Supreme Court case more clearly defines the role of school resource officers | Eastern North Carolina Now

Publishers Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.

Lower court could use the case to change the way schools deal with juveniles suspect of violating the law

    North Carolina lost an important case before the Supreme Court of the United States last Thursday (6-16-11). The case is titled J.D.B. v. North Carolina and you can read the court's decision by clicking here.

    Most of the media reports focus on the court's holding that the age of a suspect should be taken into consideration in determining whether the juvenile was legally questioned by police. The court held that age must be a consideration.

    In J.D.B. case he was a 13-year old when he was questioned at school by police and school officials about two home break-ins in the neighborhood. J.D.B. eventually confessed. At issue before the court is whether the evidence obtained during the interrogation could properly be used against the student in juvenile proceedings. The child was neither advised of his Miranda rights before being questioned nor allow to call his guardian to be present. The court rejected such tactics.

    Here's what makes the case so important. It happens all the time in North Carolina schools. We are aware of several cases here in Beaufort County in which the School Resource Officer has questioned students and ultimately filed criminal charges against them in much the same way J. D. B. was questioned.

    The courts have long held that students questioned by school officials for violating school rules, or even potential criminal offenses are not afforded the same protections against self-incrimination as that same person would be if questioned by a law enforcement official away from school. The concept that schools are not bound by Miranda nor the cases which require making an attorney available to the suspect goes back to a long history in law that schools stand in loco parentis (in the place of the parent) at least to a limited extent. Case law has held for decades that school officials are not held to the same standards that law enforcement officials are held to in dealing with young people.

    But in recent years schools have hired "Resource Officers" who are sworn law enforcement officials, often who wear uniforms, including weapons in performing their duties at school.

    Thus the question arises as to whether a Resource Officer is a school official or a law enforcement official.

    Although J.D.B. does not actually address that question the basic proposition upon which the decision is based does imply that a Resource Officer is not a school official but rather a law enforcement official in the context of performing his/her duties at school with students.

    That holding, if it is applied by the lower courts, could have a significant impact on the performance of their duties by school Resource Officers. And it also raising questions about the role and relationship of school officials when they are acting in conjunction with the Resource Officer. One might expect a future lower court to apply J. D. B. in such a manner as to require a "bright line" test being applied between the authority of school officials and law enforcement officials who may also be school officials. Time will tell.