Page 82 - Police Officer's Guide 2013

responsible than adults,; that they often lack the experience, perspective, and judgment to recognize and avoid
choices that could be detrimental to them,; that they are more vulnerable or susceptible to . . .outside pressures
than adults. Addressing the specific context of police interrogation, we have observed that events that would
leave a man cold and unimpressed can overawe and overwhelm a lad in his early teens. ([N]o matter how
sophisticated, a juvenile subject of police interrogation cannot be compared to an adult subject). Describing
no one child in particular, these observations restate what any parent knowsindeed, what any person
knowsabout children generally. (Citations omitted.)

The opinion goes on at some length to discuss the many historical and legal examples of children
receiving different or preferential treatment due solely to their age.

We hold that so long as the childs age was known to the officer at the time of police questioning, or would have
been objectively apparent to a reasonable officer, its inclusion in the custody analysis is consistent with the
objective nature of that test. This is not to say that a childs age will be a determinative, or even a significant,
factor in every case. ..It is, however, a reality that courts cannot simply ignore. Just as police officers are
competent to account for other objective circumstances that are a matter of degree such as the length of
questioning or the number of officers present, so too are they competent to evaluate the effect of relative age.
Indeed, they are competent to do so even though an interrogation room lacks the reflective atmosphere of a
[jury] deliberation room, To hold, as the State requests, that a childs age is never relevant to whether a suspect
has been taken into custodyand thus to ignore the very real differences between children and adults would
be to deny children the full scope of the procedural safeguards that Miranda guarantees to adults.

The case was remanded to the State Court to consider the age of the detained suspect in determining the
custody question.

J. D.B., Petitioner v. North Carolina, 131 S.Ct. 2394, 79 USLW 4504 (2011) U.S. Supreme Court.

VOLUNTARY CONFESSION PROMISES BY INTERROGATING OFFICERS.

On April 23, 2007, Hernandez used a large rock to break into Petras Boutique. He took several purses,
shirts, and dresses (valued in excess of $13,000) from the store. The next day, while conducting surveillance on
a house, San Antonio Police Detectives Guy Durden and Tony Arcuri encountered Hernandez and found some of
the items he had stolen in his girlfriends vehicle, which was parked in front of the house. Detectives Durden and
Arcuri then handcuffed Hernandez in front of the girlfriends three daughters. Hernandez admitted to the officers
that he had stolen all of the items in the vehicle and asked that nothing happen to his girlfriend or her children.
Detectives Durden and Arcuri took Hernandez to the police station where Hernandez admitted during a video-
recorded interview with Detective Durden that he had broken into Petras Boutique and had stolen several purses
and articles of clothing. He also told Detective Durden where many of the other items taken from Petras
Boutique could be found. Many of these items were returned to Petra Williams, the owner of Petras Boutique.
The State charged Hernandez with burglary and theft.

A statement is involuntary if it is obtained by a positive promise of some benefit to the accused that is
made or sanctioned by someone in authority, and [is] of such an influential nature that it would likely cause a
defendant to speak untruthfully. (Citation omitted) After reviewing all of the evidence at Hernandezs
suppression hearing, the trial court found that the totality of the circumstances indicated that Hernandez
voluntarily gave his statement. The court also found that Detective Durden made no improper promise that likely
led Hernandez to implicate himself falsely and that Hernandezs statement was not obtained by compulsion or
persuasion.

A Peace Officer’s Guide to Texas Law 75 2013 Edition