents must
be informed that they have the right to counsel their child. Obviously, they may counsel their child to
not answer the Federal agent’s questions.
This case involves the interpretation of the Juvenile
Delinquency Act, a Federal statute. The
female in this case, Wendy G., was caught in a San Diego border bust last
year. She was carrying a great deal of
marijuana with her at the time. A
customs agent then detained her and obtained her confession. The Federal agent called Wendy G.’s mother
and told her Wendy was being detained and informed her of Wendy’s Miranda
rights as the law requires. Wendy’s
mother then asked when she could see her daughter. The Agent did not tell her she could see or talk to her daughter
right away to counsel her. Instead, the
Agent indicated that Mrs. G. could not talk to Wendy until they met in
court the next morning. He then proceeded
to obtain a confession from Wendy.
Wendy’s mother later testified that had she been permitted to speak with
her, she would have told her daughter not to answer any questions from the
Federal agent without an attorney present.
This opinion pertains only to juveniles who are in
Federal custody, accused of violating Federal laws. The Justices stated that
“the government cannot seriously maintain that the agent’s answer was
responsive to the mother’s question . . . when the parent has not been told if
she so desires, she may advise and counsel her child. This turns the statutory scheme into a game of hide the
ball.” The Federal agent who made the
arrest, Agent Cardell Morant clearly played hide the ball with Wendy G. and her
mother.
I applaud the Court’s interpretation of the Federal
Juvenile Delinquency Act. This Act
requires Federal law enforcement agents to notify not only the arrested child
of his or her rights, but requires that the minor’s parents be informed as
well. If a seventeen-year-old walks
into my office and seeks my services as an attorney, he cannot be the one
signing the agreement to hire me.
Similarly, if a seventeen-year-old walks into my other office and seeks
my help as a therapist, he again cannot be the one to hire me, unless he is a
victim of child abuse, or if I deem him to be a danger to himself or to
others. In the world of psychology,
those two exceptions exist for appropriate and obvious reasons.
Returning to the legal world, if someone generally
needs to be eighteen to hire a lawyer, and most often needs a parent signing on
the dotted line in order for the agreement to have legal force, shouldn’t the
standard be the same if that seventeen-year-old is arrested and asked to make a
decision as to whether or not to speak with a police officer? In general, we do not hold
seventeen-year-olds to the same standard we hold those who are eighteen and
older. Once you reach the age of
majority, you have more rights, and you also have more responsibilities. When you’re under eighteen, in the Federal
arena, you are protected. I imagine
it’s pretty clear that by Wendy G.’s attempt to get past the San Diego Customs
Agents with a hundred thirty-eight pounds of marijuana in her van, she is
clearly not Rhodes scholar material. In
this case, Wendy G. should have been protected from herself. If someone is not competent to understand
and make an intelligent decision as to whether or not to exercise his Miranda
rights, how can that person possibly waive those very same rights? Were Wendy G. eighteen or older, she would
have to pay the price for her stupidity.
As she is seventeen, Agent Morant and any other agent in a similar situation
will need to act appropriately to obtain a confession that will stick.