School Resources & Training Institute
Legal and Liability Article Database

For assistance with this database contact us at information@school-training.com or at 800-365-0119.
Return to SR-TI Article Index

PATC Article Detail


Title: Failure to Notify Mom of Detention and Interrogationdid Not Violate Constitution
Author:
ID: LL124
Issue: SU2-1
Issue Date: 2005-01-01
Edition: School
Type: Article

Body: A recent case from the United States Court of Appeal for the 4th Circuit examined whether or not there is a constitutional requirement that a parent be notified when police are detaining and interrogating a 10 year old regarding an allegation about a gun. In Wofford v. Evans, 390 F.3d 318 (4th Cir. 2004), a mother filed a lawsuit against officers and school officials after her ten year old child was detained and questioned about a gun that was allegedly brought to school.

The day before Thanksgiving in 2001, several students reported to a school official that one of their classmates, ten-year old ěM.D.î had brought a gun to school. The teacher reported this to Assistant Principal Rosa who promptly located M.D. and began an investigation. Rosa searched M.D.ís bookbag and desk and escorted M.D. to the bus that was waiting. When students returned to school on the following Monday, Assistant Principal Rosa continued her investigation. The investigation included interviewing 4 students who were adamant that M.D. had brought a gun to school the previous week. Assistant Principal Rosa called the police which prompted the response of three detectives. The detectives interviewed the 4 students who reported seeing M.D. with a handgun. The detectives then questioned M.D. M.D. made several requests to call her mom, but the officers did not. M.D. denied having a gun, and although a search of the school grounds was conducted, no gun was ever found.

M.D.ís mother filed a lawsuit alleging that due process required that she should have been notified before M.D. was detained and questioned. She further alleged that the seizure of M.D. was unreasonable under the 4th Amendment. The court rejected both of these claims and dismissed the federal lawsuit. The court declined ěto announce a requirement of parental†notification or a ban on detentions of a certain length when school officials are investigating a serious allegation of student misconduct. Such strictures would be particularly inappropriate when, as here, several students corroborate the accusation and an eyewitness shows the investigators where the transgression occurred.î The mother argued ěthat, in the age of cell phones and e-mail, a bright-line rule requiring parental notification would hardly burden school officials. They also suggest that student welfare would be improved if parents were present during questioning. But these arguments miss the mark. When faced with imminent danger to the safety of their students, school officials may well find an immediate inquiry in the absence of a parent a necessary investigatory step. Federal courts should be wary of removing such devices from the disciplinary tool-box with the blunt instrument of constitutional decree. It would be a misfortune to exchange the informality of the school setting for the adversarial atmosphere of formalized procedure. Although the rule appellants urge may appear clear, it invites a series of derivative questions: What efforts must school officials make to contact parents? Must both parents be alerted? May officials proceed if the parents cannot be reached? At what stage in an investigation must notification occur? Must parents be present at an interrogation or is notice alone sufficient? If their presence is required, how long do parents have to arrive before questioning can†continue? And what exactly are the permissible limits on parents' roles once they appear?î Thus, the court concluded that there is simply no constitutional requirement that a parent be notified under the circumstances present in this case.

The court also concluded that M.D.ís 4th Amendment rights were not violated by the police detention, while officers diligently investigated and searched the school grounds to determine the presence of a weapon. The court concluded that such a detention was reasonable.



Citation 1:
Citation 2:
Citation 3:
Keywords:
Other Information: