In the case of Fare versus Michael C., the question at hand is whether a juvenile defendant requesting to speak with his probation officers was a violation of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The important issue was to dissect rather Michael C. requesting to have his probation officer present was equivalent to an attorney representation. When informed that this was not possible, he waived his rights and made admissions. In 1979, police officers arrested sixteen-year-old Michael C. involving him in a murder that occurred during a robbery in the victim's home. Since the age of twelve, Michael had been on probation and had a long criminal offense background. He was arrested and brought to the Van Nuys, California police station for …show more content…
He was informed that he has the right to have an attorney present during the interrogation and the interrogation will be recorded. Michael declined his right to have an attorney present. He agreed to be interrogated by the police officers without having an attorney present. During questioning, he produced sketches and made incriminating statements that linked him to the murder. While on trial for murder at Juvenile Court, Michael requested to suppress his sketches and statements due to the denial to speak to his probation officer during questioning constituted an invocation of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent based on the Burton case. The California appellate court denied his motion, concluding that he had waived his right to remain silent during interrogation. On appeal, the California Supreme Court reversed the decision, concluding that Michael’s request to have his probation officer present constituted a per se invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights just as if he had requested an attorney. Justice Harry A. Blackmun reversed the state decision based on the state law that requires probation officers to represent the interests of juveniles. He