July 3, 2018
Last week, the Indiana Supreme Court rendered two decisions answering when students must be provided Miranda warnings as part of an investigation into alleged misconduct. Both B.A. v. State and D.Z. v. State offer guidance, for the first time, on what notices, if any, must be provided to students when questioned by a school resource officer or an educator. Both cases involved building administrators questioning male students about bathroom graffiti, the students admitting the misconduct, being suspended and subsequently being adjudicated as delinquents in the juvenile court system. The only substantive difference between the two cases is the level and extent of involvement in the investigatory process by school resource officers. In D.Z., the assistant principal requested assistance from the SRO, who waited outside while the principal questioned the high school student. Conversely, in B.A., three SROs sat in the vice principal’s office and actively participated in the middle school student’s interrogation and procured a writing sample from him.
In analyzing these two similar, but distinguishable discipline circumstances, the Supreme Court provided public school corporations with a bright line standard on determining whether a student must be mirandized. The state high court makes clear that if no SRO is present when the student is questioned, the student is not in a custodial interrogation setting, so the Miranda decision does not apply; no Miranda warnings are necessary. This bright line standard possesses one caveat: if the school administrator is acting as an agent of the SRO, the student may be entitled to receive Miranda warnings. Indicia of any agency relationship existing between the SRO and administrator include the officer initiating the investigation, requesting certain questions be posed to the student, and providing direct interrogation instruction to the administrator during the investigation. In such circumstances, the student may need to be mirandized before questioning. Remember, as long as a SRO is not in the office while the student is questioned and the administrator is not acting as a surrogate for the SRO, Miranda warnings are not required.
If for some reason, administrators allow an SRO to participate in questioning the student, a custodial interrogation may be created and then the student must receive certain warnings. To determine whether a custodial interrogation exists, “a totality of the circumstances” must be reviewed. Relevant factors to the totality test include (1) the number of SROs present and their involvement, (2) the physical setting of the investigation, (3) what the student is told about the interview, (4) the interview’s length, (5) the student’s age, (6) whether the student is subsequently arrested, and (7) the parties’ relationship, including whether the SRO is acting as an officer, counselor, teacher or a blended combination of those three roles. Additionally, the Supreme Court expressed that interrogation includes more than just oral questions, but any words or actions designed to elicit a response from the student.
To avoid any argument by a student or parent that proper warnings were not provided, we recommend that, if practical, a school administrator conducts the questioning outside any SRO’s presence. In almost all such cases, no Miranda warnings are needed. Administrators should also avoid acting as an informed substitute for the SRO; the SRO should not request the administrator to conduct the questioning, feed specific questions to the administrator, or provide direct information concerning investigative techniques in the specific investigation. The Supreme Court made clear that after questioning concludes, the administrator is free to inform the SRO of the questions asked and the student’s response. Any other steps that the SRO deems necessary, such as an arrest, can then be taken.
Have a question about this decision or a similar situation in your organization?
[button color=”orange” link=”https://warrickandboyn.com/contact/”]Contact Tim Shelly or Matt Schram[/button]
Warrick & Boyn, LLP, is a full-service law firm in Elkhart, Ind., that practices in all areas of business and corporate law. Areas of practice include commercial litigation, creditors’ rights and bankruptcy law, labor and employment law, defense litigation, securities law and regulation, worker’s compensation defense, education and school law, EEOC law, employee benefits law and pension plans, environmental law and regulation, tax and estate planning, municipal law, and property and real estate law. The firm’s clients are located primarily in northern Indiana and southwestern Michigan, and most of the attorneys are licensed to practice in both Indiana and Michigan.