State v. Doe, 22797

• Decision Date: 17 July 1997
• Docket Number: No. 22797,22797
• Citation: 130 Idaho 811,948 P.2d 166
• Parties: , 122 Ed. Law Rep. 820 In the Interest of John Doe, a child under eighteen years of age. STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. John DOE, a child under eighteen years of age, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals

Page 166

948 P.2d 166

130 Idaho 811, 122 Ed. Law Rep. 820

In the Interest of John Doe, a child under eighteen years of age.

STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. John DOE, a child under eighteen years of age, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 22797

Court of Appeals of Idaho.

July 17, 1997

Review Denied Dec. 24, 1997.

Alan E. Trimming, Ada County Public Defender; Erik J. Glatte, Deputy Public Defender (argued), Boise, for Defendant-Appellant.

Alan G. Lance, Attorney General; Michael A. Henderson, Deputy Attorney General (argued), Boise, for Plaintiff-Respondent.

LANSING, Judge.

This case involves the admissibility of incriminating statements made by a ten-year-old boy, John Doe, while he was being questioned by a police officer at the boy's elementary school. The issue we address is whether the child's statements to the officer should be suppressed because they were made during a custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings. We hold that suppression is required.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In the fall of 1994, John Doe was a fifth grade student at Jackson Elementary School in Boise. A detective in the Boise Police Department was assigned to Jackson Elementary School as a School Resource Officer (SRO). The SRO had authority to speak to students during school hours concerning delinquent behavior occurring at school or in the community. Doe had behavioral problems The magistrate granted a motion to suppress Doe's confession, concluding that it was given involuntarily. The State appealed the magistrate's determination to the district court where the suppression order was reversed.

at school during the semester, and both the principal and the SRO had previous disciplinary interaction with him on a number of occasions. On September 26, 1994, Doe's mother contacted the SRO to advise him about allegations that her son had sexually molested a younger girl. The SRO was assigned to investigate the case and, on October 21, 1994, made arrangements for Doe to be brought to him for an interview. Doe was removed from his class and escorted to the meeting by a member of the school staff. The interview occurred in a faculty room at the school with only the SRO and Doe present. The SRO was not in uniform, but his police badge was visible on his belt and Doe knew him to be a police officer. The SRO told Doe about the purpose of the interview and told him that he was not being arrested. The SRO did not advise Doe of his Miranda rights. After Doe admitted that he had sexually touched the victim, the SRO told Doe that he was free to leave and return to class. Doe was not asked to make a written statement, nor was the interview recorded. The SRO told Doe that a police report would be filed, and a petition was subsequently filed under the Youth Rehabilitation Act (Y.R.A.), charging Doe with lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor, I.C. § 18-1508.

On further appeal to this Court, Doe asserts that (1) neither the district court nor this Court has authority to hear the State's appeal from the magistrate's decision because the suppression order is not appealable; (2) Doe was in custody at the time of his conversation with the police officer and therefore the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), should have been given; and (3) even if Doe was not in custody and Miranda is therefore inapplicable, Doe's confession was given involuntarily.

ANALYSIS

A. I.C. § 16-1819 Did Not Preclude the State's Appeal of the Magistrate's Suppression Order.

We address first Doe's contention that the magistrate's suppression order was not appealable. After the oral argument on appeal to the district court, Doe filed a motion to dismiss, contending that the State's appeal was not authorized under then-existing Idaho Code § 16-1819, ¹ which provided in part:

All orders and final judgments made by any court in matters affecting a child within the purview of this act may be appealed by the child. A decision by the court pursuant to section 16-1806, Idaho Code, not to waive jurisdiction under the youth rehabilitation act over the child may be appealed by the state. Appeals shall be reviewed as provided by the appellate rules of the supreme court of Idaho, except no undertaking shall be required. (Emphasis added.)

Seizing upon the language emphasized above, Doe argues that the State may appeal only from a decision not to waive jurisdiction under the Y.R.A. We believe such a reading of the statute to be too restrictive. As the district court explained:

The statute specifically gives the State the right to pursue an appeal of an order which would not otherwise be appealable. Nothing within the language of the statute suggests that by granting the State the right to appeal the denial of a waiver, the legislature intended to preclude any other appeal by the state.

