Kids, Cops, and Confessions: Inside the Interrogation Room

3. To Waive or Not to Waive: That Is the Question

60 CHAPTER THREE To Waive or Not to Waive That Is the Question More than four decades ago, Miranda stressed that police secrecy produced a “gap in our knowledge as to what in fact goes on in the interrogation rooms.” That gap persists. We do not know many things about routine felony interrogation. How soon after suspects commit a crime do police question them? Where do police interview offenders? Who is present when they question a suspect? How and when do police administer a Miranda warning? How do they predispose suspects to waive their rights? How many youths waive? How do police document a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver? How do youths who waive differ from those who invoke their rights? How do police question the vast majority of youths who waive their rights? How do youths respond? How long do interrogations take? What evidence do police derive from questioning? How does waiving or invoking affect case processing and sentencing outcomes? Chapters 3, 4, and 5 begin to answer these questions about what happens inside the interrogation room. This chapter analyzes interrogations of 307 youths aged sixteen and seventeen charged with felony offenses. Interviews with juvenile justice personnel supplement and aid interpreting the data. Part I describes the youth whom police questioned. Part II examines the context of interrogations —arrest and detention status, locations of questioning, and people present. Part III examines how police administer Miranda warnings—the delivery and timing of the warning. It describes how police establish that juveniles understand their rights and waive them voluntarily. Miranda requires a “knowing, intelligent, and voluntary” waiver of rights, but the Court distinguishes between understanding rights and appreciating the consequences of waiving them. I examine how justice system personnel perceive the relative competence of older adolescents, young adults, and younger offenders to exercise Miranda rights. Part IV analyzes how youths who waive their rights differ from those who invoke them. Chapter 4 analyzes how police questioned the vast majority of the youths in this study who waived Miranda. It examines the process of interrogations —the types of tactics and Reid Method techniques police used. Chapter 5 analyzes how the youths responded. It evaluates the evidentiary value of statements and the impact of waiving or invoking Miranda on case-processing and sentencing outcomes. These three chapters 61 To Waive or Not to Waive provide the empirical core of what happens in the interrogation room. I compare and contrast these findings with those reported in studies of adults,1 juveniles,2 and in the United Kingdom.3 I. Characteristics of Juveniles Whom Police Interrogated Table 3.1 summarizes characteristics of the 307 juveniles in this study whom police questioned and county attorneys charged with felony-level offenses. Males constituted the vast majority (89.3%) of youths whom police questioned. Somewhat more than half (55.7%) of the juveniles were sixteen years old at the time of questioning. Prosecutors charged more than half (55.0%) with felony property offenses—for example, burglary, larceny , and auto theft. They charged nearly one-third (31.6%) of the youths with crimes against the person—for example, murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault, and criminal sexual conduct. They charged the remaining youths with drug crimes (6.2%), firearm offenses (5.5%), and other felonies (1.6%)—for example, fleeing a police officer. Some youths charged with the most serious crimes are missing from this group because prosecutors filed certification motions, and juvenile court judges transferred them to criminal court. Nearly one-third (30.6%) of the juveniles had no prior arrests. Police previously had taken into custody more than one-third of these youths for noncriminal status offenses (15.3%) or misdemeanors (22.8%). About onethird of these youths (35.1%) had one or more prior felony arrests. More than half (57%) had prior juvenile court referrals. Nearly one-third (29.9%) were under current juvenile court supervision—probation, placement, or parole status—when police questioned them. About half were white (52.1%), and the remainder (47.9%) were members of ethnic and racial minority groups—black, Hispanic, Native American, and Asian. Black juveniles accounted for more than one-third (34.9%) of the sample. Chapter 6 examines how police questioned youths of different racial backgrounds. The youths in this study differ somewhat from the counties’ ordinary sixteen- and seventeen-year-old felony caseloads.4 This group includes a larger proportion of males, larger proportions of youths charged with property and violent crimes and substantially fewer youths charged with...