Secret Service interrogates 7th grader

[revelarts]

Secret Service interrogates Tacoma 7th grader
The young boy was questioned by Secret Service for his Facebook posting.


A Tacoma seventh grader faced federal interrogation at school for what he posted on his Facebook page. His mom said it all happened without her knowledge or permission.

Timi Robertson said she had just finished lunch with a friend Friday when she got a phone call from her son's school.

"I answered it, and it's the school security guard who's giving me a heads up that the Secret Service is here with the Tacoma Police Department and they have Vito and they're talking to him," Robertson said.

After Osama bin Laden was killed, 13-year-old Vito LaPinta posted an update to his Facebook status that got the Feds attention.

"I was saying how Osama was dead and for Obama to be careful because there could be suicide bombers," says LaPinta.

A week later, while Vito was in his fourth period class, he was called in to the principal's office.

"A man walked in with a suit and glasses and he said he was part of the Secret Service," LaPinta said. "He told me it was because of a post I made that indicated I was a threat toward the President."

The Tacoma school district acknowledged a Secret Service agent questioned Vito and that it was a security guard who called Vito's mom because the principal was on another call. The school district said they didn’t wait for Vito’s mother to get there because they thought she didn't take the phone call seriously.

"That's a blatant lie," Robertson said.

The teen’s mom says she rushed to Truman Middle School immediately and arrived to discover her son had already been questioned for half an hour.

"I just about lost it," she said. "My 13 year-old son is supposed to be safe and secure in his classroom and he's being interrogated without my knowledge or consent privately."

The seventh grader said that once his mom showed up, the agent finished the interview and told him he was not in any trouble. Now he's more careful about what he posts online.

His mother says she isn't financially able to take legal action but hopes her family's story raises awareness about the treatment she said her son endured.

The Seattle branch of the Secret Service did not respond to requests for comment.
http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-secret-service-the-feds-question-a-tacoma-seventh-grader-for-a-facebook-comment-about-president-obama-and-suicide-bombers-20110516,0,5762882.story

Obviously the kid is a terrorist, right?
The Principal and School OWNS your kid in school.
Parents can have them after the feds are DONE.

the country's gone mad.

[Trinity]

Secret Service interrogates Tacoma 7th grader
The young boy was questioned by Secret Service for his Facebook posting.


http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-secret-service-the-feds-question-a-tacoma-seventh-grader-for-a-facebook-comment-about-president-obama-and-suicide-bombers-20110516,0,5762882.story

Obviously the kid is a terrorist, right?
The Principal and School OWNS your kid in school.
Parents can have them after the feds are DONE.

the country's gone mad.

I would be livid and you can damn well bet some heads would be spinning...........

[logroller]

Mom claims she didn't know what he'd posted. Did she know he was misrepresenting his age and school status? This kid's in Jr high, 7th grade even, and that's a violation of FAcebook policy-

This Site is intended solely for users who are thirteen (13) years of age or older, and users of the Site under 18 who are currently in high school or college. Any registration by, use of or access to the Site by anyone under 13, or by anyone who is under 18 and not in high school or college, is unauthorized, unlicensed and in violation of these Terms of Use. By using the Service or the Site, you represent and warrant that you are 13 or older and in high school or college, or else that you are 18 or older, and that you agree to and to abide by all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement.


They just questioned him, its not like he's been arrested. I don't know what the beef is, privacy? parental rights? location of questioning?

The kid posted it on the web, pretty far from private, so that's out.

Mom said she wasn't aware of what he'd posted-- a relatively adult concept re:suicide bombers,(its not a kid running around with a finger gun), so its a bit of stretch to say this child needs mommie's help and I'm guessing he can respond to questions on his own, which he did and was consequently released.

The fact it's at school does matter though-- its a safe zone. Let's say this kid is an actual threat and/or his parents are crazy too, just waiting for the opportunity to stick it to Uncle Sam's minions; were you a secret service agent responding to this, how would you feel about knocking on their door? I mean what they supposed to do, send you a letter, make an appt? Come on, they just show up. The POTUS gets something like 30 threats a day, most are completely benign, as was this one, but they have to respond to each as if it were sincere.

What get's me is the mom's all upset b/c she can't pursue legal recourse for financial reasons; as if, were she present and refused to speak with the officer, she wouldn't have been dragged through substantial legal costs.

[fj1200]

They just questioned him, its not like he's been arrested. I don't know what the beef is, privacy? parental rights? location of questioning?

It's much better that we run around and say that the Feds are stealing our children away from us.


I just about lost it," she said. "My 13 year-old son is supposed to be safe and secure in his classroom and he's being interrogated without my knowledge or consent privately."

The seventh grader said that once his mom showed up, the agent finished the interview and told him he was not in any trouble. Now he's more careful about what he posts online.

His mother says she isn't financially able to take legal action but hopes her family's story raises awareness about the treatment she said her son endured.

Her credibility is suspect. He's not safe at school? He didn't sound traumatized and legal action? :rolleyes:

[revelarts]

Log
so once the Secret Service Hacked his Facebook page read all of his post found his name, address his real age.

Discovered he was a 7th grader,
what school he went to,
that he lived in Washington.... STATE,
they thought that MAYBEEEE he might skip school
-use his lunch money and hop a plane to DC
-Had access to explosives
-strap himself with them
-and get close enough to Obama to blow HIMSELF and Obama up.
7th grade suburban boys do that type of thing.

That makes sense to you?

So with all this info Prior,
They determined they HAD TO GO TO HIS SCHOOL and Question him instead of at Home.
Because the mother, may have been AlQeada Tacoma.
There was good reason to think that?

Log, seriously?

I can't believe you'd even suggest that as being remotely realistic.

Can you tell me the last American 7th grade suicide bomber?
Should the secret service just blindly follow a computer pop-up without using common sense? Did he fit a serious secret service profile of people who are threats to the President? Would you lose a wink a sleep over that kid if you where protecting the president?

the Secret Service should apologize for bothering those people and Invite the family to Washington to see some of what they do for the country that make sense.

[CSM]

Its just a bit ironic that some folks raise holy hell when a military recruiter talks to their child at school without parental consent but are totally silent when a law enforcement agency does the same.

Things that make me wonder.....

[jimnyc]

Lie to bypass the TOS agreement and post what can be misconstrued as threatening messages on the 'net - and you will be questioned.

Be honest and don't post shit on the 'net, and we wouldn't have this thread.

[DragonStryk72]

Mom claims she didn't know what he'd posted. Did she know he was misrepresenting his age and school status? This kid's in Jr high, 7th grade even, and that's a violation of FAcebook policy-


They just questioned him, its not like he's been arrested. I don't know what the beef is, privacy? parental rights? location of questioning?

The kid posted it on the web, pretty far from private, so that's out.

Mom said she wasn't aware of what he'd posted-- a relatively adult concept re:suicide bombers,(its not a kid running around with a finger gun), so its a bit of stretch to say this child needs mommie's help and I'm guessing he can respond to questions on his own, which he did and was consequently released.

The fact it's at school does matter though-- its a safe zone. Let's say this kid is an actual threat and/or his parents are crazy too, just waiting for the opportunity to stick it to Uncle Sam's minions; were you a secret service agent responding to this, how would you feel about knocking on their door? I mean what they supposed to do, send you a letter, make an appt? Come on, they just show up. The POTUS gets something like 30 threats a day, most are completely benign, as was this one, but they have to respond to each as if it were sincere.

What get's me is the mom's all upset b/c she can't pursue legal recourse for financial reasons; as if, were she present and refused to speak with the officer, she wouldn't have been dragged through substantial legal costs.


So they interrogated every single news anchor who said that there could be retaliatory strikes? The kid didn't threaten the POTUS, he made a single observation, that, because of Osama's death, suicide bombers might decide to take a shot at the President of the country that borught him down. It's like if you decked out a mugger, and I went, "Look out, his buddies might beat the shit out of you."

I'm not threatening you. I'm pointing that other people who have clear probable cause to do so, just might.

Whether the child can answer the question or not is completely immaterial. By law, they are required to inform the parents, and to get permission to detain their child, with an explanation of why.

"Innocent until prove guilty" is the basis of our entire judicial system, so your what if scenario doesn't really work. If you read what the kid wrote, it wasn't a threat at any point. So basically, you're saying that the government has the right to snatch your child off the street without providing a scrap of evidence, alerting you to what's going on at any point, or any form of oversight to their actions.

