fare
michael
argued
february
decided
june
respondent
time
years
old
taken
custody
van
nuys
police
suspicion
murder
questioned
station
house
fully
advised
rights
miranda
arizona
outset
questioning
respondent
probation
juvenile
served
term
youth
corrections
camp
record
prior
offenses
asked
see
probation
officer
police
denied
request
respondent
stated
talk
without
consulting
attorney
proceeded
make
statements
draw
sketches
implicating
murder
upon
charged
juvenile
murder
moved
suppress
incriminating
statements
sketches
ground
obtained
violation
miranda
request
see
probation
officer
constituted
invocation
fifth
amendment
right
remain
silent
requested
assistance
attorney
denied
motion
holding
facts
showed
respondent
waived
right
remain
silent
notwithstanding
request
see
probation
officer
california
reversed
holding
respondent
request
probation
officer
per
se
invocation
fifth
amendment
rights
way
request
attorney
found
miranda
regardless
interrogation
otherwise
might
reveal
holding
based
view
probation
officer
occupies
position
trusted
guardian
figure
juvenile
life
make
normal
juvenile
turn
officer
apprehended
police
also
based
requirement
officer
represent
juvenile
interests
held
california
erred
finding
respondent
request
probation
officer
per
se
invocation
fifth
amendment
rights
miranda
therefore
also
erred
holding
police
cease
interrogating
respondent
statements
sketches
made
interrogation
suppressed
pp
rule
miranda
accused
indicates
manner
wishes
remain
silent
consult
attorney
interrogation
must
cease
based
unique
role
lawyer
plays
adversary
system
criminal
justice
probation
officer
position
offer
type
legal
assistance
necessary
protect
fifth
amendment
rights
accused
undergoing
custodial
interrogation
lawyer
offer
pp
fact
relationship
trust
cooperation
might
exist
probation
officer
juvenile
indicate
officer
capable
rendering
effective
legal
advice
sufficient
protect
juvenile
rights
police
interrogation
providing
services
rendered
lawyer
similarly
fact
probation
officer
statutory
duty
protect
juvenile
interests
make
officer
capable
rendering
legal
assistance
juvenile
protecting
legal
rights
especially
officer
also
statutory
duty
report
wrongdoing
juvenile
serve
ends
juvenile
system
pp
juvenile
request
speak
probation
officer
constitute
per
se
request
remain
silent
tantamount
request
attorney
pp
whether
incriminating
statements
sketches
admissible
basis
waiver
question
resolved
totality
circumstances
surrounding
interrogation
basis
record
clear
respondent
voluntarily
knowingly
waived
fifth
amendment
rights
consented
continued
interrogation
statements
sketches
obtained
voluntary
hence
admission
juvenile
proceeding
correct
pp
blackmun
delivered
opinion
burger
stewart
white
rehnquist
joined
marshall
filed
dissenting
opinion
brennan
stevens
joined
post
powell
filed
dissenting
opinion
post
mark
alan
hart
deputy
attorney
general
california
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
evelle
younger
attorney
general
jack
winkler
chief
assistant
attorney
general
clark
moore
assistant
attorney
general
james
kline
shunji
asari
deputy
attorneys
general
albert
menaster
argued
cause
respondent
brief
wilbur
littlefield
dennis
fischer
kenneth
clayman
fred
inbau
frank
carrington
wayne
schmidt
george
nicholson
edwin
miller
peter
lehman
filed
brief
americans
effective
law
enforcement
et
al
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
justice
blackmun
delivered
opinion
miranda
arizona
established
certain
procedural
safeguards
designed
protect
rights
accused
fifth
fourteenth
amendments
free
compelled
custodial
interrogation
specified
among
things
accused
indicates
manner
wishes
remain
silent
consult
attorney
interrogation
must
cease
statement
obtained
interrogation
thereafter
may
admitted
trial
case
state
california
person
acting
chief
probation
officer
attacks
conclusion
california
juvenile
request
made
undergoing
custodial
interrogation
see
probation
officer
per
se
invocation
juvenile
fifth
amendment
rights
pronounced
miranda
respondent
michael
implicated
murder
robert
yeager
murder
occurred
robbery
victim
home
january
small
truck
registered
name
respondent
mother
identified
near
yeager
home
time
killing
young
man
answering
respondent
description
seen
witnesses
near
truck
near
home
shortly
yeager
murdered
basis
information
van
nuys
police
took
respondent
custody
approximately
february
respondent
years
old
probation
juvenile
probation
since
age
approximately
one
year
earlier
served
