Logo

New York State Chapter

Pass Right to Remain Silent S.878-A (Bailey) / A.2620-A (Hevesi)!
We have all heard numerous accounts of wrongful convictions due to aggressive and coercive police interrogation tactics, one of the most egregious having occurred in New York, involving five innocent teenagers. The Exonerated 5’s story serves as a somber reminder of the dire need for due process protections and safeguards for the rights of children. And yet, police are still allowed to do the following under current New York law:

● Police are allowed to interrogate a child without a parent or guardian present.

● Police can lie to a child in order to coerce them to waive their Miranda rights.

● Police are not required to allow a child to meet and talk with their parent or guardian before the police read the child their Miranda rights.

● Police are not required to explain to the child – or the child’s parent or guardian – what the police want to question them about.

● Police do not have to tell the child, parent or guardian that the child can stop answering questions any time they choose.

Approximately 90 percent of children waive their Miranda rights.1

Thirty years of research by psychologists, sociologists, and neurologists make it clear that even under controlled circumstances, children lack the capacity to fully appreciate the meaning and significance of the right to remain silent, and to

appreciate the almost certain repercussions of waiving that right.2 Young people who come into contact with law enforcement also have higher rates of mental illness and cognitive deficits.3 Add to that the stress and tension inherent in a custodial interrogation, and the prospect of an intelligent and voluntary waiver of Miranda rights becomes a myth. It should be no surprise that children falsely confess three times more than adults.4

While false confessions are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Miranda waivers, most children will say whatever they think will most immediately relieve them from the stress and pressure they are exposed to when being interrogated.5 The Exonerated 5 were not an isolated case, but rather an example of what happens all too often.

On top of this, we know that the children most likely to come into contact with law enforcement and the juvenile legal system are Black and Latinx children from over-surveilled schools and low socioeconomic communities.6 The result is a disproportionate number of Black and Latinx children are interrogated by police without the assistance of an attorney, while their more affluent peers are protected by hired attorneys. For Black and Latinx children from low income communities, the protections of Miranda are illusory.

S.878-A (Bailey) / A.2620-A (Hevesi) would provide the protection our children need. When police determine that interrogation of a child is necessary, this bill would require that the child first consult with counsel before any questioning can take place. Consultation with a lawyer would be a non-waivable requirement that would exclude any statement taken in violation of the rule from being entered into evidence against the child.

    Subject
    Message Body
    Post
    Suggested Message
    Post
    Remaining: 0
  • Hide
    • Please call this number:

      Please do not close this window. You will need to come back to this window to enter your code.
      We just sent an email to ... containing a verification code.

      If you do not see the email within the next five minutes, please ensure you entered the correct email address and check your spam/junk mail folder.
      Enter Your Info
      Your Information
      By providing your mobile number, you agree to receive periodic call to action text messages from NASWNYS. Message and data rates may apply. Reply HELP for help. Reply STOP to unsubscribe. Message frequency varies. Privacy Policy  
      Home Information  
      Enter Zip for City and State