Carolina v. Commonwealth

• Citation: 396 S.W.3d 852
• Decision Date: 25 April 2013
• Docket Number: No. 2011–SC–000271–DG.,2011–SC–000271–DG.
• Parties: N.C., A Child Under Eighteen, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)

396 S.W.3d 852

N.C., A Child Under Eighteen, Appellant

v.COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

No. 2011–SC–000271–DG.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

April 25, 2013.

Robert Kenneth Strong, Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy, Renee Sara Vandenwallbake, Assistant Public Advocate, Department of Public Advocacy, Frankfort, KY, for appellant.

Jack Conway, Attorney General, Terry Lane Geoghegan, Commonwealth Attorney, John Samuel Kelley V, Special Asst. Attorney General, Bardstown, KY, for appellee.

Opinion of the Court by Justice NOBLE.

This case is before the Court on the question of whether N.C., a juvenile, is entitled to suppression of a confession in which he admitted giving hydrocodone to another student. The statement was made directly in answer to questions from the school assistant principal, who was working in conjunction with a deputy sheriff (School Resource Officer) who was also present. The School Resource Officer did not read the juvenile his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). This Court recognizes that questioning by school officials is relevant and necessary to student discipline and safety, and that such matters are not impacted by Miranda when only school discipline is involved. But this Court holds that any incriminating statements elicited under the circumstances of this case, with a school official working with the police on a case involving a criminal offense, the police failing to give Miranda warnings, and the juvenile being in custody, are subject to suppression under the Unified Juvenile Code and the Fifth Amendment. With this rule in mind, the Court concludes that N.C. was in custody when he was questioned and that his statements must be suppressed.

I. Background

A teacher at Nelson County High School found an empty prescription pill bottle for hydrocodone with N.C.'s name on it on the floor in the boy's bathroom. He turned this in to the school office, and the occurrence was investigated to some degree before N.C. was questioned. Steven D. Campbell, a Nelson County deputy sheriff assigned to the high school as the School Resource Officer (SRO), testified at the suppression hearing in this case that the assistant principal, Michael Glass, knew that N.C. had given some pills away before he and the assistant principal went to N.C.'s classroom and took him out of class. Both the officer and the assistant principal knew that the prescription was for hydrocodone based on the bottle that was found. They also knew the name of the student who brought the pill bottle to the school, also based on the information on the bottle.

N.C. was taken into the office by the assistant principal and the SRO, and the door was closed. The assistant principal first asked N.C. if he had any idea why he was there; N.C. said he did not. Also according to the SRO's testimony, the assistant principal then told N.C. about the pill bottle, and N.C. said, “I did something stupid.” The assistant principal explained about finding the bottle in the boy's bathroom, and said that “it was told that he [N.C.] had given some pills away.” N.C. then admitted that he had given two pills to a friend of his, explaining that he had had his wisdom teeth removed, and that the prescription was for pain. The assistant principal asked him how many pills he had brought, and N.C. admitted to having three, one of which he had taken and two that he had given to the other student. He also told the assistant principal that the other student had been insistent about N.C. giving him some pills. The assistant principal told N.C. that he was subject to school discipline (in fact he was subsequently expelled). He then left to check on the other student while the SRO told N.C. that he would be charged with a crime and explained the criminal consequences.

The assistant principal admitted at the suppression hearing that he knew how the SRO operated in criminal investigations, since this was not their “first go around” interrogating juveniles together. The officer also testified about what the assistant principal usually did in questioning a student in the officer's presence. Clearly, the assistant principal and the officer had a loose routine they followed for questioning students when there was suspected criminal activity.

The SRO further testified that he was present throughout, and participated in the discussion. He was either wearing his uniform or a shirt that said “Sheriff's Office,” and was armed with a gun. He was assigned to the high school from the sheriff's office, and had been there daily for the last four years. It was his decision to file charges against N.C. At no time did the SRO tell N.C. that he was free to leave or give him any version of the Miranda warnings, though the officer obviously understood that the hydrocodone was a scheduled narcotic, as evidenced by the charges he filed in juvenile court. He did tell N.C. and his mother that N.C. would be charged criminally, both when N.C.'s mother was called and when she came to pick him up from school and was given a copy of the citation. At the time, it was school policy to send an accused student home, and proceed with any charges in the juvenile court.

N.C. was charged with possessing and dispensing a controlled substance, a Class D felony, in a juvenile petition under KRS 610.010. In the juvenile petition, the officer stated that N.C. “has admitted to the affiant to giving two (2) of his prescription pills (Hydrocodone, Schedule II drug for pain relief) to another student at Nelson County High School.”

The official Preliminary Inquiry form used by the court-designated worker, Monica Felty, indicated that N.C. was “classified” as a Youthful Offender because he had attained age 16 at the time of the commission of this offense and had been previously adjudicated as a Public Offender for the felony offense of third-degree burglary.

After hearing testimony, the trial court denied N.C.'s motion to suppress. On December 28, 2009, N.C. entered a conditional guilty plea to the charge, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion. Because he had turned 18 prior to the disposition date of February 28, 2010, N.C. was sentenced to 45 days in jail, 30 hours of community service, and an additional 27 hours of community service in lieu of court costs. This sentence was stayed pending any appeals. He appealed to the Nelson Circuit Court, which affirmed the lower court decision. A timely motion for discretionary review was filed at the Court of Appeals, which denied review. N.C. then filed for discretionary review at this Court, which was granted on February 15, 2012.

II. Analysis

The issue before the Court is whether a student is entitled to the benefit of the Miranda warnings before being questioned by a school official in conjunction with a law enforcement officer, the SRO, when he is subject to criminal charges in district court or, as in this case, adult felony charges in circuit court. The SRO, a deputy sheriff assigned to the school in a full-time capacity by the local sheriff's office, participated in the process by going with the assistant principal, taking the student out of class, escorting him to the principal's office, and was present in a closed room while the assistant principal questioned the student. He summed up the result of the questioning, charged the student with a Class D felony, and issued a citation on the spot.

This is a highly relevant and far reaching question that presents a nexus between the rights of a juvenile accused of a crime and the needs of school officials to maintain order in the schools and protection for the other children in their care on the school premises or during school activities. Even though most of the law which governs these questions has been applicable for some time, the framing of the questions has changed over time with the advent of increased criminal activity by students in the school setting and local law enforcement officers being assigned to and working daily in the schools.

A. When Miranda applies

Miranda established a two-part threshold before the warnings are required. Setting up the analysis, the Court first stated “the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602. The Court then clarified that “custodial interrogation ... mean[s] questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” Id. The referenced procedural safeguards are the well-known warnings. Thus the two-step threshold requires both questioning by law enforcement and being held in custody. When it is the police or other law enforcement officer who is doing the questioning, the first threshold is obviously met.

But since the rule was set out in Miranda, the Court has held that in some situations persons who are not law enforcement will be treated as such for Miranda purposes. In Mathis v. United States, 391 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1503, 20 L.Ed.2d 381 (1968), an IRS agent obtained incriminating statements from a defendant in-custody for other reasons without giving him the Miranda warnings in the course of a routine civil tax investigation. Noting that such routine questioning frequently could lead to criminal charges, the Court found that the threshold for giving Miranda warnings had been met because the defendant's freedom was restrained (he was in jail and not free to leave) and the IRS agent was acting as law enforcement by asking the questions which led to his criminal charges. Id. at 4, 88 S.Ct. 1503.

We have followed this reasoning in Buster v. Commonwealth, 364 S.W.3d 157 (Ky.2012), where we held that a non-law enforcement person was acting on behalf of...