holding D.R. was in custody when questioned by a detective, in the principal's office, at his school because the detective did not inform him he was free to leave, D.R. was only 14-years-old, the principal's office is a naturally coercive environment for children of his age, and the interrogation was accusatory in nature
Summary of this case from Stoot v. City of Everett1997.
holding D.R. was in custody when questioned by a detective, in the principal's office, at his school because the detective did not inform him he was free to leave, D.R. was only 14-years-old, the principal's office is a naturally coercive environment for children of his age, and the interrogation was accusatory in nature
Summary of this case from Stoot v. City of Everettholding D.R. was in custody when questioned by a detective, in the principal's office, at his school because the detective did not inform him he was free to leave, D.R. was only 14-years-old, the principal's office is a naturally coercive environment for children of his age, and the interrogation was accusatory in nature
Summary of this case from State v. S.SFull title:DISPOSITIONS OF PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
Court:The Supreme Court of Washington
Date published: Jan 1, 1997
Taking every inference in favor of the non-moving party, the Court must conclude that Paul II's questioning…
State v. T.CAdmissibility of Statements T.C. first argues that his initial statement to the police officer should have…