[fj1200]

Secret Service interrogates Tacoma 7th grader

What if instead of "interrogates" they said that the SS asked a few questions? I'm guessing he wasn't in a dark room with a single bare lightbulb hanging over him.

[revelarts]

Lie to bypass the TOS agreement and post what can be misconstrued as threatening messages on the 'net - and you will be questioned.

Be honest and don't post shit on the 'net, and we wouldn't have this thread.


How about the real adults use some common sense and we won't have this thread.



What if instead of "interrogates" they said that the SS asked a few questions? I'm guessing he wasn't in a dark room with a single bare lightbulb hanging over him.

"Secret Service ask Tacoma 7th grader if he's a suicide bomber"
Still sounds pretty crazy to me FJ.

[logroller]

They didn't hack his facebook account, they called facebook and said, "hey there's post on your website that may or may not be of national security interest-- can we have some more info?" Read the fine print on most any website Terms and Conditions Agreement-- you waive your privacy rights when you check Agree. I don't have a FB account for just that reason, I like my privacy; but I post here and hope govt is reading it, I'd welcome questions! :thumb:

Suicide bombing doesn't "make sense to me", period. Any considerations as to motive and means are inconsequential, but then again, that's not my job-- I trust those threats to be addressed by the gov't. If this kid would of said suicide bomber attacks against Americans, I doubt he would have been questioned, but he specified the prez, why? That's what they asked him I'm sure. It's not as though Obama was on AQ's Ramadan card list before he took out OBL.

So far as actual viability of any threat--If I told you "you'd better watch your back!", is that a threat, or just a warning? Bear in mind what maybe seen as commentary by some, could also be a viable threat to another. Given the impact if such threats materialize, those whose duty it is to subvert such threats can't dismiss such comments on presumption alone. They inquire, in the quickest dutiful means; to not do so could be disasterous. He didn't threaten the prez, and the secret service came to the same conclusion, but they still have to check.

He wasn't detained, just questioned. Detaining is to take into official custody,which they did not! It's no different than if little jimmy had been amongst a fight out on the playground and the principal pulled him out of class to ask him what his involvement was; that's not being detained, its being questioned. I don't expect the school to call me unless there is an actual problem, which in this case, there wasn't. I mean, I suppose he wasn't free to leave, but kids can't just leave school either-- we grant authoritarian control to school officials when we send our kids there. Consider the alternatives, kids running amok doing whatever they feel free to do; be it gossiping, surfing the web or threatening the president. Its not like a would be attacker goes to the extreme of saying " I'm real, I mean it, this isn't just hyperbole or observation" Their response may seem extreme, but that's what high-level government authority is responsible for controlling--the extreme. I mean 10 years ago people would consider a multipronged coordinated attack on the US by hijacked airliners extreme and far-fetched, there was even detailed consideration of the viability of such attacks-- but it happened, because people didn't consider it feasible.

[logroller]

How about the real adults use some common sense and we won't have this thread.

"Secret Service ask Tacoma 7th grader if he's a suicide bomber"
Still sounds pretty crazy to me FJ.

Here's some common sense-- kids repeat what they hear. So, rather than focusing on the premise this kid is the threat, maybe he had knowledge of someone threatening the pres and posted on what he'd heard from another. They didn't arrest him; if they thought he was a threat they would have.

[jimnyc]

How about the real adults use some common sense and we won't have this thread.

How do you know what was "actually" written that was taken as a threat? The kids page is hidden and the secret service isn't commenting. Just "maybe" he wrote things a little differently than what is being told and now is changing his story?

I don't give a damn how old he is. If he wrote something that was threatening towards the president, and lied about his age, simply questioning him about what he wrote is a non-issue.

[Nukeman]

How do you know what was "actually" written that was taken as a threat? The kids page is hidden and the secret service isn't commenting. Just "maybe" he wrote things a little differently than what is being told and now is changing his story?

I don't give a damn how old he is. If he wrote something that was threatening towards the president, and lied about his age, simply questioning him about what he wrote is a non-issue.Actually since he is a minor he should have had his parents present at the begining!! I will say if one of my kids posted something that brought the feds down on them I damn sure better be present the entire time to be sure that I have my own recording device just to be clear!!:coffee:

[Nukeman]

How do you know what was "actually" written that was taken as a threat? The kids page is hidden and the secret service isn't commenting. Just "maybe" he wrote things a little differently than what is being told and now is changing his story?

I don't give a damn how old he is. If he wrote something that was threatening towards the president, and lied about his age, simply questioning him about what he wrote is a non-issue.

It really doesn't matter if he posted "I would blow the shit out of Obama" they should still have afforded him the right to his parents being present for the whole thing!!

[jimnyc]

Actually since he is a minor he should have had his parents present at the begining!! I will say if one of my kids posted something that brought the feds down on them I damn sure better be present the entire time to be sure that I have my own recording device just to be clear!!:coffee:


It really doesn't matter if he posted "I would blow the shit out of Obama" they should still have afforded him the right to his parents being present for the whole thing!!

They need not have a parent present if they are simply interviewing him about his comments. There is a difference between interviewing and interrogating.

[jimnyc]

It really doesn't matter if he posted "I would blow the shit out of Obama" they should still have afforded him the right to his parents being present for the whole thing!!

If he DID post that, then he committed a crime, and he would be arrested without a parent being present.

[jimnyc]

While I agree with you as a parent, and would get there instantly if my son was going to be questioned - the issue here is the LAW.

Anyone interested - go to Google or Yahoo and type in "can law enforcement interrogate/interview minors" (swap the 2 words for better results)

You'll find that in almost all cases they are allowed to interview/talk to the minors. It's when an official interrogation would begin and they read Miranda that a parent would need to be present.

I'm sorry, but even if we disagree, the law will trump our feelings.

But I still stand by my statements that if a child is playing on the 'net, lying about his age, and possibly posting threatening statements to our president - I would say the SS has the DUTY to follow up on it.

[Nukeman]

They need not have a parent present if they are simply interviewing him about his comments. There is a difference between interviewing and interrogating.

"interviews" "interrogating", your using semantics here and that is all. What do you think a "interview" by the SS would feel like to a 13 year old boy. Hell I'm 42 and it would feel like a interrogation to me. Its horrible that our govt has the time to sift through that many facebook, email, message boards, etc...etc... that they can look for each and every post referencing the "president". kind of Orwellian don't ya think??

[jimnyc]

"interviews" "interrogating", your using semantics here and that is all. What do you think a "interview" by the SS would feel like to a 13 year old boy. Hell I'm 42 and it would feel like a interrogation to me. Its horrible that our govt has the time to sift through that many facebook, email, message boards, etc...etc... that they can look for each and every post referencing the "president". kind of Orwellian don't ya think??

The law is the law - and it's an interview until such time he is read Miranda. Up till that point, they get treated the same as an adult. You can call it semantics all you like, but the difference between the 2 is clearly lined out by law enforcement. And while I'm no expert, I can almost guarantee you that it's even further different when it's the SS investigating a threat to the president.

While I am a parent and don't want it done to my son, my proper parenting would hopefully prevent my son from lying on the internet and posting possible threats to/about the president.

[Nukeman]

The law is the law - and it's an interview until such time he is read Miranda. Up till that point, they get treated the same as an adult. You can call it semantics all you like, but the difference between the 2 is clearly lined out by law enforcement. And while I'm no expert, I can almost guarantee you that it's even further different when it's the SS investigating a threat to the president.

While I am a parent and don't want it done to my son, my proper parenting would hopefully prevent my son from lying on the internet and posting possible threats to/about the president.
So are you saying that if "interviewed" than anything he says cant be held against him in a court of law?? If he can be held accountable for what he says to them at that time it is tantemount to interrorgation without the protection of his miranda rights!!!

[jimnyc]

So are you saying that if "interviewed" than anything he says cant be held against him in a court of law?? If he can be held accountable for what he says to them at that time it is tantemount to interrorgation without the protection of his miranda rights!!!

The law is the law, and even a child is treated as an adult - unless they are placed in custody - then they would need to be read their Miranda rights and have an adult present. As for questions answered during the interview, I'm sure a competent attorney could argue that he was not in custody, not read Miranda and too young to understand (depending on age).

But again, do a quick search on ANY state and you'll see that I am correct.

And the law clearly states that unless he is placed in custody, he is not being interrogated and is being questioned.

[jimnyc]

Here is a page with basics, I will search for more:

http://criminal.lawyers.com/ask-a-lawyer/Can-Police-Question-a-Juvenile-Without-a-Parent-or...-7445.html

[jimnyc]

Here is law based out of Tacoma, where this kid is from, from an attorney:

Communicating with the Police

Most of the constitutional rights that adults have are also provided for juveniles who are accused of a minor DUI, Assault, Theft, Property Destruction, Reckless Driving, Drug Charges, or another juvenile crime. Most importantly, it is required that they be read the Miranda Warning. Often, law enforcement will question minors at school, without the parent's knowledge. The police are not required to inform a minor that they can request the presence of a parent or guardian, but they do have to abide by the request if asked. Just as adults can, a minor can invoke their right to remain silent and their right to a juvenile defense attorney. It is very important to consult with a juvenile attorney before a minor communicates with the police. Law enforcement is not required to tell the truth when interrogating and can often trick minors into giving incriminating statements.


http://www.beckwithlawgroup.com/lawyer-attorney-1570069.html

[fj1200]

"Secret Service ask Tacoma 7th grader if he's a suicide bomber"
Still sounds pretty crazy to me FJ.

Sorry I didn't realize you were there and are privy to EXACTLY what was said and not just relying on the characterization of the media. My mistake. :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

Another answer from an Attorney in Washington. And these examples are for simple little things, no investigations into threats toward the president.


I practice in the State of Washington, so other jurisdictions may be different. However, in general this is a common police tactic. Pulling a child out of a classroom for questioning certainly does not seem right, but it is perfectly legal and the child has no right to have a parent present. HOWEVER, instruct your child to tell the police that he either wants to talk to a lawyer before answering questions, or that he has been instructed by his lawyer not to answer any questions. The police must respect this response and not ask your child further questions. Please keep in mind that in response, the police may issue your child a citation for the crime being investigated. However, it is likely that would have occurred anyway, with or without your child's cooperation. By not answering the police's questions outside the presence of an attorney, your child will not be giving the police evidence against him or admissions of guilt that they are attempting to gain by the questioning.

http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-a-police-officer-question-a-minor-without-pare-330844.html

[revelarts]

Sorry I didn't realize you were there and are privy to EXACTLY what was said and not just relying on the characterization of the media. My mistake. :rolleyes:


...I'm guessing he wasn't in a dark room with a single bare lightbulb hanging over him.
Didn't know you where there to check the lighting FJ?
or should we just rely on guessing?
I'm just relying on the characterization of the kid who was questioned and the Mom?
The Secret Sevice has probably classified the questions for national security reasons.

Becuase as you, Log and Jim suggest the kid MAYBE knew someone or heard someone ...not from TV thats been 24-7 "Osamas dead WATCH OUT for the BACKLASH!!" but from the the kids home town, the seat of AlQeada in America Tacoma Washington. And the Secret Service (Who don't have to Hack. I agree . I wouldn't be surprised if they had full and completed access to everything on facebook at there finger tips. ) find all of the kids long life of details Name, Age, Home address, school, Still found it Necessary to question him?
there must have been some excuse I'd agree.
In this case I'd chok it up to a big fat mistake. A goof. Bad judgement.
People in All brachs of gov't make them from time to times guys. Heck everybody does right. it's OK to say so.
The secret service can survive A bit egg on the shades.
No need to twist into pretzels trying to make their activity look reasonable when it so clearly is not.

[jimnyc]

Hey Rev, where have you been since, well, the inception of the secret service? They can and likely will investigate every perceived threat to the president of the US. They did just that, and they did not end up handcuffing him or even waterboarding him.

Can you show me exactly what he posted on FB top get their attention? I've seen kids get harsher treatment from threatening their school or classmates, I'd be curious what this on wrote to only be questioned.

[revelarts]

I think this is his face book intro
http://www.facebook.com/people/Vito-Lapinta-Jr/100002254950508

he got 7 friends
likes rock and rap and adventure fantasy.

the Secret Service Better search his house for Star Wars info, maybe Plans to the Death Star.

I like Logs idea better, that the kid heard something around town.
Makes me think the kid is like a Modern Huck Finn.

While playing hooky from school he came across a Cave in Tacoma that's the hide out of AlQeada Joe!

:laugh2:

[jimnyc]

And if he makes a post, and it lands on a friends page that has 239 friends, and she replies, it's now on all of their pages...

Besides, does a threat need to be stated to a certain number to be taken more seriously? All it takes is the threat and someone to report it (or nutcases to think the SS is monitoring the entire FB).

Bottom line is that he was questioned for making what was a perceived threat, and that was the end of it. Completely legal and completely within the law.

[logroller]

"interviews" "interrogating", your using semantics here and that is all. What do you think a "interview" by the SS would feel like to a 13 year old boy. Hell I'm 42 and it would feel like a interrogation to me. Its horrible that our govt has the time to sift through that many facebook, email, message boards, etc...etc... that they can look for each and every post referencing the "president". kind of Orwellian don't ya think??


Semantics (from Greek sēmantiká, neuter plural of sēmantikós)[1][2] is the study of meaning. It focuses on the relation between signifiers, such as words, phrases, signs and symbols, and what they stand for, their denotata.

Without semantics, words are just words-- you can't ignore meaning,or here's what you get:
http://fr.toonpool.com/user/8371/files/the_right_to_bear_arms_1244075.jpg

[logroller]

The law is the law, and even a child is treated as an adult - unless they are placed in custody - then they would need to be read their Miranda rights and have an adult present. As for questions answered during the interview, I'm sure a competent attorney could argue that he was not in custody, not read Miranda and too young to understand (depending on age).

But again, do a quick search on ANY state and you'll see that I am correct.

And the law clearly states that unless he is placed in custody, he is not being interrogated and is being questioned.


I concur.

[logroller]

And if he makes a post, and it lands on a friends page that has 239 friends, and she replies, it's now on all of their pages...

Besides, does a threat need to be stated to a certain number to be taken more seriously? All it takes is the threat and someone to report it (or nutcases to think the SS is monitoring the entire FB).

Bottom line is that he was questioned for making what was a perceived threat, and that was the end of it. Completely legal and completely within the law.

Sorry, guess I should've multiquoted. But anyways-- I'm sure they just use a search algorithm, picking up on certain words and phrasology- same thing that made google billions. That's not conspiracy theory stuff; proven and practiced--google searches number about 34000 queries per second, up from 65 per sec in 1999. I fair to assume common citizens aren't privy to this cyber-technology.

And Rev, you wanna talk Orwellian extremism and StarTrek, Google's new instant search feature attempts to figure out what you want to search, supposedly offering time savings on the order of 2-5 seconds per query, a 3.6 billion second savings per day.--We are borg-- you have been assimilated:laugh:

[Kathianne]

So they interrogated every single news anchor who said that there could be retaliatory strikes? The kid didn't threaten the POTUS, he made a single observation, that, because of Osama's death, suicide bombers might decide to take a shot at the President of the country that borught him down. It's like if you decked out a mugger, and I went, "Look out, his buddies might beat the shit out of you."

I'm not threatening you. I'm pointing that other people who have clear probable cause to do so, just might.

Whether the child can answer the question or not is completely immaterial. By law, they are required to inform the parents, and to get permission to detain their child, with an explanation of why.

"Innocent until prove guilty" is the basis of our entire judicial system, so your what if scenario doesn't really work. If you read what the kid wrote, it wasn't a threat at any point. So basically, you're saying that the government has the right to snatch your child off the street without providing a scrap of evidence, alerting you to what's going on at any point, or any form of oversight to their actions.

Actually I think the Secret Service had the right to question the child, but not without mother or dad present. In this case I think the screw up was the school, which should have refused access until parent was present.

[fj1200]

Didn't know you where there to check the lighting FJ?
or should we just rely on guessing?
I'm just relying on the characterization of the kid who was questioned and the Mom?
The Secret Sevice has probably classified the questions for national security reasons.

Sounds to me like the characterization came from the headline.


"I was saying how Osama was dead and for Obama to be careful because there could be suicide bombers," says LaPinta.

"A man walked in with a suit and glasses and he said he was part of the Secret Service," LaPinta said. "He told me it was because of a post I made that indicated I was a threat toward the President."

AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! My God... the terror in his voice... Do you think he has any fingernails left?

There is nothing in that characterization that says "interrogation." It's a shame the mom doesn't have the cash to take legal action because I'm thinking All the President's Men: Part Deux.


Becuase as you, Log and Jim suggest the kid MAYBE knew someone or heard someone ...

I'm pretty sure the SS didn't choose this moment and this case to make an example to keep the population in line.

