Indiana Supreme Court finds that assistant principal questioning a student about criminal mischief was not acting as an agent of the police

Written By: Reid
Nov 27, 2018

In D.Z. v. State (June 2018) the Supreme Court of Indiana found that in a criminal mischief and harassment case when the assistant high school principal questioned the juvenile suspect (student), he was not acting as an agent of the police, and that there was evidence sufficient to support adjudication of delinquency. From the Supreme Court�s opinion:

Chief Justice Rush: As today's companion opinion B.A. holds, Miranda warnings protect students�no less than adults at a school�when police place them under custodial interrogation. Custodial interrogation, though, requires police involvement. So when school officials alone meet with students, a clear rule governs: Miranda warnings are not required. Here, only an assistant principal interviewed D.Z., so Miranda warnings were not required. We also find no reversible evidentiary error and that sufficient evidence supports D.Z.'s criminal-mischief adjudication, so we affirm the juvenile court.

Click here for additional details

Also, in Miranda v. State (November 2018) the Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso upheld the lower court�s decision that the defendant (a high school teacher), when being questioned by the director of employee relations for the school district about engaging in sexual activities with students, did not need to be advised of his Miranda rights because it was not a custodial interview and the director of employee relations was not acting on behalf of a law enforcement agency.

Continue Reading