term
youth
corrections
camp
supervision
juvenile
record
several
previous
offenses
including
burglary
guns
purse
snatching
stretching
back
several
years
upon
respondent
arrival
van
nuys
station
house
two
police
officers
began
interrogate
officers
respondent
persons
room
interrogation
conversation
one
officers
initiated
interview
informing
respondent
brought
questioning
relation
murder
officer
fully
advised
respondent
miranda
rights
following
exchange
occurred
set
opinion
california
michael
cal
emphasis
added
understand
rights
explained
yeah
okay
wish
give
right
remain
silent
talk
us
murder
murder
know
murder
explain
one
want
talk
us
yeah
might
talk
want
give
right
attorney
present
talk
probation
officer
well
ca
get
hold
probation
officer
right
right
attorney
know
guys
wo
pull
police
officer
tell
attorney
huh
know
guys
wo
pull
police
officer
tell
attorney
probation
officer
christiansen
yeah
well
going
call
christiansen
tonight
good
chance
talk
later
going
call
right
want
talk
us
without
attorney
present
want
want
say
something
want
say
something
right
understand
right
yeah
okay
talk
us
without
attorney
present
yeah
want
talk
largely
basis
respondent
incriminating
statements
probation
authorities
filed
petition
juvenile
alleging
respondent
murdered
robert
yeager
violation
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
respondent
therefore
adjudged
ward
juvenile
pursuant
cal
welf
inst
code
ann
west
supp
app
respondent
thereupon
moved
suppress
statements
sketches
gave
police
interrogation
alleged
statements
obtained
violation
miranda
request
see
probation
officer
outset
questioning
constituted
invocation
fifth
amendment
right
remain
silent
requested
assistance
attorney
accordingly
respondent
argued
since
interrogation
cease
chance
confer
probation
officer
statements
sketches
admitted
juvenile
proceedings
arguing
respondent
relied
analogy
decision
people
burton
cal
california
held
minor
request
made
custodial
interrogation
see
parents
constituted
invocation
minor
fifth
amendment
rights
support
suppression
motion
respondent
called
probation
officer
charles
christiansen
witness
christiansen
testified
instructed
respondent
time
concern
family
ever
police
contact
app
get
touch
probation
officer
immediately
witness
stated
previous
occasion
respondent
police
contact
failed
communicate
christiansen
probation
officer
reprimanded
testimony
respondent
argued
indicated
asked
probation
officer
fact
asserting
right
remain
silent
face
questioning
ruling
bench
denied
motion
suppress
held
question
whether
respondent
waived
right
remain
silent
one
fact
determined
basis
facts
case
showed
clear
waiver
respondent
right
observed
transcript
interrogation
revealed
respondent
specifically
told
officers
talk
waiver
come
outset
interrogation
prolonged
questioning
noted
respondent
half
year
old
minor
system
probation
camp
probation
officer
young
naive
minor
experience
courts
ibid
accordingly
found
facts
case
respondent
waived
fifth
amendment
rights
notwithstanding
request
see
probation
officer
appeal
california
took
case
transfer
california
appeal
divided
vote
reversed
michael
cal
held
respondent
request
see
probation
officer
commencement
interrogation
negated
possible
willingness
part
discuss
case
police
thereby
invoked
fifth
amendment
privilege
based
conclusion
view
juvenile
system
emphasis
relationship
probation
officer
probationer
officer
trusted
guardian
figure
exercises
authority
state
parens
patriae
whose
duty
implement
protective
rehabilitative
powers
juvenile
consequence
found
minor
request
probation
officer
request
see
parents
interrogation
thus
rule
burton
constituted
invocation
minor
fifth
amendment
rights
fact
probation
officer
also
served
peace
officer
whenever
proceeding
juvenile
contemplated
charged
duty
file
petition
alleging
minor
committed
offense
alter
view
fact
officer
eyes
juvenile
trusted
guardian
figure
minor
normally
turn
help
trouble
police
cal
relying
burton
ruled
unduly
restrict
miranda
limit
reach
case
involving
minor
request
minor
attorney
since
fatuous
assume
minor
custody
position
call
attorney
assistance
unrealistic
attribute
significance
call
help
person
normally
looks
parent
guardian
cal
quoting
people
burton
cal
dismissed
concern
expressed
state
request
probation
officer
distinguished
request
one
football
coach
music
teacher
clergyman
ground
probation
officer
unlike
figures
juvenile
life
charged
statute
represent
interests
juvenile
cal
accordingly
held
probation
officer
act
protect
minor
fifth
amendment
rights
precisely
way
attorney
act
called
accused
holding
found
request
probation
officer
per
se
invocation
fifth
amendment
rights
way
request
attorney
found
miranda
regardless
interrogation
otherwise
might
reveal
rejecting
inquiry
stated
however
face
conduct
regardless
considerations
capacity
coercion
voluntariness
per
se
invokes
privilege
thus
question
turns
whether
respondent
ability
capacity
willingness
give
knowledgeable
waiver
hence
whether
acted
voluntarily
whether
called
probation
officer
exercised
fifth
amendment
privilege
hold
less
invoked
protection
asked
presence
attorney
state
california
petitioned
writ
certiorari
justice
rehnquist
circuit
justice
stayed
execution
mandate
california
california
judgment
extending
per
se
aspects
miranda
presents
important
question
reach
case
thereafter
issued
writ
ii
note
outset
clear
judgment
california
rests
firmly
interpretation
federal
law
however
heretofore
extended
per
se
aspects
miranda
safeguards
beyond
scope
holding
miranda
case
therefore
must
examine
california
decision
determine
whether
conclusion
extend
miranda
harmony
miranda
underlying
principles
clear
state
may
impose
greater
restrictions
matter
federal
constitutional
law
specifically
refrains
imposing
oregon
hass
emphasis
original
see
north
carolina
butler
rule
established
miranda
clear
order
able
use
statements
obtained
custodial
interrogation
accused
state
must
warn
accused
prior
questioning
right
remain
silent
right
counsel
retained
appointed
present
interrogation
warnings
given
subsequent
procedure
clear
ibid
individual
indicates
manner
time
prior
questioning
wishes
remain
silent
interrogation
must
cease
point
shown
intends
exercise
fifth
amendment
privilege
statement
taken
person
invokes
privilege
product
compulsion
subtle
otherwise
individual
wants
attorney
interrogation
must
cease
attorney
present
time
individual
must
opportunity
confer
attorney
present
subsequent
questioning
individual
obtain
attorney
indicates
wants
one
speaking
police
must
respect
decision
remain
silent
omitted
whatever
defects
relatively
rigid
requirement
interrogation
must
cease
upon
accused
request
attorney
miranda
holding
virtue
informing
police
prosecutors
specificity
may
conducting
custodial
interrogation
informing
courts
circumstances
statements
obtained
interrogation
admissible
gain
specificity
benefits
accused
state
alike
thought
outweigh
burdens
decision
miranda
imposes
law
enforcement
agencies
courts
requiring
suppression
trustworthy
highly
probative
evidence
even
though
confession
might
voluntary
traditional
fifth
amendment
analysis
see
michigan
tucker
california
case
however
significantly
extended
rule
providing
request
juvenile
probation
officer
effect
request
attorney
based
belief
probation
officer
occupies
position
trusted
guardian
figure
minor
life
make
normal
minor
turn
officer
apprehended
police
based
well
requirement
officer
represent
interest
juvenile
california
decision
found
consultation
probation
officer
fulfilled
role
juvenile
consultation
attorney
general
acting
protective
device
dispel
compulsion
inherent
custodial
surroundings
cal
quoting
miranda
arizona
rule
miranda
however
based
perception
lawyer
occupies
critical
position
legal
system
unique
ability
protect
fifth
amendment
rights
client
undergoing
custodial
interrogation
special
ability
lawyer
help
client
preserve
fifth
amendment
rights
client
becomes
enmeshed
adversary
process
found
right
counsel
present
interrogation
indispensable
protection
fifth
amendment
privilege
system
established
moreover
lawyer
presence
helps
guard
overreaching
police
ensures
statements
actually
obtained
accurately
transcribed
presentation
evidence
per
se
aspect
miranda
thus
based
unique
role
lawyer
plays
adversary
system
criminal
justice
country
whether
minor
adult
stands
accused
lawyer
one
person
society
whole
looks
protector
legal
rights
person
dealings
police
courts
reason
fashioned
miranda
rigid
rule
accused
request
attorney
per
se
invocation
fifth
amendment
rights
requiring
interrogation
cease
probation
officer
posture
regard
either
accused
system
justice
whole
often
trained
law
position
advise
accused
legal
rights
neither
trained
advocate
skilled
representation
interests
client
police
courts
assume
power
act
behalf
client
virtue
status
adviser
communications
accused
probation
officer
shielded
privilege
moreover
probation
officer
employee
state
seeks
prosecute
alleged
offender
peace
officer
allied