[DragonStryk72]

Actually I think the Secret Service had the right to question the child, but not without mother or dad present. In this case I think the screw up was the school, which should have refused access until parent was present.

Yes, and there was no way that they didn't know they were supposed to do that. They had to have had his parents' names, their home address and such. They are given far too much training not to know they were breaking regs.

They had shaky ground at best with the way the scenario is set up, made worse by the fact that they circumvented the rules. So really, even in the what if scenario, they need to be even more careful, because they just invalidated their whole case. Any lawyer could get the boy's testimony thrown out on those grounds.

[jimnyc]

Yes, and there was no way that they didn't know they were supposed to do that. They had to have had his parents' names, their home address and such. They are given far too much training not to know they were breaking regs.

They had shaky ground at best with the way the scenario is set up, made worse by the fact that they circumvented the rules. So really, even in the what if scenario, they need to be even more careful, because they just invalidated their whole case. Any lawyer could get the boy's testimony thrown out on those grounds.

They broke no regulations. They circumvented no rules. They were within their rights to question the boy without the parents present.

[gabosaurus]

First of all, it's facebook. No one knows your real age. And, in this day and age, if someone mentions "watching out for suicide bombers" in relation to any public official, he/she is going to get questions.

If you don't think 7th graders are capable of pulling off murder plots, you haven't talked to a 7th grader lately.

[jimnyc]

Yes, and there was no way that they didn't know they were supposed to do that. They had to have had his parents' names, their home address and such. They are given far too much training not to know they were breaking regs.

They had shaky ground at best with the way the scenario is set up, made worse by the fact that they circumvented the rules. So really, even in the what if scenario, they need to be even more careful, because they just invalidated their whole case. Any lawyer could get the boy's testimony thrown out on those grounds.

Don't mean to be a prick and quote/correct you twice, but wanted to in order to ask Rev why he would thank someone for a post that was 100% incorrect. Ok, maybe I am a prick, but that doesn't change the fact that everything written here is wrong, and already backed up previously in this very thread.

Maybe if I just write "doh" I can get a "thanks". That's why the rep system and thanks system is for the birds. :poke:

[gabosaurus]

That's why the rep system and thanks system is for the birds. :poke:

I totally agree that rep and thanks system are useless. Why don't you get rid of both? The board would be a better place.

[revelarts]

Ran into this fellas comments on 7th graders secret service visit.
He says he's been visited by the secret service as well for his youtube activity i gather.

He makes some great points and describes a very interesting conversation with a couple of guys from the SS.
A bit of SS Pysch happening here i think. this guys ego and whatever may have colored his view of his "little chat".

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6BXTLGzgKTY?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6BXTLGzgKTY?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[jimnyc]

Ran into this fellas comments on 7th graders secret service visit.
He says he's been visited by the secret service as well for his youtube activity i gather.

He makes some great points and decribes a Very interesting conversation with a couple of guys from the SS.

Not going to sit through over 12 minutes of listening to that stupid looking fuck. How about giving us the cliff notes version? Maybe what he brings to our debate, legally speaking as to what took place with this 7th grader?

[jimnyc]

Just for you, Rev, i just watched that movie. Here's what I got out of it...

This guy is a ranting, raving fucking idiot.

Then I visited his youtube channel and took a quick peek at his other videos. My suspicions were then confirmed.

I can't believe you watch this shit.

I want that precious 12 minutes of my life back now!

[DragonStryk72]

Don't mean to be a prick and quote/correct you twice, but wanted to in order to ask Rev why he would thank someone for a post that was 100% incorrect. Ok, maybe I am a prick, but that doesn't change the fact that everything written here is wrong, and already backed up previously in this very thread.

Maybe if I just write "doh" I can get a "thanks". That's why the rep system and thanks system is for the birds. :poke:

The only reason they don't have to abide by it is because the federal government decided to exempt itself by using the term "interview" to play a bullshit word game with the people. When exactly does that become wrong? How many more laws do the feds get to "break" by just changing the wording to something that means the same thing, but it isn't quite the same thing, so they get to sidestep it. How many more times do we let the government get away with sidestepping the amendments?

[jimnyc]

The only reason they don't have to abide by it is because the federal government decided to exempt itself by using the term "interview" to play a bullshit word game with the people. When exactly does that become wrong? How many more laws do the feds get to "break" by just changing the wording to something that means the same thing, but it isn't quite the same thing, so they get to sidestep it. How many more times do we let the government get away with sidestepping the amendments?

The same applies to regular police as well. The local cops could have went in and asked questions of a student and it would have been perfectly legal!

[DragonStryk72]

The same applies to regular police as well. The local cops could have went in and asked questions of a student and it would have been perfectly legal!

You see nothing at all with the fact your kid can be detained by authorities without your knowledge, consent, or approval, and that you only find out about when a 3rd party decides of his own volition to inform it's going on?

[jimnyc]

You see nothing at all with the fact your kid can be detained by authorities without your knowledge, consent, or approval, and that you only find out about when a 3rd party decides of his own volition to inform it's going on?

I said they could be questioned. Being detained would then go over the line and they would then need a parent present. You arguing with me when I'm simply spelling out the law for you. I only stated I had no problem with them questioning someone who may have threatened the president in some manner.

[DragonStryk72]

I said they could be questioned. Being detained would then go over the line and they would then need a parent present. You arguing with me when I'm simply spelling out the law for you. I only stated I had no problem with them questioning someone who may have threatened the president in some manner.

That's what I was saying, though, Jim. They didn't do things on the up and up. They intentionally reworded what they were doing so that they didn't have to play by the rules. If I shit in your hand, Jim, I could spin it as "giving you the leftovers from my lunch". Technically, what I'm saying is accurate in a way, but really, I shit in your hand, and am using a really horrible twisting of words to get around the consequences of my action.

[taft2012]

It's much better that we run around and say that the Feds are stealing our children away from us.

People who say crazy stuff like that usually have zero concern about the issue at hand.....if you have the patience (I no longer do), stick with the conversation long enough and you'll find out it all boils down to them wanting to be able to smoke marijuana legally.

[taft2012]

I said they could be questioned. Being detained would then go over the line and they would then need a parent present. You arguing with me when I'm simply spelling out the law for you. I only stated I had no problem with them questioning someone who may have threatened the president in some manner.

You have stumbled into the truth here James. Being in custody and being questioned does trigger an automatic right to an attorney. With juveniles the law is that an adult with some interest in the child *should* be present, that can include a teacher, clergyman, etc. If no adult shows up within a reasonable time the questioning can proceed without an adult present.

In this particular case there was no custody, so the rules are even more lax.

The interesting disparity here is between federal and local law enforcement, and liberal perceptions. In NYC the school staff would never allow the NYPD to ask questions like this, because the liberal mindset is so engrained. However, the liberal mindset has an adoration of federal law enforcement, and the Secret Service could have pulled this off in NYC easily.

It harkens back to the general premise: anything representing big centralized gov't is good, anything representing smaller localized authority is bad. Federal police good. Local police bad. It's just a logical extension of their broader beliefs.

[fj1200]

People who say crazy stuff like that usually have zero concern about the issue at hand.....if you have the patience (I no longer do), stick with the conversation long enough and you'll find out it all boils down to them wanting to be able to smoke marijuana legally.

And you called my post "crazy stuff!" :laugh: People who make posts like I did point out when the crazies (sorry rev) vastly blow things out of proportion.

[taft2012]

And you called my post "crazy stuff!" :laugh: People who make posts like I did point out when the crazies (sorry rev) vastly blow things out of proportion.

Trust me... stick with the conversation long enough and marijuana will rear its head.... :laugh:

[jimnyc]

Not sure why this thread was revived nearly 5 months later, but regardless, EVERY comment I made was FACT and cannot be disputed. As parents, myself included, we sometimes want to give our kids the benefit of doubt and seek to have authority put aside until we can be there for every step of the moment. BUT, the FACT is, we do not have that right granted to us until miranda is needed and an official interrogation begins at the station, whether local police or secret service. Call it semantics, claim the authorities overstepped because you don't like the way they approached it, call it whatever you like - I will still call it the LAW until such time that they HAVE in fact overstepped their boundaries, used illegal methods to charge someone or similar. But simply pulling a child, regardless of age, out of a classroom so that they can ask them questions, regardless of the subject is 1000000% legal. You can argue semantics and feeling with me from now till infinity, but it simply wont change LAW, which for this discussion, is cut and dry.

