CASE LAW REVIEW
The following two cases have set the foundation for what a juvenile police officer must verify and accomplish prior to and during an interrogation:
People v Plummer – 306 Ill. App. 3d 574 (1st D 6th Div): This case highlights the duties of a juvenile officer who is preparing to interview a minor, even though there are no statutory definitions of what these duties may be.
A juvenile police officer must verify whether a parent, guardian, or adult with whom a minor resides has been notified of the minor’s arrest and will determine if the parent or adult wishes to confer with the juvenile prior to questioning. If the parent or interested adult wishes to confer with the juvenile, the youth officer should see that the questioning ceases until they can confer. The juvenile police officer will verify with the juvenile that he or she has been given his or her Miranda warning, that he or she understands the Miranda warning, and that, if it applies, he or she may be tried as an adult. The juvenile police officer will also ensure that the juvenile is properly treated, i.e. he or she is fed, allowed to rest, if needed, given access to washroom facilities, is not confined with adults, and is not coerced in any way.
In re G.O. – 191 Ill. 2d 26 (2000): This case highlights issues related to the voluntariness of statements, parental access to a minor, and a minor’s understanding of his or her Miranda rights. Section 705 ILCS 405/5-405 requires that a parent or guardian be notified of the custody and arrest of a minor. It is important to document all conversations with a parent or guardian prior to, during, and after questioning a minor. In this specific case, a police detective documented conversations with G.O.’s mother in which he advised that her son was under investigation for homicide. The detective documented the mother’s response and then intermittently interrogated the minor, with a juvenile police officer present during the entire interrogation, from 11:00 p.m. through 3:30 a.m.
Factors the court considered when determining whether the minor’s confession was voluntary included the defendant’s age, intelligence level, background, mental capacity, life experiences, education level, and physical condition at the time of questioning. The legality and duration of the juvenile’s detention, the duration of the questioning, and alleged physical and/or mental abuse by police, including the threats or promises, were also considered. The main question of this case was whether or not the minor had opportunity to confer with a parent or other concerned adult. The Supreme Court ultimately found the minor’s statement to be voluntary.
