Police Questioning Student in School Setting

It probably isn't legal, and the principal probably told them that, but that doesn't mean that police wouldn't do it. If she is a minor, then it would be more of a problem. But it also depends on how much questioning. A brief, casual question is fine, but minors can't give consent to be questioned in any great depth.

Use google and inquire regarding the state in which it is set.

Initial question is whether she's a minor or not.

Second question is whether she's in custody or not.

Most likely the principal would have someone else deal with the student, unless he knows the student well.

Good possibility that anything gained from her would be suppressed if she becomes the defendant/respondent.

Most likely the police would use the school resource officer and keep this very casual.

Best of luck,

Jim Clark-Dawe

I'm a juvenile prosecutor, and I'd say Jim's asking the right questions.

-- How old is she?
-- Is this a "custodial" interrogation?

What state is she in? It probably matters...

For Florida, Jim's pretty much dead on. Except the police would only conduct a limited investigation under these conditions, and only under emergency conditions. If they have any reason to believe that she may be involved and there are no exigent circumstances, they would have a warrant and an adult present, parent or legal guardian.

District attorneys here are very cranky about following procedures that don't get the case tossed by the courts.

What do you need to happen for your story?

Jeff

I would look at the Supreme Court case, J.D.B. v. North Carolina. Here's a quick run-down:

In 2005, A North Carolina 13-year-old special education student named J.D.B. was questioned by police at his school about a stolen digital camera. A uniformed officer escorted the student to a school conference room, where two officers and two school administrators questioned him for 30 to 45 minutes. They started with small talk to make him comfortable, then encouraged him to “do the right thing,” and then finally warned him of possible juvenile detention if he didn’t confess. J.D.B. confessed to the crimes, but later sought to have his confession thrown out. He argued that because he was in police custody when he confessed, he was a minor whose parents were not informed of the police interview, and he was entitled to Miranda protections. In December 2009, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled on the case. They ruled that J.D.B. was not technically in police custody when he was interviewed. Therefore, he was not entitled to Miranda protections. The family appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The decision was 5-4 in favor of J.D.B., but it's a tricky decision. They clearly said that a determination must be made as to whether or not the student was "in custody" (what MarkEsQ is talking about above). They also said that in determining what constitutes "in custody," age matters. Justice Sotomayer wrote for the majority, "It is beyond dispute that children will often feel bound to submit to police questioning when an adult in the same circumstances would feel free to leave. Seeing no reason for police officers or courts to blind themselves to that commonsense reality, we hold that a child's age properly informs the Miranda custody analysis."

Warrants aren't needed in public schools for most searches. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that rights in schools are limited to protect the two main concerns in the school environment: safety and education. School authorities can search lockers, backpacks, cars in the parking lot, and can confiscate cell phones. They can bring in drug dogs, and drug test those who volunteer to participate in extracurriculars.