If a minor is arrested, do they have the right to call their parents before making a statement?

Practically speaking, a police officer does not have to let a minor do anything – even make a phone call – when they are arrested. However, any statements made may not be admissible in court if the minor asked to talk to his or her parents first and the police officer did not let them do so.

In a 1967 landmark decision, the Supreme Court determined that juveniles arrested for a crime do have a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. According to this ruling, any statements a minor makes to a police officer must be voluntary before they can be used in court.

Whether or not a statement is voluntary will factor in, but to what degree will depend on the jurisdiction in which the minor lives. Some states have strict rules concerning the circumstances under which a police officer can take admissible statements from a juvenile. In these jurisdictions, if a parent or other interested adult is not present during questioning, any statements taken will not be admissible in court. So in these states, a police officer would not only allow, but would require the presence of your parents before questioning a minor.

Other states use a totality of the circumstances test after statements are taken to determine if the statements are voluntary. The courts there will consider a minor’s age, education, prior contact with the juvenile justice system, and presence of an interested adult, among other factors, to determine whether or not they voluntarily gave their statements.

A police officer in any of these states will not require the presence of parents, since this is only one among many factors the court will look at to see if a minor knew what he or she was doing when talking to the police officer. In this case, the police officer does not necessarily have to let a minor consult with his or her parents before taking their statements, even if state law requires that an officer let the parents know their son or daughter was arrested.

Case Studies: Rights of Minors to Call Parents Before Making Statements

Case Study 1: The Importance of Parental Involvement

The law mandates that a police officer must allow the presence of a parent or guardian during the questioning of a minor. Sarah, a 17-year-old, was arrested on suspicion of vandalism.

When she requested to speak with her parents before making a statement, the police officer respected her rights and allowed her to make the call. Sarah’s parents arrived at the police station and consulted with her before she decided whether to provide a statement.

This highlights the importance of parental involvement in protecting a minor’s rights during the legal process.

Case Study 2: Evaluating Voluntariness

The State follows a totality of the circumstances test to determine the voluntariness of a minor’s statements. Jake, a 16-year-old, was apprehended in connection with a theft.

During the questioning, the police officer informed Jake of his Miranda rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. Although Jake did not request to speak with his parents, the court evaluated the circumstances surrounding his statement.

They considered factors such as his age, maturity level, and understanding of the consequences. The court ultimately determined that Jake’s statement was voluntary and admissible in court, even though his parents were not present during the questioning.

Case Study 3: Varying State Laws

In State, there is no specific requirement for parental presence during police questioning of a minor. Lily, a 15-year-old, was arrested for a drug-related offense. Although Lily expressed her desire to consult with her parents before making a statement, the police officer proceeded with the questioning without notifying her parents.

In State, the absence of parental involvement does not automatically invalidate a minor’s statement. The court later considered Lily’s understanding of her rights and the circumstances surrounding the questioning.

After determining that Lily voluntarily provided the statement, the court deemed it admissible in the case.