Talk about "shit in a hand" is absolutely ridiculous. Say they "interviewed" a kid, and some here feel it's playing games and not on the "up and up". What do you think they are going to do, use something the child said in a court of law? That's simply illegal and even a chump like me could have it tossed from court, let alone a competent attorney. NOTHING they interview and discuss can be used in a court of law, with a child, until miranda is read and parents present.

Suffice to say, what is being argued here is feelings versus fact and law. Very, very rarely will feelings EVER trump fact and law, no matter how stressful and annoying we find those facts and laws.

[fj1200]

Trust me... stick with the conversation long enough and marijuana will rear its head.... :laugh:

Took a glance through the thread... Not a whiff of illegal substances until you popped in. Hmmm.

[DragonStryk72]

Not sure why this thread was revived nearly 5 months later, but regardless, EVERY comment I made was FACT and cannot be disputed. As parents, myself included, we sometimes want to give our kids the benefit of doubt and seek to have authority put aside until we can be there for every step of the moment. BUT, the FACT is, we do not have that right granted to us until miranda is needed and an official interrogation begins at the station, whether local police or secret service. Call it semantics, claim the authorities overstepped because you don't like the way they approached it, call it whatever you like - I will still call it the LAW until such time that they HAVE in fact overstepped their boundaries, used illegal methods to charge someone or similar. But simply pulling a child, regardless of age, out of a classroom so that they can ask them questions, regardless of the subject is 1000000% legal. You can argue semantics and feeling with me from now till infinity, but it simply wont change LAW, which for this discussion, is cut and dry.

Talk about "shit in a hand" is absolutely ridiculous. Say they "interviewed" a kid, and some here feel it's playing games and not on the "up and up". What do you think they are going to do, use something the child said in a court of law? That's simply illegal and even a chump like me could have it tossed from court, let alone a competent attorney. NOTHING they interview and discuss can be used in a court of law, with a child, until miranda is read and parents present.

Suffice to say, what is being argued here is feelings versus fact and law. Very, very rarely will feelings EVER trump fact and law, no matter how stressful and annoying we find those facts and laws.

If Miranda has to be granted, Jim, it's not a right. Your right to free speech is inherent, your right to privacy is inherent, hell, we literally have an inherent rights amendment. That's why people get sprung when Miranda isn't read, because the right is already there, the cops just have to make certain you understand your rights. The second a cop is acting in an official capacity with you, Miranda applies, they just don't have to read it to you until an arrest is occurring.

The "interview" is actually questioning, which means they need the informed consent of the parents at the least, which is exactly why they used the word wrangle to get around that. Likely, that consent would have been given... had the Secret Service done its job. They clearly didn't think it emergency enough to arrest the kid or to come in hot, so obviously they weren't too invested in the kid being a possible terrorist. If you are interviewing someone, you are asking questions, hence you are questioning them.

[jimnyc]

If Miranda has to be granted, Jim, it's not a right. Your right to free speech is inherent, your right to privacy is inherent, hell, we literally have an inherent rights amendment. That's why people get sprung when Miranda isn't read, because the right is already there, the cops just have to make certain you understand your rights. The second a cop is acting in an official capacity with you, Miranda applies, they just don't have to read it to you until an arrest is occurring.

The "interview" is actually questioning, which means they need the informed consent of the parents at the least, which is exactly why they used the word wrangle to get around that. Likely, that consent would have been given... had the Secret Service done its job. They clearly didn't think it emergency enough to arrest the kid or to come in hot, so obviously they weren't too invested in the kid being a possible terrorist. If you are interviewing someone, you are asking questions, hence you are questioning them.

Uhm, no. The child, teachers, counselors or anyone else there are free to decline the interview process at anytime, and that's EXACTLY what the school administration in there for, to determine rights for the child in the parents placement or until they can reach the parents, but nothing the police or SS ask is mandatory. Until such time that someone declines an INTERVIEW, the police have the RIGHT to ask all they want, that's their job. The only time a police officer MUST make you understand your rights is when they are collecting data via interrogation, and that's when miranda would apply. Up until then, no matter how much you don't like it, they are 1000% within their rights to go to a school and interview a child. Go back a few pages, I've already posted the law. Fight the law with the government if you please, but until such time that these rights and laws are reversed, the police DO have the right to interview a child without a parent present anytime they feel it necessary - and especially if it's something with a threat present. And until miranda is read and an interrogation is started, ZERO privacy has even come close to being violated. And they do not need to wait till an arrest, it's an interrogation prior to or after an arrest that it is necessary. If someone is being arrested for a crime, and the police are not interrogating, miranda doesn't apply and isn't even necessary to be read.

An interview is NOT questioning, no matter how much you see it that way. It's not legally admissible and police are determining IF they need to proceed with an official interrogation and questioning. I'm sorry you don't like this, or the semantics, BUT IT IS LAW. You can disagree with me from now until the rest of our lives, but the courts, police AND supreme court agree with me, and the law is the law and miranda is miranda. Children under 17 are interviewed in schools without parents present all the time. The only thing people can do is bitch, like what is happening here, but the FACT and LAW is that they are 100% within their rights and it is 100% legal. Again, go back a few pages, not only did I post the law and such already, but further detailed it down to the area in which the child in this thread lives.

[jimnyc]

Another answer from an Attorney in Washington. And these examples are for simple little things, no investigations into threats toward the president.


I practice in the State of Washington, so other jurisdictions may be different. However, in general this is a common police tactic. Pulling a child out of a classroom for questioning certainly does not seem right, but it is perfectly legal and the child has no right to have a parent present. HOWEVER, instruct your child to tell the police that he either wants to talk to a lawyer before answering questions, or that he has been instructed by his lawyer not to answer any questions. The police must respect this response and not ask your child further questions. Please keep in mind that in response, the police may issue your child a citation for the crime being investigated. However, it is likely that would have occurred anyway, with or without your child's cooperation. By not answering the police's questions outside the presence of an attorney, your child will not be giving the police evidence against him or admissions of guilt that they are attempting to gain by the questioning.



http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-a-police-officer-question-a-minor-without-pare-330844.html

The law is the law is the law is the law - not matter how much we may disagree with it or find it semantics between an interview and an interrogation. Disagree with me or the law all one likes, but that doesn't change the law.

[DragonStryk72]

Uhm, no. The child, teachers, counselors or anyone else there are free to decline the interview process at anytime, and that's EXACTLY what the school administration in there for, to determine rights for the child in the parents placement or until they can reach the parents, but nothing the police or SS ask is mandatory. Until such time that someone declines an INTERVIEW, the police have the RIGHT to ask all they want, that's their job. The only time a police officer MUST make you understand your rights is when they are collecting data via interrogation, and that's when miranda would apply. Up until then, no matter how much you don't like it, they are 1000% within their rights to go to a school and interview a child. Go back a few pages, I've already posted the law. Fight the law with the government if you please, but until such time that these rights and laws are reversed, the police DO have the right to interview a child without a parent present anytime they feel it necessary - and especially if it's something with a threat present. And until miranda is read and an interrogation is started, ZERO privacy has even come close to being violated. And they do not need to wait till an arrest, it's an interrogation prior to or after an arrest that it is necessary. If someone is being arrested for a crime, and the police are not interrogating, miranda doesn't apply and isn't even necessary to be read.

An interview is NOT questioning, no matter how much you see it that way. It's not legally admissible and police are determining IF they need to proceed with an official interrogation and questioning. I'm sorry you don't like this, or the semantics, BUT IT IS LAW. You can disagree with me from now until the rest of our lives, but the courts, police AND supreme court agree with me, and the law is the law and miranda is miranda. Children under 17 are interviewed in schools without parents present all the time. The only thing people can do is bitch, like what is happening here, but the FACT and LAW is that they are 100% within their rights and it is 100% legal. Again, go back a few pages, not only did I post the law and such already, but further detailed it down to the area in which the child in this thread lives.

What kind of interviews have you done, Jim? They're all questions, that's why interview is synonymous with questioning. This is the thing, is that you keep arguing that it isn't questioning, but it is. Just because they're violating rights constantly, doesn't make it all right. Funny how the law gets to exempt itself from the law.

Did someone explain that the kid was under absolutely no obligation to answer any of these questions? That he could have his parents or a teacher present if he so chose? Ah yes, rule by semantics. Our founders would be SO proud, a society where the government can change the rules as it likes because they just play the word game, and make any rules basically a joke. I can make anything sound legal by the definition you're using, Jim. So basically, you're advocating for unlimited police authority.