greater
lesser
extent
fellow
peace
officers
owes
obligation
state
notwithstanding
obligation
may
also
owe
juvenile
supervision
cases
probation
officer
duty
bound
report
wrongdoing
juvenile
comes
attention
even
communication
juvenile
indeed
case
arose
probation
officer
responsibility
filing
petition
alleging
wrongdoing
juvenile
seeking
taken
custody
juvenile
respondent
probation
officer
filed
petition
acting
chief
probation
state
california
probation
officer
petitioner
today
circumstances
said
probation
officer
able
offer
type
independent
advice
accused
expect
lawyer
retained
assigned
assist
questioning
indeed
probation
officer
duty
employer
many
cases
conflict
sharply
interests
juvenile
attorney
might
well
advise
client
remain
silent
face
interrogation
police
exercising
good
professional
judgment
protect
extent
ability
rights
client
miranda
arizona
probation
officer
bound
advise
charge
cooperate
police
justices
concurred
opinion
california
case
aptly
noted
conflict
minor
law
arises
probation
officer
neither
neutral
minor
corner
cal
thus
doubtful
general
rule
established
juvenile
every
case
looks
probation
officer
trusted
guardian
figure
rather
officer
system
imposes
punishment
token
lawyer
able
protect
client
rights
learning
extent
client
involvement
crime
investigation
advising
client
accordingly
facilitate
law
rightly
protects
communications
client
attorney
discovery
doubt
however
similar
protection
afforded
communications
probation
officer
minor
indeed
doubt
probation
officer
consistent
responsibilities
public
profession
withhold
police
courts
facts
made
known
juvenile
implicating
juvenile
crime
investigation
thus
believe
clear
probation
officer
position
offer
type
legal
assistance
necessary
protect
fifth
amendment
rights
accused
undergoing
custodial
interrogation
lawyer
offer
miranda
recognized
attorney
plays
vital
role
administration
criminal
justice
constitution
pivotal
role
legal
counsel
justifies
per
se
rule
established
miranda
distinguishes
request
counsel
request
probation
officer
clergyman
close
friend
probation
officer
simply
necessary
way
attorney
protection
legal
rights
accused
juvenile
adult
significantly
handicapped
position
occupies
juvenile
system
serving
effective
protector
rights
juvenile
suspected
crime
california
however
found
close
relationship
juveniles
probation
officers
compelled
conclusion
probation
officer
purposes
miranda
sufficiently
like
lawyer
justify
extension
per
se
rule
cal
fact
relationship
trust
cooperation
probation
officer
juvenile
might
exist
however
indicate
probation
officer
capable
rendering
effective
legal
advice
sufficient
protect
juvenile
rights
interrogation
police
providing
services
rendered
lawyer
find
otherwise
extension
miranda
requirements
cut
holding
case
completely
loose
explicitly
stated
rationale
beckwith
extension
impose
burdens
associated
rule
miranda
juvenile
justice
system
police
without
serving
interests
rule
designed
simultaneously
protect
otherwise
juvenile
request
almost
anyone
considered
trustworthy
enough
give
reliable
advice
trigger
rigid
rule
miranda
similarly
fact
state
created
statutory
duty
part
probation
officer
protect
interests
juvenile
render
probation
officer
capable
rendering
legal
assistance
juvenile
protecting
legal
rights
especially
light
fact
state
also
legislated
duty
part
officer
report
wrongdoing
juvenile
serve
ends
juvenile
system
state
transmute
relationship
probation
officer
juvenile
offender
type
relationship
attorney
client
essential
holding
miranda
simply
legislating
amorphous
duty
advise
care
juvenile
defendant
cal
though
statutory
duty
might
serve
distinguish
degree
probation
officer
coach
clergyman
justify
extension
miranda
requests
see
probation
officers
state
expand
class
persons
covered
miranda
per
se
rule
simply
creating
duty
care
juvenile
part
persons
regardless
whether
logic
miranda
justify
extension
believe
request
juvenile
speak
probation
officer
constitutes
per
se
request
remain
silent
indicated
since
probation
officer
fulfill
important
role
protecting
rights
accused
juvenile
attorney
plays
decline
find
request
probation
officer
tantamount
request
attorney
nothing
inherent
request
probation
officer
requires
us
find
juvenile
request
see
one
necessarily
constitutes
expression
juvenile
right
remain
silent
discussed
courts
may
take
account
request
evaluating
whether
juvenile
fact
waived
fifth
amendment
rights
confessing
circumstances
request
might
well
consistent
desire
speak
police
absence
evidence
minor
intended
circumstances
invoke
fifth
amendment
rights
request
decline
attach
overwhelming
significance
request
hold
therefore
error
find
request
respondent
speak
probation
officer
per
se
constituted
invocation
respondent
fifth
amendment
right
free
compelled
therefore
also
error
hold
police
cease
interrogating
respondent
statements
made
interrogation
suppressed
iii
miranda
recognized
required
warnings
given
accused
interrogation
continues
without
presence
attorney
statement
taken
heavy
burden
rests
government
demonstrate
defendant
knowingly
intelligently
waived
privilege
right
retained
appointed
counsel
noted
north
carolina
butler
question
whether
accused
waived
rights
one
form
rather
whether
defendant
fact
knowingly
voluntarily
waived
rights
delineated
miranda
case
thus
determination
whether
statements
obtained
custodial
interrogation
admissible
accused
made
upon
inquiry
totality
circumstances
surrounding
interrogation
ascertain
whether
accused
fact
knowingly
voluntarily
decided
forgo
rights
remain
silent
assistance
counsel
miranda
arizona
approach
adequate
determine
whether
waiver
even
interrogation
juveniles
involved
discern
persuasive
reasons
approach
required
question
whether
juvenile
waived
rights
opposed
whether
adult
done
totality
approach
permits
indeed
mandates
inquiry
circumstances
surrounding
interrogation
includes
evaluation
juvenile
age
experience
education
background
intelligence
whether
capacity
understand
warnings
given
nature
fifth
amendment
rights
consequences
waiving
rights
see
north
carolina
butler
supra
courts
repeatedly
must
deal
issues
waiver
regard
broad
variety
constitutional
rights
reason
assume
courts
especially
juvenile
courts
special
expertise
area
unable
apply
analysis
take
account
special
concerns
present
young
persons
often
limited
experience
education
immature
judgment
involved
age
experience
juvenile
indicate
request
probation
officer
parents
fact
invocation
right
remain
silent
totality
approach
allow
necessary
flexibility
take
account
making
waiver
determination
time
approach
refrains
imposing
rigid
restraints
police
courts
dealing
experienced
older
juvenile
extensive
prior
record
knowingly
intelligently
waives
fifth
amendment
rights
voluntarily
consents
interrogation
case
conclude
california
determined
issue
waiver
basis
circumstances
surrounding
interrogation
respondent
juvenile
found
approach
respondent
fact
waived
fifth
amendment
rights
consented
interrogation
police
request
see
probation
officer
denied
given
view
case
course
california
consider
issue
though
hold
state
failed
prove
notwithstanding
respondent
request
see
probation
officer
respondent
intended
invoke
fifth
amendment
rights
feel
conclusion
juvenile
correct
transcript
interrogation
reveals
police
officers
conducting
interrogation
took
care
ensure
respondent
understood
rights
fully
explained
respondent
questioned
connection
murder
informed
rights
delineated
miranda
ascertained
respondent
understood
rights
indication
record
respondent
failed
understand
officers
told
moreover
request
see
probation
officer
denied
police
officer
explained
rights
respondent
clearly
expressed
willingness
waive
rights
continue
interrogation
special
factors
indicate
respondent
unable
understand
nature
actions
juvenile
considerable
experience
police
record
several
arrests
served
time
youth
camp
probation
several
years
supervision
probation
authorities
indication
insufficient
intelligence
understand
rights
waiving
consequences
waiver
worn
improper
interrogation
tactics
lengthy
questioning
trickery
deceit
facts
think
clear
respondent
voluntarily
knowingly
waived
fifth
amendment
rights
respondent
argues
however
statements
made
interrogation
coerced
specifically
respondent
alleges
police
made
threats
promises
interrogation
pressure
cooperating
hope
obtaining
leniency
cooperative
attitude
notes
also
repeatedly
told
officers
interrogation
wished
stop
answering
questions
officers
ignored
pleas
argues
record
reveals
afraid
police
coerce
fear
caused
cooperate
points
one
point
transcript
revealed
wept
interrogation
review
entire
transcript
reveals
respondent
claims
coercion
without
merit
noted
police
took
care
inform
respondent
rights
ensure
understood
officers
intimidate
threaten
respondent
way
questioning
restrained
free
abuses
concerned
miranda
see
police
indeed
indicate
cooperative
attitude
respondent
benefit
remarks
regard
far
threatening
coercive
respondent
allegation
repeatedly
asked
interrogation
cease
goes
far
points
state
know
answer
question
put
answer
question
statements
assertions
right
remain
silent
iv
hold
short
california
erred
finding
juvenile
request
probation
officer
per
se
invocation
juvenile
fifth
amendment
rights
miranda
conclude
rather
whether
statements
obtained
subsequent
interrogation
juvenile
asked
see
probation
officer
asked
consult
attorney
expressly
asserted
right
remain
silent
admissible
basis
waiver
remain
question
resolved
totality
circumstances
surrounding
interrogation
basis
record
case
hold
juvenile
findings
respondent
voluntarily
knowingly
waived
rights
consented
continued
interrogation
statements
obtained
voluntary
proper
admission
statements
proceeding
respondent
juvenile
correct
judgment
california
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
inconsistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
california
appeal
opinion
reported
vacated
affirmed
michael
cal
rptr
noted
since
juvenile
findings
fact
resolved
respondent
contention
confession
coerced
threats
promises
conclude
knowing
intelligent
waiver
minor
miranda
rights
unless
said
request
speak
probation
officer
sufficient
invoke
respondent
fifth
amendment
privilege
omitted
refused
extend
rule
people
burton
cal
include
request
probation
officer
finding
difficult
distinguish
request
request
see
one
football
coach
music
teacher
clergyman
cal
even
burton
rule
applicable
held
sufficient
evidence
affirmative
waiver
rights
respondent
distinguish
burton
california
noted
nothing
way
affirmative
proof
defendant
intend
assert
privilege
cal
two
justices
concurred
opinion
judgment
cal
expressed
concern
probation
officer
public
responsibilities
make
difficult
offer
legal
advice
minor
implicated
crime
minor
advised
cooperate
police
perhaps
even
confess
justifiably
complain
later
subjected
variation
technique
criticized
miranda
initial
interrogating
overbearing
officers
comforting
presumably
friendly
gentle
peace
officer
guise
probation
officer
two
justices
dissented
affirmed
respondent
conviction
basis
finding
juvenile
light
circumstances
surrounding
interrogation
respondent
sufficient
affirmative
proof
respondent
waived
privilege
dissenters
pointed
opinion
confusing
holding
one
hand
request
probation
officer
per
se
invocation
minor
fifth
amendment
rights
reversal
required
state
carried
burden
proving
respondent
requesting
probation
officer
intend
thereby
assert
fifth
amendment
privilege
may
well
ambiguity
regard
see
basis
ambiguity
respondent
argues
california
establish
per
se
rule
held
facts
respondent
request
see
probation
officer
constituted
invocation
fifth
amendment
rights
decision
people
randall
cal
upon
california
relied
burton
present
case
however
indicates
indeed
establish
per
se
rule
case
randall
stated
even
though
suspect
might
invoked
fifth
amendment
rights
asking
counsel
stating
wished
remain
silent
might
possible
subsequent
voluntary
statements
accused
prompted
custodial
interrogation
admissible
state
show
product
voluntary
decision
accused
waive
rights
asserted
people
randall
cal
randall
thus
indicates
per
se
language
employed
california
case
compatible
finding
state
negated
per
se
effect
request
probation
officer
showing
notwithstanding
per
se
invocation
rights
respondent
later
voluntarily
decided
waive
rights
volunteer
statements
light
randall
light
strong
per
se
language
used
california
opinion
case
see
cal
think
ambiguity
opinion
must
resolved
favor
conclusion
fact
establish
per
se
rule
indeed
yet
held
miranda
applies
full
force
exclude
evidence
obtained
violation
proscriptions
consideration
juvenile
proceedings
certain
purposes
distinguished
formal
criminal
prosecutions
see
mckeiver
pennsylvania
plurality
opinion
decide
issue
today
view
disposition
case
assume
without
deciding
miranda
principles
fully
applicable
present
proceedings
case
arose
california
statute
provided
proceeding
juvenile
declare
minor
ward
commenced
filing
petition
probation
officer
cal
welf
inst
code
ann
west
provision
since
amended
provide
petitions
filed
prosecuting
attorney
cal
ch
respondent
argues
whatever
status
probation
officer
peace
officer
time
case
arose
amendment
indicates
future
probation
officer
viewed
legal
adversary
accused
juvenile
consequently
respondent
believes
holding
regard
respondent
request
probation
officer
mere
dictum
regard
juvenile
similar
request
today
brief
respondent
disagree
fact
california
probation
officer
responsible
initiating
complaint
one
factor
analysis
