Ohio Juveniles

Should parents or guardians be contacted and asked for permission to speak with their child before questioning the juvenile in Ohio?

Short answer: It depends.
Best practice: Yes.

To better understand the rules involving juveniles in Ohio and how to handle juvenile encounters, officers are encouraged to review Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2151 and the Ohio Juvenile Rules (both available online at no cost).

Ohio does not have per se rules requiring a parent or guardian to be present during a juvenile’s police interrogation. However, the Supreme Court of Ohio has acknowledged that the absence of a parent or guardian is a factor in determining whether a juvenile’s waiver of rights was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.

In State v. Barker, 149 Ohio St.3d 1, 2016-Ohio-2708 (2016), the Supreme Court of Ohio held that reviewing courts must engage in a totality of the circumstances analysis to determine whether a person waived his or her rights knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The Court further noted that “[i]t is now commonly recognized that courts should take ‘special care’ in scrutinizing a purported confession or waiver by a child.” Id. at ¶ 41.

Under this totality-of-the-circumstances analysis, courts consider the following factors:

1. The accused’s age, mentality, and prior criminal history;
2. The length, intensity, and frequency of the interrogation;
3. The existence of physical deprivation or mistreatment; and
4. The existence of physical inducements or threats.

When the suspect is a juvenile, courts must also consider additional factors, including:

1. The juvenile’s age;
2. His or her experience (including life experience and prior dealings with police and/or courts);
3. Education;
4. Background; and
5. Intelligence.

The standards set forth by the Supreme Court of Ohio are rooted in United States Supreme Court precedent. Indeed, the Court’s analysis in Barker relied heavily on U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

Blue to Gold Law Enforcement Training – Blog Submission (Juvenile Law – Ohio)
By: Zaki Hazou, Legal Instructor

First, it is important to remember that Miranda applies equally to adults and juveniles. Juveniles are entitled to the constitutional protections of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and due process. See In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967). Accordingly, the same objective standard used to determine whether an adult suspect has invoked Miranda rights also applies to juveniles.

However, when a juvenile’s waiver is at issue, courts must consider factors such as the juvenile’s age, experience, education, background, intelligence, and whether the juvenile has the capacity to understand the Miranda warnings, the nature of the Fifth Amendment rights involved, and the consequences of waiving those rights. See Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979).

Second, in J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether a juvenile suspect’s age is relevant to the Miranda custody analysis. The Court held:

“[T]he question whether the age of a child subjected to police questioning is relevant to the custody analysis of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). It is beyond dispute that children will often feel bound to submit to police questioning when an adult in the same circumstances would feel free to leave. Seeing no reason for police officers or courts to blind themselves to that commonsense reality, we hold that a child’s age properly informs the Miranda custody analysis.”

The Court further explained that while a minor may effectively waive constitutional rights, age, intelligence, education, and the ability to comprehend the meaning and effect of a confession are factors to be weighed in determining whether the waiver was voluntary and intelligent.

Writing for the majority, Justice Sotomayor observed:

“By its very nature, custodial police interrogation entails ‘inherently compelling pressures.’ Miranda, at 467. Even for an adult, the physical and psychological isolation of custodial interrogation can undermine the individual’s will to resist and compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely. … That risk is all the more troubling—and recent studies suggest, all the more acute—when the subject of custodial interrogation is a juvenile.”

Third, in Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994), the Court stated that a child’s age “would have affected how a reasonable person” in the suspect’s position would perceive his or her freedom to leave.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized important developmental differences between children and adults in the context of interrogations and waivers of rights. Specifically, the Court has observed that children:

1. Are generally less mature and responsible than adults, see Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982);
2. Often lack the experience, perspective, and judgment to recognize and avoid choices that could be detrimental to them, see Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979); and
3. Are more vulnerable or susceptible to outside pressures than adults, see Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).

In Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that a totality of the circumstances test is sufficient to determine whether a juvenile validly waived his or her rights during an interrogation.

The Barker Court further emphasized that the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis carries even greater importance when applied to juveniles. A 14 or 15-year-old “cannot be compared with an adult in full possession of his senses and knowledgeable of the consequences of his admissions.” Gallegos v. Colorado, 370 U.S. 49, 53–54 (1962).

Once a juvenile is in custody, the arresting officer must make a good-faith effort to notify the juvenile’s parent or guardian that the child has been taken into custody, inform them of the alleged offense, and advise them of the juvenile’s Miranda rights.

In summary, no single factor is determinative. Although seeking permission from a parent or guardian is not legally required, doing so can demonstrate good faith on the part of the investigator. Courts are likely to scrutinize a juvenile’s waiver or invocation of rights closely.

Juvenile procedures and rules vary by state. Officers are advised to consult with the prosecutor’s office in their respective jurisdiction for guidance.