Proceedings under the Y.R.A. are governed by the Idaho Juvenile Rules. Those rules do not expressly state in what circumstances an appeal is permitted. However, I.J.R. 28, in effect in 1994, provided that "The Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply to Y.R.A. proceedings to the extent that they are not inconsistent with these rules, statutes or the law." ² Thus, Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 83(a), which addresses the right of appeal from the magistrate division to the district court, must be consulted. That rule provides in part:

An appeal must first be taken to the district judges division of the district court from any of the following judgments, orders or decisions rendered by a magistrate: ...

(2) Any of the orders, judgments or decrees in an action in the magistrate's division which would be appealable from the district court to the Supreme Court under Rule 11 of the Idaho Appellate Rules.

Idaho Appellate Rule 11, referenced in I.R.C.P. 83(a), authorizes appeals from orders granting a motion to suppress evidence in criminal cases. I.A.R. 11(c)(7). Although Y.R.A. proceedings are not criminal actions, they are quasi-criminal in many aspects, and particularly so in regard to the suppression of evidence. Therefore, we conclude that the right to appeal from an order granting a motion to suppress evidence, conferred upon the State by I.A.R. 11(c)(7), was made applicable to Y.R.A. proceedings by former I.J.R. 28 and I.R.C.P. 83(a). It follows that the district court correctly denied Doe's motion to dismiss the appeal.

B. Doe Was in Custody for the Purposes of Miranda v. Arizona

In reviewing an intermediate appellate decision of the district court, we examine the record before the magistrate. Although we consult the district court's decision for the insight it may provide, it is the magistrate's decision, and the record upon which it was based, that is the focus of our review. State v. Carr, 128 Idaho 181, 183, 911 P.2d 774, 776 (Ct.App.1995); State v. Hardman, 120 Idaho 667, 668, 818 P.2d 782, 783 (Ct.App.1991). Our examination of the magistrate's suppression order is bifurcated. Where findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, we will not disturb them; however, we independently determine whether the constitutional requirements are satisfied in light of the facts found. State v. Whiteley, 124 Idaho 261, 264, 858 P.2d 800, 803 (Ct.App.1993).

We first address the State's contention that the magistrate failed to apply the proper legal standards in granting Doe's motion to suppress statements made to the SRO. The State asserts that there were essentially two questions to be decided: (1) was the child in custody for purpose of Miranda, supra, requiring that his statements be suppressed because of the absence of Miranda warnings; and (2) regardless of whether the interview was custodial or non-custodial, was there police coercion that overbore the will of the child so that his statements must be deemed involuntary? According to the State, the magistrate confused these two issues and did not distinguish the legal standards applicable to each in conducting his analysis.

The State is correct in its observation that the issue whether Miranda warnings had to be given prior to an interrogation and the issue whether a confession was voluntary are separate and distinct, stemming from different constitutional provisions. The requirement of Miranda warnings is based upon the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 463-469, 86 S.Ct. at 1621-1625. It is operative whenever the person being interrogated actually is in custody or is subjected to a restraint on his liberty of a degree associated with a formal arrest. New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 655, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 2631, 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984); California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 103 S.Ct. 3517, 77 L.Ed.2d 1275 (1983). The doctrine disallowing the use of involuntary confessions, on the other hand, is grounded in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and it applies to any confession that was the product of police coercion, either physical or psychological, or that was otherwise obtained by methods offensive to due process. Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 106 S.Ct. 445, 88 L.Ed.2d 405 (1985); Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 304, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 1290, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985); Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503 514-515, 83 S.Ct. 1336, 1343-1344, 10 L.Ed.2d 513 (1963). As the State asserts, the magistrate here did not adequately differentiate his analyses of these two potential grounds for suppression.

In addition, in reaching his decision to suppress Doe's statements, the magistrate gave considerable weight to certain factors that did not merit such attention. These include the so-called "focus of the investigation" standard for evaluating whether a suspect was in custody. The magistrate held that when an investigation has focused upon a juvenile as a suspect, the police must advise the juvenile of his Miranda rights at the outset of the interrogation. This standard was rejected, however, in Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318,...