Letting parents know when police question kids

Michelle Roberts was shocked and angry when her 9-year-old son returned from school one day two years ago and told her that he had been pulled from his classroom, brought to the office and questioned, alone, by a police officer. The boy had been accused of threatening a classmate — a charge, Roberts contends, that the other boy ultimately admitted was false. Roberts was furious that no one at the school called her or her husband to tell them of the interrogation, and no school employee sat in on the questioning. Her son, she says, was asked if he was “the school bully” and was threatened with being sent to juvenile hall if he didn't tell the truth. “I don't think any child deserves to be interrogated and questioned without a parent being notified,” Roberts told me last week. “The sad thing is that no one even told us that it had happened. If my son hadn't told us, we wouldn't have known.”

Now Roberts is backing a bill passed by the Legislature and sent to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that would place strict new limits on the ability of police to question youths at school without the knowledge of their parents. The measure is supported by an unusual coalition of civil-rights activists and pro-family conservatives. It is sponsored by the American Civil Liberties Union and backed by, among others, the California chapter of the Eagle Forum. Orlean Koehle, the Eagle Forum's California president, says she can't remember the last time she endorsed a proposal from the ACLU. But she strongly supports this bill. “I firmly believe in parental rights,” she said. “Parents should definitely be involved if their children are going to be interrogated by police.” The bill, AB 1012 by Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg, a Sacramento Democrat, would establish separate procedures for questioning elementary and high school students. For younger children, the principal would have to take “immediate steps” to obtain the oral consent of a parent or guardian before making a pupil available for questions by the police. If the parent requests that the pupil not be questioned until he or she can be present, the interrogation must be delayed until the parent arrives. If a parent or guardian cannot be reached after “reasonable efforts” are undertaken for up to an hour, the student could be questioned, but only in the presence of a school official. The parents then must be notified and the staff member who was present must be made available to inform the parent of what took place. For high school students, the bill would require the principal to inform the student, if he or she is younger than 18, of the right to have a parent or guardian present during questioning. If a parent or guardian cannot be reached, the student would have the right to select a school staff member to sit in on the questioning. The measure also provides for exceptions. If the police officer believes that a delay in questioning will “materially interfere” with the investigation and pose a substantial risk that a suspect may not be apprehended in a timely manner, or if a delay could pose a risk of immediate personal injury or substantial property damage, the questioning could proceed before a parent is contacted. Also, if the investigation involves possible criminal activity by the parent, including child abuse, the student could be questioned without the parent's knowledge.

Despite the exceptions, the bill is still opposed by a wide range of law enforcement groups whose members say the restrictions would hinder their investigations. But Steinberg says he believes the bill strikes the proper balance between protecting the rights of students and parents and providing police officers the tools they need to do their jobs. “For a child in that situation, who may not be the perpetrator and might just have been a witness, it can be a very traumatic experience,” he said. “We are always talking about the lack of parental involvement in a child's life. At a moment like this, where you are subjected to a formal interview regarding a potential crime, you ought to be able to have a parent involved.”

Steinberg's bill has an interesting history. It made it almost all the way through the legislative process in 2003, finally passing the state Senate with bipartisan support late in the session. But rather than putting the measure to a vote in the Assembly, where it was certain to pass, Steinberg shelved it. He and the bill's supporters feared that then-Gov. Gray Davis, fighting for his political life in the recall election, would veto the bill to appease the law enforcement interests that opposed it. This year, Steinberg took up the bill and it passed easily and was sent to the governor. As of late Monday, it hadn't been acted on by Schwarzenegger, a sign that it might be among those bills over which the governor is struggling. Steinberg, the ACLU, the Eagle Forum and other backers of the bill are hoping that this governor will confront a powerful lobby with the courage that they feared the last governor lacked.

Daniel Weintraub
28 September 2004

http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/10902639p-11820234c.html
 

home / Previous viewpoint