The Assistant Principal's Office

Custody depends on whether a reasonable person in the student's position would have felt free to leave, and under J.D.B. v. North Carolina a juvenile's age is part of that analysis. The setting here looks custodial: the SRO is in uniform and armed, the door is closed, the SRO is positioned between the student and the exit, the student is not free to leave, and the questioning lasts 25 minutes. The student is 14 and has an IQ of 70 and an IEP, facts that affect how he would perceive the situation. The school setting does not automatically make the interview non-custodial. If the SRO was conducting a law-enforcement interrogation about a threat and a theft, Miranda warnings were likely required before the admissions. The absence of warnings creates a strong suppression issue. The report should not describe the interview as a casual school conversation if the facts show otherwise.

It can, but not automatically. School officials may question students for school-safety and disciplinary reasons without Miranda warnings because they are not law enforcement. The analysis changes when the SRO, acting as law enforcement, directs or dominates the questioning. Here the assistant principal asked the SRO to question the student, the SRO did the questioning, and the assistant principal was present. A court will ask who was in control, what was asked, and whether the school official was acting as an arm of the police. The school's separate interest in threat assessment does not erase the SRO's obligations. The SRO should have clarified his role at the outset, documented who asked each question, and obtained parental notification consistent with agency policy and Kentucky juvenile procedure. The threat itself still had to be investigated for school safety, but the investigative interview and the disciplinary interview should not be blurred.

The SRO should have planned the interview before starting. If the student was in custody, the SRO should have given Miranda warnings in age-appropriate language, stopped if the student invoked rights, and contacted a parent or guardian as policy requires. The SRO should have avoided blocking the door and should have made clear whether the student was free to leave. Because the student had an IEP and a low IQ, the SRO should have used simple questions, avoided leading questions, and documented any accommodations. The report should record the exact time, duration, who was present, the door position, the student's statements, and every question asked by the SRO versus the assistant principal. It should note that no warnings were given and why. The SRO should also preserve any notes, recordings, and the social media evidence. The county attorney needs the full picture to assess voluntariness and suppression risk.