During the initiation of the custodial interrogation of the respondent, the investigating officers advised the Michael C. of his Miranda Rights and asked if he would like to have an attorney present during the questioning process. Michael C. advised the officers of his desire to have his probation officer present but did not request the presence of a parent or attorney. As indicated via the recorded interview transcript, the officers advised the respondent that they would not be able to contact the probation …show more content…
The Court’s assertion that the probation officer was a person of authority / parens patriae and therefore holds “a position as a trusted guardian figure in a juvenile's life that would make it normal for the juvenile to turn to the officer when apprehended by the police, and was also based on the state law requirement that the officer represent the juvenile's interests”. Additionally, the court asserted that because the state had failed to meet its burden of proving the request did not proclaim the respondent’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege, the evidence should not have been