³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥

In June 2022, a school official removed twelve-year-old "Kevin" from class and brought him to a police officer. The officer, wearing a police vest and serving as the school resource officer, questioned Kevin for approximately ten minutes while a second officer, armed and uniformed, stood between Kevin and the closed door. The questioning ceased only after Kevin made an incriminating statement about an allegation that he had struck another student’s groin. Neither officer provided Miranda warnings, nor did they offer to call Kevin’s parents during this encounter. Following this encounter, the State filed a juvenile delinquency petition against Kevin. The circuit court denied Kevin’s motion to suppress the statements from his interrogations and, after a bench trial, found him guilty. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of Kevin’s suppression motion.

The ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥â€™s State Supreme Court Initiative and the ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ of Wisconsin filed an amicus brief arguing that whether analyzed under the U.S. or Wisconsin Constitution, the court of appeals’ holding is incorrect. As we write in the brief, when police officers corner and question a twelve-year-old child inside a tiny school office with the exit blocked, the child cannot reasonably feel free to leave or to refuse to answer questions.

In the brief, we argue that the Wisconsin Constitution grants children stronger protections during police interactions than what is afforded by the U.S. Constitution, especially regarding interrogations. Unlike federal doctrines, which must be sufficiently generic to accommodate variations in police practices across all 50 states, the Wisconsin Supreme Court can and should tailor its holding under the Wisconsin Constitution to the specific ways in which Wisconsin students are policed at school.