You keep saying it's the law, but it isn't, Jim. They're playing the word game, using a word that means the same thing, but it's not the word in the type-written document, so they can get away with it. Criminals do it as well, but at least they're honest with themselves about their place in the process. You're actually backing up exactly what you argue against the liberals doing left and right, twisting the definition to get their way.

[DragonStryk72]

The law is the law is the law is the law - not matter how much we may disagree with it or find it semantics between an interview and an interrogation. Disagree with me or the law all one likes, but that doesn't change the law.

Okay, Jim, that's not a law, that's someone's opinion of a law, but that's not a law.

[logroller]

You have stumbled into the truth here James. Being in custody and being questioned does trigger an automatic right to an attorney. With juveniles the law is that an adult with some interest in the child *should* be present, that can include a teacher, clergyman, etc. If no adult shows up within a reasonable time the questioning can proceed without an adult present.

In this particular case there was no custody, so the rules are even more lax.

The interesting disparity here is between federal and local law enforcement, and liberal perceptions. In NYC the school staff would never allow the NYPD to ask questions like this, because the liberal mindset is so engrained. However, the liberal mindset has an adoration of federal law enforcement, and the Secret Service could have pulled this off in NYC easily.

It harkens back to the general premise: anything representing big centralized gov't is good, anything representing smaller localized authority is bad. Federal police good. Local police bad. It's just a logical extension of their broader beliefs.
our govt is vested with the authority to protect our rights, not violate them. When I send my child to school, I have trusted the school officials to act as a custodian limited to school-related affairs and have waived certain rights, but that waiver is conditional, not absolute. For example, I can't remove my child from class without telling the school first; but they can't refuse me. This makes sense when it comes to asking rather Johnny hit Sally with a jump rope at recess or who threw spitwads in the bathroom; clearly, that's a school related rule issue and I consent to the school's role in investigating such an allegation. If it were, as is the case in the OP, a felony, the school would not be the investigative body and any waiver granted to the school would cease. There are exceptions for exigences ,eg active shooter, same as there would be anywhere; but the situation at hand didnt justify that, nor was it even a school investigation-- therefor the authorites acted outside the scope of any waived parental rights, expressed or implied. I believe they did so intentionally, so as to surrepticiously circumvent the barriers put in place to protect our rights from government abuses. Which begs the question, if government doesn't follow the law, why should we? :420:

[logroller]

The law is the law is the law is the law - not matter how much we may disagree with it or find it semantics between an interview and an interrogation. Disagree with me or the law all one likes, but that doesn't change the law.
Simple question Jim, was the child free to go? Could he have just left the interview and went home? Of course not, I send the kid to school and I expect him to stay there. The school is a custodian, and parents agree to this under the condition they are protected. We don't send our kids to school and tell them to stay there so they can be interviewed by federal authorities concerning threats to POTUS. There are always conditions, no law of man is absolute.

[jimnyc]

What kind of interviews have you done, Jim? They're all questions, that's why interview is synonymous with questioning. This is the thing, is that you keep arguing that it isn't questioning, but it is. Just because they're violating rights constantly, doesn't make it all right. Funny how the law gets to exempt itself from the law.

Did someone explain that the kid was under absolutely no obligation to answer any of these questions? That he could have his parents or a teacher present if he so chose? Ah yes, rule by semantics. Our founders would be SO proud, a society where the government can change the rules as it likes because they just play the word game, and make any rules basically a joke. I can make anything sound legal by the definition you're using, Jim. So basically, you're advocating for unlimited police authority.

You keep saying it's the law, but it isn't, Jim. They're playing the word game, using a word that means the same thing, but it's not the word in the type-written document, so they can get away with it. Criminals do it as well, but at least they're honest with themselves about their place in the process. You're actually backing up exactly what you argue against the liberals doing left and right, twisting the definition to get their way.


Okay, Jim, that's not a law, that's someone's opinion of a law, but that's not a law.

Ok, if I post sectional code PROVING that this IS the law, would you like to wager $100 in front of everybody?

It's not a matter of changing words. It's very simple, interviews cannot be used in a court of law, interrogations can. It's up to the schools and parents to educate their children on what to do when police are attempting to ask questions. If the teachers and administrations don't do their duties, or the parents don't warn their children, that is not the fault of the police. They are 100% legally entitled to interview a child without parents present. Should they attempt an arrest and/or interrogation, a parent must be present, miranda needs to be read. And yes, OF COURSE it is questioning, I never stated otherwise. But what is allowed to be used in a court of law is what makes the difference between an interview and an interrogation. A kid can admit to a crime, ultimately be arrested, have parents present prior to interrogation or even deny interrogation. Whatever the child said earlier that brought them to that point is 100% inadmissible in court.

Here is what the US Attorneys office stated about this specific case:


According to the U.S. Attorney's office, government agents can interview a minor without a parent’s knowledge or consent, but that doesn't mean the child has to answer.


"They could invoke their rights under the Fifth Amendment to remain silent or further invoke their rights under the Sixth Amendment, to have an attorney present during any questioning,"


Often, law enforcement will question minors at school, without the parent's knowledge. The police are not required to inform a minor that they can request the presence of a parent or guardian, but they do have to abide by the request if asked. Just as adults can, a minor can invoke their right to remain silent and their right to a juvenile defense attorney.

And outside of my little wager, let's look at it from a different angle. There would need to be a law stating that parents must be informed prior to both interviewing and interrogation. You are more than welcome to post this law.

Here is another discussion that was present in the state senate of Washington, which I cannot find any evidence of having ever been passed. Even this debate in the senate shows that it was legal, at least until perhaps a law was made to make it illegal:

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2002203857_juvie11m.html

And a quick quote from the article:


When the boy's father, Pastor Paul Stoot Sr., learned that police are not required by state law to notify parents whose children are being interrogated, he vowed to make sure "safeguards are in place to protect our children."


But I do disagree with the way the writer wrote "interrogation", which implies one is in detained custody, which means miranda and parents generally need to be called. But maybe Washington is even MORE lenient than most other states. Because depending on how you answer my wager, I have quite a few state laws bookmarked already where it's very clearly on the books that police have the right to interview a child without parents present, and they have the same constitutional rights as everyone else to decline and seek counsel. If police choose at that time to arrest or detain, miranda an parents come into play.

And one last hint, do a search on lexus nexis on Supreme Court cases, as this has appeared before them before. I'll let your research allow you to find out what I did regarding that decision, but I assure you I wouldn't point you in that direction without having done my research on the matter already.

Here is one closer to home for you I believe, out of Albany, where once again parents were upset that a child was interviewed without a parent present. Here is a piece of that article:


However, both the school and the Albany Police Department say permission isn’t necessary to go through with the interview, and that parents should be aware there are many instances when prior notification isn’t actually required.

Detectives and school resource officers are trained specifically on how to speak to children, said Capt. Eric Carter of the Albany Police Department. If the child is suspected of a crime, the officers also are trained on how to help them understand they don’t have to move forward without a lawyer present.

However, Carter added, “By law, there is no requirement for the student to have a school official or a parent sit in with them, whether they’re in school or outside of school.”


http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/local/police-interview-of-student-upsets-parents/article_b1bd1673-1d0c-5720-bd42-6a2d8bf36273.html

And a different aspect to a similar topic - a 9 year old girl who was not spoken to with a warrant or parents consent. The state ultimately found that she was abused by her father. Eventually the case was dismissed and the 9th court of appeals stated they were in the wrong. The mother wanted to sue for damages, so took it to the SCOTUS. SCOTUS vacated the 9th courts decision and also stated that there was no violation of the 4th amendment. Different case entirely, but IMO, even MORE leverage was given to authorities in such a case, and the SC backed them. If memory serves me correctly, this was also in Washington.

[jimnyc]

Simple question Jim, was the child free to go? Could he have just left the interview and went home? Of course not, I send the kid to school and I expect him to stay there. The school is a custodian, and parents agree to this under the condition they are protected. We don't send our kids to school and tell them to stay there so they can be interviewed by federal authorities concerning threats to POTUS. There are always conditions, no law of man is absolute.

The child has the EXACT SAME RIGHTS as you and I, and of course is free to decline to answer questions and return to class. If they refuse to allow the child to leave the interview, then the child is detained and miranda MUST be read and parents MUST be informed. If the child or the school does not invoke their constitutional rights, then the police are well within their rights to conduct an interview. This has been upheld by many state supreme courts as well as SCOTUS, as well as being declared no violation of the 4th amendment. Sadly, while I don't like this (which no one has asked me), kids in school have the same rights, and the police are under the same laws when conducting interviews. Even our local school gives us a small package to have our children carry in their bookbags, one being a placard explaining the rights and how a child can invoke their rights to speak with police at all until parents or counsel is present. But until they invoke such rights, the interview is allowed, just that nothing at that point is admissible in a court of law.

[SassyLady]

The child has the EXACT SAME RIGHTS as you and I, and of course is free to decline to answer questions and return to class. If they refuse to allow the child to leave the interview, then the child is detained and miranda MUST be read and parents MUST be informed. If the child or the school does not invoke their constitutional rights, then the police are well within their rights to conduct an interview. This has been upheld by many state supreme courts as well as SCOTUS, as well as being declared no violation of the 4th amendment. Sadly, while I don't like this (which no one has asked me), kids in school have the same rights, and the police are under the same laws when conducting interviews. Even our local school gives us a small package to have our children carry in their bookbags, one being a placard explaining the rights and how a child can invoke their rights to speak with police at all until parents or counsel is present. But until they invoke such rights, the interview is allowed, just that nothing at that point is admissible in a court of law.

You might have already stated this Jim, but can you tell me what you have told your children to do if a policeman comes to any place that they are at (not just school, but the mall perhaps) and questions them?

[Kathianne]

our govt is vested with the authority to protect our rights, not violate them. When I send my child to school, I have trusted the school officials to act as a custodian limited to school-related affairs and have waived certain rights, but that waiver is conditional, not absolute. For example, I can't remove my child from class without telling the school first; but they can't refuse me. This makes sense when it comes to asking rather Johnny hit Sally with a jump rope at recess or who threw spitwads in the bathroom; clearly, that's a school related rule issue and I consent to the school's role in investigating such an allegation. If it were, as is the case in the OP, a felony, the school would not be the investigative body and any waiver granted to the school would cease. There are exceptions for exigences ,eg active shooter, same as there would be anywhere; but the situation at hand didnt justify that, nor was it even a school investigation-- therefor the authorites acted outside the scope of any waived parental rights, expressed or implied. I believe they did so intentionally, so as to surrepticiously circumvent the barriers put in place to protect our rights from government abuses. Which begs the question, if government doesn't follow the law, why should we? :420:

I have to agree. The choice of the school to stand up to authority in waiting for the parents or surrogate, may differ from district to district or school to school, but I know for a fact that the districts/schools I know of as an educator and parent, would NOT have allowed questioning of a child without parents present in these circumstances. At that 'moment in time' he was in the school, not a threat to the president in any way.

If it had been local police, worried about that particular child hurting someone in the school? They would have brought the child down and isolated, perhaps allowing for a search of person and locker.

[jimnyc]

You might have already stated this Jim, but can you tell me what you have told your children to do if a policeman comes to any place that they are at (not just school, but the mall perhaps) and questions them?

His school is pretty good and will help with him invoking his rights. They even sent placards out to parents for kids to keep with them, explaining that they don't have to answer questions and that they want parents or counsel present before answering any questions. Unfortunately, the police are still within their rights to try, and if one doesn't invoke their rights, the police are acting in a legal manner.

I'm blessed to have a child that doesn't even curse, let alone involve himself with bad characters or illegal things, but we have discussed this with him when he got the placards sent home - that whether in school or walking down the road back home, to ALWAYS call Mom and Dad should he be questioned by any authority. We have told him of course that if an officer is directing traffic or what not and asks basic questions, to respect the law and answer those, but if blamed for ANYTHING to immediately call us and tell them he wants to wait for us before speaking. I don't think he would ever have this problem, but one never knows, and I think it's extremely wise to teach our kids what their rights are.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

What kind of interviews have you done, Jim? They're all questions, that's why interview is synonymous with questioning. This is the thing, is that you keep arguing that it isn't questioning, but it is. Just because they're violating rights constantly, doesn't make it all right. Funny how the law gets to exempt itself from the law.

Did someone explain that the kid was under absolutely no obligation to answer any of these questions? That he could have his parents or a teacher present if he so chose? Ah yes, rule by semantics. Our founders would be SO proud, a society where the government can change the rules as it likes because they just play the word game, and make any rules basically a joke. I can make anything sound legal by the definition you're using, Jim. So basically, you're advocating for unlimited police authority.

You keep saying it's the law, but it isn't, Jim. They're playing the word game, using a word that means the same thing, but it's not the word in the type-written document, so they can get away with it. Criminals do it as well, but at least they're honest with themselves about their place in the process. You're actually backing up exactly what you argue against the liberals doing left and right, twisting the definition to get their way.

Are you a lawyer? If not then you are just citing your opinion of the law while you criticise Jim for citing his. They usually call THAT HYPOCRISY. Welcome to a bit of reality Jethro.-:laugh: -Tyr

[Nukeman]

Are you a lawyer? If not then you are just citing your opinion of the law while you criticise Jim for citing his. They usually call THAT HYPOCRISY. Welcome to a bit of reality Jethro.-:laugh: -TyrHow the heck is that "hypocrisy". i call it differing opinion. There is NO hypocrisy!!!!! please show us where he was being hypocriticle???????????

[jimnyc]

How the heck is that "hypocrisy". i call it differing opinion. There is NO hypocrisy!!!!! please show us where he was being hypocriticle???????????

For what it's worth, and you know I mean this respectfully, mine is fact and law, not opinion. My opinion would be that I don't want them questioning my son without me, and I would rather the law be different, but the fact and law is, police have the right to interview without parents and miranda. Children have constitutional rights like the rest of us and are welcome to invoke their rights. The problem is, as adults, we feel that children might not be smart or educated enough to know when to do this. This is where parenting and educators come into play. But unfortunately, at the end of the day, unless someone steps in, and it's only an interview, the police are performing a legal interview whether an adult or parent is present or not.

Do I like this personally? No, I do not. But the law is the law and we must recognize it and respect it, or run afoul of it, until such time that it is changed.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

How the heck is that "hypocrisy". i call it differing opinion. There is NO hypocrisy!!!!! please show us where he was being hypocriticle???????????

Try again, read slowly the first two sentences. If you still do not get it I can't help ya.--Tyr

[gabosaurus]

My daughter was once informally "interviewed" by INS while she was visiting my sister and out someplace with a group of kids. Apparently the "visit" ended when she asked more questions than she was asked.

[Kathianne]

My daughter was once informally "interviewed" by INS while she was visiting my sister and out someplace with a group of kids. Apparently the "visit" ended when she asked more questions than she was asked.

So, your daughter was 'smarter' than INS, meaning those that continue to have a problem are less intelligent? Has nothing to do with legality?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

My daughter was once informally "interviewed" by INS while she was visiting my sister and out someplace with a group of kids. Apparently the "visit" ended when she asked more questions than she was asked.

Thats an old dodge, naming another person when it was YOU being interviewed instead. They probably walked away saying that Gabby is too stupid to be seriously questioned , she barely can get herself dressed ..:laugh2:

[logroller]

For what it's worth, and you know I mean this respectfully, mine is fact and law, not opinion. My opinion would be that I don't want them questioning my son without me, and I would rather the law be different, but the fact and law is, police have the right to interview without parents and miranda. Children have constitutional rights like the rest of us and are welcome to invoke their rights. The problem is, as adults, we feel that children might not be smart or educated enough to know when to do this. This is where parenting and educators come into play. But unfortunately, at the end of the day, unless someone steps in, and it's only an interview, the police are performing a legal interview whether an adult or parent is present or not.

Do I like this personally? No, I do not. But the law is the law and we must recognize it and respect it, or run afoul of it, until such time that it is changed.
i share your opinion, but for the sake of argument.
I don't see what court case/law you are referring to. The most recent case I found was camretA v Greene, which was reversed on a technicality, namely, mootness thanks to the child being 18 at the time of the court's consideration. Before that the 9th circuit court of appeals ruled a warrant/parental consent/ exigent circumstance etc was necessary. In other words, no clear precedent exists. The issue here is two-pronged, one is whether the child was, indeed, suspected of committing a crime (as opposed to having information about one). This is tbemost poignant lart imo; as if the questions are benign, theres really no harm in asking questions. however, who makes that determination is of peculiar interest-- which leads me to the other point, whether a school official was present and acting in loco parentis (as a guardian). As the boy was questioned without any further action, it would be unfair to assume the school official failed to protect the child's interests. Although this does serve as a teaching moment for parents and school officials alike.

