Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Pro-2A Parkland survivor Kyle Kashuv questioned by school security for visiting gun range with his f
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 3108333" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>It's complicated, but minors have rights and school officials have no standing under <em>in loco parentis </em>doctrine to waive a student's constitutional rights for them. That is reserved specifically to parents and legal guardians outside the school.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 3108333, member: 1132"] 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 [I]in loco parentis [/I]doctrine to waive a student's constitutional rights for them. That is reserved specifically to parents and legal guardians outside the school. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Pro-2A Parkland survivor Kyle Kashuv questioned by school security for visiting gun range with his f
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom