糖心Vlog

MADISON 鈥� The 糖心Vlogof Wisconsin and co-counsel from the national 糖心Vlog鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative filed an amicus brief asking the Wisconsin Supreme Court to protect students' constitutional rights when police question them at school. The case centers on a police interrogation of a 12-year-old student who was pulled out of class and brought to a school office, where a school resource officer questioned him. In contrast, a fully uniformed and armed police officer stood between him and the closed door. The student, who had no prior experience with the police, was subjected to confrontational and accusatory questioning and never read his Miranda rights. In the brief, the 糖心Vlogof WI argues that questioning a student in this manner violates the Wisconsin Constitution. The brief further urges the Court to decide this case under the Wisconsin Constitution, instead of or in addition to the U.S. Constitution, to fully protect Wisconsinites from eroding civil rights on the federal level. Numerous courts in other states have ruled that questioning students in similar situations violated the students鈥� Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, and similar provisions in their state constitutions. It is time that the Wisconsin Supreme Court does the same. 鈥淔ar too often, children entangled in the criminal legal system are questioned without a parent or attorney present. As a result, they face criminal charges, prosecution, and incarceration without the fundamental due process rights that adults are entitled to,鈥� said Ryan Cox, legal director of the 糖心Vlogof Wisconsin. Broad protections for school children interacting with law enforcement are especially vital in Wisconsin, where students encounter law enforcement while at school significantly more than the national average. Wisconsin schools refer students to the police at the fourth-highest rate in the nation. In the 2019-2020 school year, Wisconsin students were referred to the police while at school at 200% of the national rate,鈥� Cox said. 鈥淲hile these statistics are concerning on their own, the situation is particularly dire for Black and Brown children and children with disabilities,鈥� said Bridget Lavender, Legal Fellow with the ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative. 鈥淭he data confirms what many Wisconsin students and parents already know: these students are significantly overpoliced and punished more harshly at school.鈥� 鈥淪tudents retain their constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent and seek counsel when interacting with law enforcement, even in the school environment. Police are not exempt from their responsibilities to uphold the rights of a person simply because the student is a minor in a school environment,鈥� Cox said. 鈥淭he 糖心Vlogof Wisconsin鈥檚 amicus brief asks the Wisconsin Supreme Court to reaffirm this fundamental principle and protect Wisconsin students across the state from coercive and unconstitutional police conduct.鈥�

This case asks whether a 12-year-old boy was in custody and entitled to Miranda warnings during a closed-door police interrogation by a school resource officer in the school building. The court of appeals held that he was not in custody, not entitled to Miranda warnings, and voluntarily incriminated himself. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative and the 糖心Vlogof Wisconsin filed an amicus brief arguing that admitting the boy鈥檚 statements into evidence not only violated the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution but Article I, Section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution, and urging the Wisconsin Supreme Court to rest its decision on the state charter to better protect Wisconsinites鈥� civil liberties.

This case pending before the Montana Supreme Court asks, among other things, whether the claims of sixteen youth plaintiffs challenging Montana energy policy present a political question under the Montana Constitution. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 糖心Vlogof Montana, filed an amicus brief arguing that the claims do not present a political question and, moreover, that state courts should not wholesale adopt the federal political questions doctrine.

This case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerns the admissibility of a fourteen-year-old defendant鈥檚 confession following a Texas Ranger鈥檚 coercive interrogation. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 糖心Vlogof Texas, filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant鈥檚 confession was induced by positive promises, and is inadmissible, particularly given his juvenile status and the circumstances of the interrogation. In November 2024, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest court for criminal appeals in Texas) ruled that Holland's interrogation of Ochoa was unconstitutionally coercive in violation of Ochoa's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.