[taft2012]

our govt is vested with the authority to protect our rights, not violate them. When I send my child to school, I have trusted the school officials to act as a custodian limited to school-related affairs and have waived certain rights, but that waiver is conditional, not absolute. For example, I can't remove my child from class without telling the school first; but they can't refuse me. This makes sense when it comes to asking rather Johnny hit Sally with a jump rope at recess or who threw spitwads in the bathroom; clearly, that's a school related rule issue and I consent to the school's role in investigating such an allegation. If it were, as is the case in the OP, a felony, the school would not be the investigative body and any waiver granted to the school would cease. There are exceptions for exigences ,eg active shooter, same as there would be anywhere; but the situation at hand didnt justify that, nor was it even a school investigation-- therefor the authorites acted outside the scope of any waived parental rights, expressed or implied. I believe they did so intentionally, so as to surrepticiously circumvent the barriers put in place to protect our rights from government abuses. Which begs the question, if government doesn't follow the law, why should we? :420:

There's only so much a school can do to interfere with a police investigation. This scenario actually happened: A criminal was being arraigned in court on a charge. The arraignment judge, Laura Blackburn (still on the bench I believe) got wind that the police were waiting to re-arrest this criminal on another charge after this current arraignment was completed. So she had court officers sneak this guy out a backdoor past the police.

This was about 10 years ago and caused a shitstorm in NYC.

I've seen principals send kids home when they find out the police are in the school looking to arrest a kid. The bottom line is; there's a law in place prohibiting this type of behavior. It's called "Obstructing governmental administration."

Sometimes police want to talk to a kid because the kids is believed to be a witness to a crime. Such obstruction can only serve to keep a criminal on the street longer than necessary.

In this particular case here, if everybody was present and told the kid to "shut up" and not say anything, the Secret Service would have just said "Fine" and locked the kid up. The Secret Service would get their information one way or the other, either through the kid's lawyer looking to get the charges dismissed, or in testimony from the kid himself at his criminal trial. And such good looking out on the part of the school and parents would have left the kid with an arrest record and huge legal fees for the parents.

School administration has a legal status of in loco parentis, which basically means they act as parents during school hours. If a child is gravely injured at the school and is rushed to the hospital, and if a parent can not be contacted, school officials can authorize medical treatment.

In this case they let the Secret Service talk to the kid. Nothing was done wrong here, no authority was exceeded.

Don't like the arrangement? I suggest home schooling.

[jimnyc]

i share your opinion, but for the sake of argument.
I don't see what court case/law you are referring to. The most recent case I found was camretA v Greene, which was reversed on a technicality, namely, mootness thanks to the child being 18 at the time of the court's consideration. Before that the 9th circuit court of appeals ruled a warrant/parental consent/ exigent circumstance etc was necessary. In other words, no clear precedent exists. The issue here is two-pronged, one is whether the child was, indeed, suspected of committing a crime (as opposed to having information about one). This is tbemost poignant lart imo; as if the questions are benign, theres really no harm in asking questions. however, who makes that determination is of peculiar interest-- which leads me to the other point, whether a school official was present and acting in loco parentis (as a guardian). As the boy was questioned without any further action, it would be unfair to assume the school official failed to protect the child's interests. Although this does serve as a teaching moment for parents and school officials alike.

You're assuming that all the people I have posted in this entire thread have no idea of what they are talking about, from lawyers on up to the US District Attorneys office. While there are certain times that precedent need be present for the example we are discussing, you are also forgetting that there are times that a law need be present in order for something to be illegal. For example; in employment law, a company can fire you for wearing a Yankees jersey if they are a Red Sox fan (assuming at will applies without contract, which most jobs are). And the reason this is allowed? Because there is no law against it. There IS NO LAW that states police MUST treat children differently than adults, and there IS LAW that states children now receive the same constitutional rights as adults, which gives them the right to invoke further rights to not talk and not answer questions.

Additionally, look again at the case you posted about. While they wouldn't fully touch the case, they did reverse the lower courts decision and they did state that there was no violation of the 4th amendment. But again, as posted earlier, there is in fact case law based on many other parents having sued on similar cases, and have lost.

I have access to Lexus Nexis, which makes it much easier to search case law. And FWIW, which might not mean a lot to you guys, I have a cousin who has a law practice in Riverside, California. He's been an attorney for a tad over 30 years now. He's not God of course, but has lost only one case in his entire career. He wasn't prepared to speak of federal law, only on California law. He stated EXACTLY what I said, that the police have every right to simply speak to and ask questions, just as the kids, teachers & parents can tell them that they won't answer. And if at any time they are detained, read miranda or arrested - THEN a parent/guardian/counsel MUST be present.

[jimnyc]

Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (2004), United States Supreme Court refused to overturn lower courts decisions and reversed the court of appeals decision. I can't link to Lexus Nexis, but I'm sure you can find more about this on the net. You will find the decision very similar to what I have been arguing - that it comes down to whether or not the juvenile is considered to be in custody or not.

[taft2012]

Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (2004), United States Supreme Court refused to overturn lower courts decisions and reversed the court of appeals decision. I can't link to Lexus Nexis, but I'm sure you can find more about this on the net. You will find the decision very similar to what I have been arguing - that it comes down to whether or not the juvenile is considered to be in custody or not.

Same applies to adults. I could swear I mentioned "custody + interrogation" earlier in this thread.

But what do I know.:laugh:

[taft2012]

Being in custody and being questioned does trigger an automatic right to an attorney.

I did.

[jimnyc]

Same applies to adults. I could swear I mentioned "custody + interrogation" earlier in this thread.

But what do I know.:laugh:


I did.

So did I, said it all along, custody, arrest or miranda means immediately that a parent/guardian/counsel must be called or present. Until such time that one of those apply, the police are free to interview.

[jimnyc]

Granted this is from Florida, but it touches upon the constitutionality aspect:


FACTS: Police arrested S.V. twice in 2005, first for auto theft and later for theft of automobile rims. After the first arrest, police interrogated S.V. but during Miranda, failed to tell him that he had the right to have an attorney present during questioning. S.V. confessed to stealing the car. After the second arrest, S.V. requested to speak to his mother after he made a post-Miranda confession to the rim thefts. The investigator who conducted the first interview was present during the second interview.

ISSUE: Before trial, S.V. moved to suppress both confessions, arguing among other things that his mother was not notified or present for the interviews. The trial court granted the motions, because the police did not give S.V. the opportunity to speak with his mother prior to the interviews and because his mother did not understand what was going on because of a language barrier. The State appealed.

RULING: The 4th DCA reversed, stating that the “relevant inquiry is whether the juvenile’s waiver of his Miranda rights was knowing and voluntary given the totality of the circumstances.” The constitution does not require that police notify a juvenile suspect’s parent(s) before questioning the suspect, although if the suspect tells police he wants to talk to his parent(s) before the interview, the questioning must stop. That did not happen in this case (S.V. asked to talk to his mother after the interview), so the confession in the rim theft case was upheld. Because the investigator in the first interview did not tell S.V. as part of the Miranda advisory that he had a right to have a lawyer present during the interview, the confession of the car theft was suppressed.

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/77f35c4e-4082-4767-b931-63fe8e23e1de/07-04A---Juveniles-and-MIranda-.aspx

[jimnyc]

As to law in Arizona:


1. If law enforcement officers1 are seeking only to interview a student, the officers are subject to regular school policy regarding access to students. Law enforcement officers making an arrest or serving a subpoena or a search warrant, however, generally have the right to immediate access to a student.

2. Although Arizona law does not require that school officials notify parents before law enforcement officers interview a student, school officials may generally provide such notice. However, in instances where law enforcement officers seek to interview a student in connection with an investigation of child abuse or other criminal activity by the student’s parent, insistence on parental notification and/or consent is improper. A school official who insists on parental notification under these circumstances may be subject to “criminal liability” for hindering prosecution if the school official acts with the “intent to hinder the apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment of another for any [crime].” A.R.S. §§ 13-2511 and -2512. Insistence on parental notification is also inappropriate under circumstances in which delay pending parental notification would jeopardize public safety.

http://www.azag.gov/opinions/2004/I04-003.pdf

[jimnyc]

I think I've supplied sufficient information to backup my statements, that police officers are legally entitled to "interview" children at schools, so long as they are not considered in custody, under arrest or in need of miranda rights (which would only apply to interrogation on record for courts statements or arrest). I'm sure some will stick with the semantics argument, but the SCOTUS agrees with everything I have stated.