AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Civil Liability of
Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel
Interrogation: Children
Monthly
Law Journal Article: Civil
Liability for Intentional Violations of Miranda. Part One: Liability Considerations,
2009 (7) AELE Mo. L. J. 501.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Civil
Liability for Intentional Violations of Miranda. Part Two: Criminal Admissibility,2009
(8) AELE Mo. L. J. 501.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Civil
Liability for Coercive Interrogation, 2010 (3) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
Monthly Law Journal Article:
Greene
v. Camreta - The Ninth Circuit's Ruling on Questioning Minors in Abuse
Investigations, 2010 (6) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
Monthly Law Journal Article:
Civil
Liability for Improper Interrogation of Minors--Part 1,
2010 (7) AELE Mo. L. J. 101
Monthly Law Journal Article:
Civil
Liability for Improper Interrogation of Minors--Part 2,
2010 (8) AELE Mo. L. J. 101
Monthly Law Journal Article: Beguiling
a Confession – Subverting Miranda, 2011 (7) AELE Mo. L. J. 401
A family member
told state Children's Protective Services that a father was neglecting
his son. This resulted in the agency's social worker interviewing the child
at his elementary school with no court order or parental consent. The social
worker then interviewed the father, who maintained that both his marijuana
use and prescription drug use were medically authorized. A second interview
of the child was conducted at the school with his paternal grandmother
present, but still without parental consent or a court order. The social
worker then obtained a court order placing the child in protective custody
pending a hearing, and took the child from school. A judge returned the
boy to his father, but ordered no more marijuana use and drug testing of
the father. A federal appeals court found that the social worker was entitled
to absolute and qualified immunity on claims that he interviewed the child
without parental consent or a court order, allegedly stated falsehoods
in the petition for the protective custody, and improperly removed the
child from school. Barber v. Miller, #15-1404, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 22200,
2015 Fed. App. 296P (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
A federal appeals
court has upheld a $7 million damage award against two police officers
who were accused of having framed a mentally challenged man with an IQ
of 67 for the brutal rape, multiple stabbings, and murder of a 58-year-old
woman. He was exonerated of any involvement in the crime through DNA testing
after almost 26 years in prison. The officers allegedly spent hours alone
with him after his arrest in 1983, telling the then 15-year-old boy information
about the crime scene and then "tricking" him into repeating
the information back in a manner that looked ike a confession. The jury's
award is against the officers personally, with one liable for $4 million
and the other for $3 million. Spadaro v. City of Miramar, #13-14884, 2015
U.S. App. Lexis 932 (Unpub. 11th Cir.). The facts of the case are covered
in a prior decision. Spadaro v. City of Miramar, #11-61607, 2013 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 16714 (S.D. Fla.).
The U.S. Supreme Court has vacated a federal
appeals court ruling that the decision to seize and interrogate a minor
at school about suspected sexual abuse without a warrant, court order,
exigent circumstances or parental consent was unconstitutional, in violation
of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that it had jurisdiction
to hear an appeal of the appeals court's holding by the defendants despite
the fact that they were granted qualified immunity from liability. The
Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the rule adopted by the federal
appeals court as to the interrogation of juveniles at school, but vacated
the ruling as moot since the minor has moved to another state and therefore
no longer has a stake in a ruling concerning the practices of California
governmental employees. Camreta v. Greene, #09–1454. 2011 U.S. Lexis 4016.
A husband and father was shot and killed
after his 12-year-old daughter went to get a gun for him. Police suspected
that he might have been murdered by his family members. The wife and daughter
claimed that they were improperly detained in a police mobile unit for
one-and-a-half to two hours when officers, actually engaged in installing
a surreptitious listening device in their home pursuant to a warrant, falsely
told them that there was a hostage situation involving a gun in the area
so that they could not return to their home. The daughter, who was subsequently
arrested, claimed that officers interrogated her without advising her of
her right to have her attorney or mother present, and denied her access
to her attorney or mother. She disputed the officers' claim that she had
waived her rights. Denying motions by the officers for qualified immunity
or judgment as a matter of law, the court instructed the jury on both unlawful
detention and unlawful interrogation claims, The jury was also instructed
on qualified immunity. The jury, answering special interrogatories, found
that the officers' had not violated the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights
through unlawful detention, and that they did not engage in conduct that
"shocks the conscience" in violation of due process in their
interrogation of the daughter. While the plaintiffs argued that the trial
judge acted erroneously in submitting the instruction on qualified immunity
to the jury, the appeals court ruled that, even if this were the case,
it would have been harmless, in light of the jury's answers to special
interrogatories indicating a "total defense verdict" on all issues,
including whether the officers engaged in unlawful detention or improper
interrogation. Gonzales v. Duran, #08-2184 590 F.3d 855 (10th Cir. 2009).
