Probation Pros And Cons Essay

Van Nuys, Police arrested Michael C. at approximately 6:30 p. m. on February 4. Michael C. was 16 years old, on probation through the Juvenile Court system. Michael C. has been on probation since he was the age of 12. At approximately 15 years old he served a term in a youth corrections camp under the supervision of the Juvenile Court System. Michael C. had a record of previous offenses, including burglary of guns and purse snatching (FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions (n.d.).

At the Van Nuys, Police station, two police officers began to interrogate Michael C. The officers and Michael C. were alone in the room during the interrogation. Their conversation was tape-recorded. An officer in the interrogation informed Michael

of 1079, at the time Michael C. was 16 1/2 years old, he was taken into custody by Van Nuys, Cal., police for suspicion of committing murder. Before being questioned, he was advised of his Miranda rights. Michael C. on probation with the Juvenile Court System after serving a term at a youth corrections camp, he also has a record of prior offenses, Michale C. requested his probation officer be present at his interrogation and was denied by his police interrogators, he was then talked into speaking without counsel present, during this process Michael C. made statements and draw sketches which implicated him to a murder. When he was charged in Juvenile Court with the murder, his legal counsel moved to suppress the incriminating statements and sketches because they had been gotten in violation of his Miranda rights, Michael C. counsel stated that he requested to see his probation officer, and that created a demand for his Fifth Amendment rights to remain silent, believing his probation officer on the same level as an attorney. The court denied his request, saying that the facts of the case showed that Michael C. had waived his right to remain silent. However, the California Supreme Court reversed, the lower courts findings, Stating that Michael C. request for his probation officer was an attempt to apply his Fifth Amendment rights in the same manner of that of an attorney as found in Miranda. This because in Michael C. mind the probation

In the end “The United States Supreme Court, Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979)., ruled that On the basis of the record in this case, we hold that the Juvenile Court's findings that respondent voluntarily and knowingly waived his rights and consented to continued interrogation, and that the statements obtained from him were voluntary, were proper, and that the admission of those statements in the proceeding against respondent in Juvenile Court was correct” (FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions (n.d.).

This case was important for the Juvenile Courts System and juvenile suspects because it required, that the courts look a variety of factors to determine whether information that was obtained from a juvenile by the police could be used in court. It was also imported because it set a precedence that parents, guardians, custodians or other significant adults, or attorneys do not have to be present when a juvenile is questioned or interrogated by law enforcement (Elrod & Ryder