Pro-2A Parkland survivor Kyle Kashuv questioned by school security for visiting gun range with his f

[Glocktogo]

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2092&context=wmlr

That document implicitly supports my assertions. The school employed duly sworn LEOs to conduct what amounted to a custodial "interview" of this student. Therefore the student retained all 5th Amendment rights. Has a school official such as a principal conducted an interview of the student regarding strictly school policy, no 5th Amendment protections would be needed. Even if the student inadvertently admitted to committing a crime during that non-custodial interview, that admission alone would be inadmissible as heresay in any criminal proceeding, and the student's 5th Amendment rights would immediately apply as soon as a LEO became involved.

Further, no exigency is present in a case such as this to force a student to make incriminating statements when in custody of the school, without notifying the student's parents first and having them present.

It's complicated, but minors have rights and school officials have no standing under in loco parentis doctrine to waive a student's constitutional rights for them. That is reserved specifically to parents and legal guardians outside the school.

 

[caojyn]

 

[mugsy]

You jumped straight off the deep end to communists, which I am not sure how to respond to your post. I am pretty sure that we said about the same thing in the first have of your post about students reporting the facebook post to the administration. I am also pretty sure that we both said the same thing about the admin/police handing the situation poorly. I am not sure how you jumped from a kid in school to and overthrow of our government. I am pretty sure that you are stating that the entire education is a danger to the nation, and educators are all pro socialist and communist.

Please re-read what I wrote - I did not say that "all teachers" or "most teachers" were communists or socialists, nor did I say that the "entire education (system?) is a danger to the nation" nor anything like that, what I said was that those who seem to support grilling students about non-threatening exercise of Constitutionally guaranteed rights would probably object if those teachers or students who hold different kinds objectionable or questionable views were similarly questioned about their views. The reasoning for such questioning might be along the lines of those beliefs (socialist/communist) being inherently un-American and thus dangerous by definition. I wasn't advocating such a thing, I was pointing out a certain level of hypocrisy involved among the more anti-gun (generally more left wing) people who support such intrusive questioning (absent a threat) for merely expressing belief in a provision of the Constitution.
Now, if you are asking where did I come up with the "socialist/communist" stuff, that was simply from following the news regarding many (not all, not most) elements of those participating in the recent anti-2nd Amendment/pro-gun control/ marches.
In short, your last sentence shows you have misconstrued my meaning in a very significant way so I am attempting to re-communicate my intent.

 

[Dave70968]

Y'know, if they'd actually show that on PBS, I could have skipped law school.

 

[Uncle TK]

Very Interesting read on 10 Supreme Court Cases and students actions
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/featured_articles/20080915monday.html

 

[Dave70968]

Good article indeed.

 

[okierider]

What is most disturbing about this is we have a bunch of supposed grown ups acting like idiots. Looks to me like the S.R.O's and the principle all need chaperones or removed from the school. They took a situation that should and could have been handled in house and have now made it a spectacle. 15 minutes of fame for treating a student like a criminal... Had these same agencies taken an actual mentally deranged soon to be murderer seriously we would not be reading this stupid ****!!! Embarrassing state of affairs in the country !!

 

[Pokinfun]

That document implicitly supports my assertions. The school employed duly sworn LEOs to conduct what amounted to a custodial "interview" of this student. Therefore the student retained all 5th Amendment rights. Has a school official such as a principal conducted an interview of the student regarding strictly school policy, no 5th Amendment protections would be needed. Even if the student inadvertently admitted to committing a crime during that non-custodial interview, that admission alone would be inadmissible as heresay in any criminal proceeding, and the student's 5th Amendment rights would immediately apply as soon as a LEO became involved.

Further, no exigency is present in a case such as this to force a student to make incriminating statements when in custody of the school, without notifying the student's parents first and having them present.

It's complicated, but minors have rights and school officials have no standing under in loco parentis doctrine to waive a student's constitutional rights for them. That is reserved specifically to parents and legal guardians outside the school.

I think you are looking at it wrong, were the police attempting to arrest the student or were they trying to prevent another shooting? I am not saying that the police should ever violate someone's Rights, but you have to question what their end game was.
Also, I only post the article to show that a student's Fifth Amendment Right is not in your word "inviolate."

 

[Pokinfun]

Please re-read what I wrote - I did not say that "all teachers" or "most teachers" were communists or socialists, nor did I say that the "entire education (system?) is a danger to the nation" nor anything like that, what I said was that those who seem to support grilling students about non-threatening exercise of Constitutionally guaranteed rights would probably object if those teachers or students who hold different kinds objectionable or questionable views were similarly questioned about their views. The reasoning for such questioning might be along the lines of those beliefs (socialist/communist) being inherently un-American and thus dangerous by definition. I wasn't advocating such a thing, I was pointing out a certain level of hypocrisy involved among the more anti-gun (generally more left wing) people who support such intrusive questioning (absent a threat) for merely expressing belief in a provision of the Constitution.
Now, if you are asking where did I come up with the "socialist/communist" stuff, that was simply from following the news regarding many (not all, not most) elements of those participating in the recent anti-2nd Amendment/pro-gun control/ marches.
In short, your last sentence shows you have misconstrued my meaning in a very significant way so I am attempting to re-communicate my intent.

Would you please define, "these same folks." I know from your past posts that you are not a fan of public schools. Therefore, I may be making an assumption about who you are referring to about supporting anti-American groups.

 

[Glocktogo]

I think you are looking at it wrong, were the police attempting to arrest the student or were they trying to prevent another shooting? I am not saying that the police should ever violate someone's Rights, but you have to question what their end game was.
Also, I only post the article to show that a student's Fifth Amendment Right is not in your word "inviolate."

No, their intentions have no bearing on the law. Under the conditions described, and absent an immunity deal (which would require coordination with the DA’s office and preclude any rush to obtain his statement to the exclusion of his parents), his right to remain silent is unassailable. When a sworn officer conducts an interview, it is to support enforcement of criminal law. That is literally their function. They may conclude that no law was broken, but that doesn’t invalidate a subject’s 5th Amendment rights.

And yes I misspoke when I said their 5th Amendment rights are inviolate. If an officer of the court enters into an immunity from prosecution agreement with the subject, they may be compelled to provide a statement. Otherwise, no.