A caseworker and a deputy sheriff seized
and interrogated one of a woman's daughters for two hours in a private
office at her school, allegedly without a warrant, probable cause or parental
consent, because they suspected that the woman's husband had been sexually
molesting her. The caseworker later obtained a court order removing both
of the woman's daughters from her home and subjected them to "intrusive"
sexual abuse examinations. A federal appeals court found that the "special
needs" search doctrine could not apply to justify the seizure, given
the deep involvement of law enforcement personnel and purposes. The decision
to seize and interrogate the first daughter without a warrant, court order,
exigent circumstances or parental consent was unconstitutional, in violation
of the Fourth Amendment. But the defendants were entitled to qualified
immunity because the application of the Fourth Amendment to an in school
seizure of a suspected sexual abuse victim was not clearly established.
The caseworker was not, however, entitled to qualified immunity on a claim
of having made a false representation. Further proceedings were required
on due process claims regarding the obtaining of the child removal order
and the exclusion of the mother from her daughter's medical examinations.
Greene v. Camreta, #06-35333, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 26891 (9th Cir.).
As a 14-year-old boy, one of the plaintiffs,
now an adult, allegedly falsely confessed to murdering his younger sister,
following a series of "coercive" and "grueling" interrogations.
He and his accused 15-year-old accomplice, who also sued, were allegedly
isolated and subjected to many hours and days of questioning, during which
time they were lied to, threatened, cajoled, and pressured by teams of
police officers. A federal appeals court overturned summary judgment for
the defendant police detectives, finding that such tactics, if true, violated
the Fifth Amendment, and also "shock the conscience" in violation
of substantive due process. 'Psychological torture' is not an inapt description,"
the court stated. The defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity
on claims relating to the interrogations, which allegedly resulted in coerced
statements used in various proceedings. Qualified immunity applied, however,
to claims relating to the arrest and search warrants, since the warrant
applications, while arguably omitting some exculpatory information, did
not demonstrate reckless disregard of the boys' rights or deliberate falsification.
A vagrant who suffers from schizophrenia was later convicted of voluntary
manslaughter in connection with the sister's death after the sister's DNA
was found on one of his shirts. Crowe v. County of San Diego, #05-55467,
2010 U.S. App. Lexis 894 (9th Cir.).
In a lawsuit arising from the interrogation of
an 11-year-old minor, then in foster care, regarding the death of a two-year-old
child, 6th Amendment claims against an assistant prosecutor were properly
dismissed since no arrest or formal judicial proceeding had then been initiated.
Additionally, the assistant prosecutor was entitled to qualified immunity,
as it was not "well established" that a minor had any 6th Amendment
right to counsel in connection with the filing of a petition in an action
affecting the parent-child relationship. Murray v. Earle, #08-50603, 2009
U.S. App. Lexis 11882 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
Minor allegedly subjected to violations of
his civil rights during an interrogation by an officer which resulted in
charges for sexual offenses being brought against him in juvenile court
failed to show that the officer acted under an official city policy or
custom as required to hold the city liable. W. P., a minor, v. City of
Dayton, No. 22549, 2009 Ohio App. Lexis 70 (2nd Dist.).
Child welfare caseworker who interviewed
a brother and sister at a private school as part of a child abuse investigation
was not entitled to qualified immunity for examining the children's bodies,
including under their clothes, for signs of abuse. Consent from the school's
principal for the interviews did not extend to a search of the children's
bodies, and their right to be free from unreasonable searches under these
circumstances, absent a warrant, probable cause, exigent circumstances,
or valid consent, was clearly established. Michael C. v. Gresbach, No.
07-1756, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 10805 (7th Cir.).
A twelve-year-old child was interrogated
away from his mother and a prosecutor then ordered police to arrest him
in connection with the death of a toddler. His conviction was subsequently
overturned on the basis of a coerced confession in violation of the Fifth
Amendment. He subsequently filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against
the prosecutor and her employer for alleged violations of the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments. After the lawsuit was filed, the prosecutor allegedly
told a Marine recruiter that the plaintiff would "always" be
a suspect in the murder, resulting in the rejection of his enlistment.