fact
remains
probation
officer
fulfill
role
system
criminal
justice
attorney
regardless
whether
acts
merely
counselor
significant
law
enforcement
duties
california
many
duties
probation
officer
incompatible
view
may
act
counselor
juvenile
accused
crime
california
statute
imposes
upon
probation
officer
duty
represent
interests
juvenile
also
provides
shall
duty
probation
officer
prepare
every
hearing
criminal
charges
juvenile
social
study
minor
containing
matters
may
relevant
proper
disposition
case
cal
welf
inst
code
ann
west
supp
similarly
probation
officer
required
upon
order
juvenile
youth
authority
investigate
circumstances
surrounding
charge
minor
file
written
reports
recommendations
probation
officer
california
continues
powers
authority
peace
officer
connection
violation
criminal
statute
discovered
probation
officer
course
probation
activities
cal
penal
code
ann
west
duties
peace
officer
like
investigative
reporting
duties
probation
officers
incompatible
role
legal
adviser
juvenile
accused
crime
justice
marshall
justice
brennan
justice
stevens
join
dissenting
miranda
arizona
sought
ensure
inherently
coercive
pressures
custodial
interrogation
vitiate
suspect
privilege
nothing
pressures
operate
quickly
overbear
one
merely
made
aware
privilege
held
suspect
custody
indicates
manner
time
prior
questioning
wishes
remain
silent
interrogation
must
cease
point
shown
intends
exercise
fifth
amendment
privilege
statement
taken
person
invokes
privilege
product
compulsion
subtle
otherwise
individual
wants
attorney
interrogation
must
cease
attorney
present
omitted
consistently
recognized
coerciveness
custodial
setting
heightened
concern
juvenile
investigation
haley
ohio
plurality
reasoned
minor
particularly
susceptible
overbearing
interrogation
tactics
voluntariness
confession
judged
exacting
standards
maturity
reiterated
point
gallegos
colorado
observing
suspect
compared
adult
full
possession
senses
knowledgeable
consequences
admissions
juvenile
defendant
view
required
aid
mature
judgment
steps
take
predicament
found
lawyer
adult
relative
friend
given
petitioner
protection
immaturity
ibid
therefore
critical
present
context
construe
miranda
prophylactic
requirements
broadly
accomplish
intended
purpose
dispel
ling
compulsion
inherent
custodial
surroundings
effectuate
purpose
must
ensure
protective
device
legal
counsel
readily
available
intimation
desire
preclude
questioning
scrupulously
honored
thus
believe
miranda
requires
interrogation
cease
whenever
juvenile
requests
adult
obligated
represent
interests
request
judgment
constitutes
attempt
obtain
advice
general
invocation
right
silence
california
recognized
fatuous
assume
minor
custody
position
call
attorney
assistance
cal
quoting
people
burton
cal
trust
police
obtain
lawyer
juvenile
circumstances
likely
turn
parents
another
adult
responsible
welfare
means
securing
legal
counsel
moreover
request
adult
assistance
surely
inconsistent
present
desire
speak
freely
requiring
strict
verbal
formula
invoke
protections
miranda
protect
knowledgeable
accused
stationhouse
coercion
abandoning
young
person
knows
ask
person
trusts
chaney
wainwright
goldberg
dissenting
reading
miranda
california
juvenile
request
probation
officer
treated
per
se
assertion
fifth
amendment
rights
california
determined
probation
officers
statutory
duty
represent
minors
interests
indeed
trusted
guardian
figure
juvenile
likely
turn
assistance
cal
addition
found
probation
officers
particularly
well
suited
assist
juvenile
matters
whether
obtain
attorney
conduct
police
hence
juvenile
request
probation
officer
may
frequently
attempt
secure
protection
coercive
aspects
custodial
questioning
concludes
however
probation
officer
law
enforcement
duties
juveniles
generally
call
upon
represent
interests
well
served
ante
conclusion
ignores
california
express
determination
officer
responsibility
initiate
juvenile
proceedings
negate
function
personal
adviser
wards
decline
assessment
state
law
see
murdock
memphis
wall
general
trading
state
tax
scripto
carson
although
majority
speculates
probation
officers
duty
advise
cooperation
police
ante
proposition
suggested
concurring
opinion
two
justices
cal
mosk
joined
bird
concurring
respondent
probation
officer
instructed
charges
go
admit
openly
offense
rather
get
type
advice
parents
lawyer
app
absent
explicit
statutory
provision
judicial
holding
officer
assessment
obligations
imposed
state
law
entitled
deference
thus
given
role
probation
officers
california
law
juvenile
request
see
officer
may
reflect
desire
precisely
kind
assistance
miranda
guarantees
accused
waives
fifth
amendment
rights
least
request
signals
desire
remain
silent
contact
officer
made
contrary
determination
withdraws
safeguards
miranda
need
protection
respectfully
dissent
facts
instant
case
illustrative
police
offered
obtain
attorney
respondent
replied
know
guys
wo
pull
police
officer
tell
attorney
ante
significantly
police
made
attempt
allay
concern
see
cal
intimates
construing
request
probation
officer
invocation
fifth
amendment
privilege
undermine
specificity
miranda
prophylactic
rules
ante
yet
concedes
statutory
duty
advise
care
juvenile
defendant
cal
distinguishes
probation
officers
adults
coaches
clergymen
ante
since
law
enforcement
officials
notice
legal
relationships
presumably
difficulty
determining
whether
suspect
asserted
fifth
amendment
rights
although
agree
brother
powell
facts
respondent
subjected
fair
interrogation
free
inherently
coercive
circumstances
post
believe
approach
provides
police
sufficient
guidance
affords
juveniles
adequate
protection
filing
petition
performing
functions
enumerated
ante
probation
officer
must
act
best
interests
minor
see
steven
cal
app
cal
rptr
one
thing
certain
california
familiar
duties
performance
probation
officers
course
peculiarly
within
competence
highest
state
determine
jurisdiction
police
subject
stringent
rules
required
federal
constitutional
minimum
oregon
hass
marshall
dissenting
see
also
people
disbrow
cal
refusing
follow
harris
new
york
brennan
state
constitutions
protection
individual
rights
harv
rev
justice
powell
dissenting
although
agree
california
misconstrued
miranda
arizona
reverse
california
judgment
repeatedly
recognized
greatest
care
must
taken
assure
alleged
confession
juvenile
voluntary
see
gault
gallegos
colorado
haley
ohio
plurality
opinion
respondent
young
person
years
old
time
arrest
subsequent
prolonged
interrogation
station
house
although
respondent
prior
brushes
law
supervision
probation
officer
taped
transcript
interrogation
well
testimony
suppression
hearing
demonstrates
immature
emotional
uneducated
therefore
likely
vulnerable
skillful
repetitive
style
interrogation
subjected
app
given
miranda
warnings
asked
whether
desired
attorney
respondent
requested
permission
probation
officer
request
refused
officer
testified
later
communicated
frequently
respondent
respondent
serious
extensive
family
problems
officer
instructed
respondent
call
immediately
time
police
contact
even
stop
talk
street
reasons
given
probation
officer
instructed
charge
substantially
reasons
prompt
examine
special
care
circumstances
minor
alleged
confession
obtained
stating
respondent
going
problems
officer
observed
many
times
kids
understand
going
supposed
relative
police
view
limited
understanding
average
borne
respondent
question
interrogation
advised
right
attorney
know
guys
wo
pull
police
officer
tell
attorney
part
interrogation
police
denied
respondent
request
probation
officer
ibid
police
proceeded
despite
respondent
repeated
denial
connection
murder
investigation
see
persistently
press
interrogation
extracted
confession
gault
addressing
police
interrogation
detained
juveniles
stated
counsel
present
permissible
reason
admission
obtained
child
greatest
care
must
taken
assure
admission
voluntary
sense
coerced
suggested
also
product
ignorance
rights
adolescent
fantasy
fright
despair
although
view
case
close
satisfied
particular
boy
particular
situation
subjected
fair
interrogation
free
inherently
coercive
circumstances
reasons
affirm
judgment
california
california
purporting
apply
miranda
arizona
stated
face
conduct
regardless
considerations
capacity
coercion
voluntariness
per
se
invokes
privilege
cal
agree
opinion
today
miranda
read
support
per
se
rule
juvenile
judge
observed
heard
tapes
interrogation
aware
fact
michael
respondent
crying
time
talked
police
officers
app
california
stated
probation
officer
official
appointed
pursuant
legislative
enactment
represent
interests
juvenile
borne
duty
advise
care
juvenile
defendant
cal
minors
become
embroiled
law
range
young
brink
majority
older
minors
become
fully
hardened
criminals
deserving
greater
consideration
properly
accorded
persons
suspected
crime
minors
child
adult
indicated
gault
facts
relevant
care
exercised
particular
case
vary
widely
include
minor
age
actual
maturity
family
environment
education
emotional
mental
stability
course
prior
record
might