CASE LAW REVIEW

In re W.C. – 167 Ill. App. 2nd 307: This case essentially warns officers to be careful when using words and phrases to explain Miranda rights. In W.C., the courts recognized that a 13-year-old being questioned was at a 3rd grade educational level and, more critically, understood the English language at a 1st grade level. Language chosen to explain Miranda was confined to simple one or two syllable words and easily understandable phases, such as:

“You don’t have to talk with me if you don’t want to.”

“Anything you say to me, I will tell a judge.”

“A lawyer is a person who helps people.”

“The police have lawyers who help them. You can have a lawyer to help you too.”

It is important to remember to document the specific terminology used when giving Miranda warnings. A juvenile officer’s goal must always be fulfillment of U.S. Supreme Court standards regarding Miranda warnings. Officers must ensure minors understand their rights by having the minors explain those rights back to the officers, who then should document this understanding as it is stated by the minor.

Many cases have been lost or won in court based upon Miranda issues. Specifically, was a minor advised of his or her rights and given Miranda warnings? Equally important is whether or not the minor understands his or her rights and Miranda warnings. Remember, he or she may understand the words being spoken but not understand concepts like police interrogations, rights to an attorney, etc…

Law enforcement officers and juvenile police officers should always be extremely conscientious when investigating, arresting, and interrogating juvenile offenders. Staying abreast of the most current case law and participating in supplemental training programs will steer officers away from the pitfalls that can affect their careers adversely.

Finally, it is strongly suggested that officers who have questions about specific law enforcement procedures, the rights of individuals, or case law contact their local State’s Attorney’s office for assistance.