A federal appeals court overturned qualified immunity for the prosecutor,
ruling that the prosecutor could not reasonably have believed that there
was probable cause for the arrest. The court also ordered further proceedings
on claims against the county based on its alleged withholding of exculpatory
(Brady) materials, and on the Plaintiff's malicious prosecution, First
Amendment retaliation, and defamation claims. Harris v. Bornhorst, No.
06-3729, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 724 (6th Cir.).
Because a ruling in a federal civil rights
lawsuit that a minor's confession to involvement in the murder of his mother
would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, under a plea
bargain to plead "no contest", of accessory after the fact, he
was barred from pursuing his claim for coercive interrogation when the
conviction had not been set aside or reversed, under the principles established
in Heck v. Humphrey, #93-6188, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
Federal appeals court rules that the adjudication
in juvenile court, while not a criminal proceeding under state law, was
properly viewed as the "functional equivalent" of a criminal
proceeding for purposes of the application of the rule in Heck. Morris
v. City of Detroit, No. 06-1367, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 30948 (6th Cir.). [N/R]
Police officer's misrepresentations to teenager's
mother that he would be questioned nearby and only for an hour concerning
investigation into triple murder, allegedly made to obtain consent to his
removal from the home, and resulting in him being taken to another county,
interrogated for four hours, subjected to a polygraph exam, and being denied
requests to leave, be with his mother, or see a lawyer, if true, would
violate child's clearly established constitutional rights. Myers v. Potter,
No. 04-6022, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 19248 (6th Cir.). [2005 LR Oct]
Although detectives' interrogation of an
eleven-year-old girl, which produced her confession of involvement in the
death of a two year old, was custodial and produced an involuntary statement
in violation of her Fifth Amendment rights, the questioning detectives
could not be held liable for her subsequent prosecution and conviction,
later overturned. A decision by the trial judge to admit her confession
was superseding cause of her damages. Murray v. Earle, No. 03-51379, 2005
U.S. App. Lexis 5220 (5th Cir. 2005). [2005 LR May]
Even if murder confessions officers obtained
from juvenile suspects were coerced, they could not be held liable under
federal civil rights law for violation of the Fifth Amendment privilege
against self-incrimination when the statements obtained were not used against
the suspects in a criminal trial, but only in grand jury proceedings leading
to their indictment and in a hearing to determine whether they should be
tried as adults. Crowe v. County of San Diego, 303 F. Supp. 2d 1050 (S.D.
Cal. 2004). [N/R]
Police officer was not shown to have used
investigative techniques in child abuse investigation that were "so
coercive and abusive" that he knew or should have known that they
would yield false information. Officer had probable cause for arrest of
suspect even if portions of his affidavit supporting the arrest were inaccurate
as to the number of child victims who had told the officer the arrestee
had sexually abused them. Gausvik v. Perez, No. 02-35902, 345 F.3d 813
(9th Cir. 2003). [2004 LR Feb]
344:122 Officers investigating child sexual
abuse allegations had a duty, under Washington state law, to avoid negligence
in doing so; appeals court reinstates lawsuit by parents arrested but later
acquitted of involvement in child sex ring; improper interrogation techniques
during interviews with children alleged. Rodriguez v. City of Wenatchee,
# 43812-3-I, 994 P.2d 874 (Wash. App. 2000).
340:59 Even if the techniques used to interview
child complainants were improper and coercive, nursery school teacher indicted
and prosecuted for alleged sexual abuse of children could not recover damages
since these interrogation techniques did not violate her own constitutional
rights; prosecutors were entitled to absolute immunity for presenting children's
testimony to grand jury and at trial. Michaels v. New Jersey, #99-5486,
222 F.3d 118 (3rd Cir. 2000).
314:26 Interrogations by detective
squad of juveniles facing possible delinquency charges would not be enjoined
by federal court; case-by-case determination as to whether interrogations
were coercive was required; proper remedy for any alleged violation of
Miranda rights was suppression of incriminating statements rather than
federal civil rights claim. Deshawn v. Safir, #97-7410, 156 F.3d 340 (2nd
Cir. 1998).
309:136 Officer's alleged
threats to eleven year old female student in guidance counselor's office
that she would be in a lot of trouble unless she answered his questions
about her parents' alleged drug use, combined with promise that nothing
would happen if she did provide information, was conduct "shocking
to the conscience." Grendell v. Gillway, 974 F.Supp. 46 (D. Me. 1997).