March 5, 2018
On Thursday, a divided Indiana Court of Appeals held that students are entitled to Miranda warnings and other protections in certain school interrogation circumstances. If the student does not receive those warnings and protections, any incriminating evidence gained while questioning the student may be excluded in the student’s criminal or juvenile prosecution. The court decision does not affect what school discipline can be imposed.
In D.Z. v. State, a Brownsburg High School assistant principal worked closely with the school corporation’s SRO to identify and question a minor student, D.Z. about sexual graffiti located in several boy’s bathrooms. The assistant principal questioned D.Z. in his office with the door closed, without providing any Miranda warning or offering D.Z. an opportunity to speak with his parents. D.Z. admitted authoring the graffiti and was suspended for five days. As the assistant principal left his office, informed the SRO, who was waiting outside the principal’s office, that D.Z. admitted to the wrongdoing. The SRO then entered the office, and without providing any Miranda warning, contacting D.Z.’s parents or recording any statement, confirmed D.Z.’s confession and informed him that he would be criminally charged. Ultimately, the juvenile court entered a finding of criminal mischief and D.Z. was placed on probation.
In a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeals set aside the juvenile court’s finding. Noting that “the educational landscape has undergone some significant changes,” the Court veered from prior decisions that allowed incriminating evidence gained under similar circumstance. Previously, courts viewed this type of investigation as conducted for educational purposes and students were not entitled to any warnings, even if evidence was subsequently used in a juvenile or criminal proceeding.
Highlighting that student safety is always a primary concern, the Court recognized that schools today experience increased, and in some cases, daily uniformed police presence and greater reliance on zero tolerance disciplinary policy. To maintain safety and discipline, the Court pointed out that school corporations have shifted from traditional discipline measures to greater reliance on the justice system processes. This shift creates significant collaboration with law enforcement authorities and likely greater chances of criminal prosecutions. Additionally, the Court observed educators now receive training on effective interrogation techniques, some of which is offered by the state department of education.
Police officers cannot free themselves from constitutional limits by having administrators conduct critical questioning, recited the Court. When a student is in a custodial interrogation, whether conducted by an educator or officer, the student is entitled to constitutional protection. A custodial interrogation occurs when the student reasonably believes that he or she is not free to leave and the questioning is reasonably designed to obtain an incriminating statement or confession. It does not matter whether the questioning occurs at the school or police station, whether it is conducted by an educator or SRO, or whether or not the student is under arrest. The Court did include a portion of a five year old Kentucky Supreme Court decision that clearly states Miranda warnings do not apply “if the matter purely concerns school discipline,” such as a suspension or expulsion.
While your building administrators need not provide Miranda warnings to every wrongdoing student before disciplinary action, for the time being, you may want to consult with your local law enforcement officials and prosecuting attorney’s office on how to coordinate questioning to avoid the exclusion of potentially valuable evidence in a criminal matter. We say “for the time being” because presently pending before the Indiana Supreme Court is an appeal owning similar factual basis: an educator, with the guidance of a police officer, questioned a student and obtained incriminating evidence, without providing Miranda type warnings. We will continue to monitor that Supreme Court appeal and provide you any update when a final decision is rendered.
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.