The School Resource Officer and the Missing $80
At 10:20 a.m., a uniformed school resource officer is asked by a principal to question 15-year-old D.M. about $80 missing from a locker room. The principal closes the office door and says, 'You're not leaving until we get this straightened out.' The SRO sits between D.M. and the door, does not give Miranda warnings, and asks, 'Where's the money?' D.M. says, 'I took it, it's in my backpack.' The SRO then opens the backpack and finds $80. D.M.'s mother was not called. D.M. has no prior record and is in special education for an emotional impairment.
1. Was D.M. in custody for Miranda purposes? Apply the objective test and consider age and the school setting.
Read the worked answer
Rule: Custody exists when, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would not feel free to leave or would not feel free to terminate the interrogation. Under J.D.B. v. North Carolina, a juvenile's age is relevant when it would affect how a reasonable person of that age would perceive the situation. Application: The closed door, the principal's statement that D.M. was 'not leaving,' the SRO positioned between D.M. and the exit, and the uniformed officer's direct accusation-like question all point toward custody. The school setting does not automatically make questioning non-custodial, especially when school officials and law enforcement act together to restrict the student. A court would likely find D.M. in custody, so Miranda warnings were required before the custodial interrogation. Without them, the statement is vulnerable to suppression.
2. What should the SRO have done differently before questioning D.M. and before searching the backpack?
Read the worked answer
Application: The SRO should have clarified whether the school was conducting a disciplinary inquiry or a criminal investigation. For a criminal investigation, the officer should have avoided threats and coercive confinement, given Miranda warnings if custody was contemplated, and made reasonable efforts to contact a parent or guardian. The backpack search is separate: school officials may search a student on reasonable suspicion under New Jersey v. T.L.O., but an SRO acting in a law-enforcement capacity should not assume that school-official authority automatically applies. The officer needed consent, a warrant, or a recognized exception before opening the backpack. D.M.'s emotional impairment and special-education status also make voluntariness and comprehension central; questioning should have been simple, documented, and free of promises or threats.
3. How should a court evaluate the voluntariness of D.M.'s confession? Identify the factors that matter most here.
Read the worked answer
Rule: Voluntariness is judged from the totality of the circumstances, including the suspect's age, education, intelligence, emotional state, experience with police, length of questioning, presence or absence of parents, and any threats or promises. Application: D.M. is 15, has no record, and has an emotional impairment. Those facts weigh heavily against a finding of knowing and voluntary waiver if the questioning was coercive. Parental absence is not automatically fatal, but it is a significant factor. The principal's 'not leaving' statement and the SRO's position blocking the door increase the coercive cast. A court could still find the statement voluntary if the questioning was brief, calm, and free of deception, but the state bears the burden. The safer course is to suppress or litigate the statement and to avoid relying on it without corroboration.