Legal Opinion

D.Z. v. State of Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided June 20, 2018No. 18S-JV-295PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Rush, Chief Justice.

As today's companion opinion B.A. holds, Miranda warnings protect students-no less than adults at a school-when police place them under custodial interrogation. Custodial interrogation, though, requires police involvement. So when school officials alone meet with students, a clear rule governs: Miranda warnings are not required.

Here, only an assistant principal interviewed D.Z., so Miranda warnings were not required. We also find no reversible evidentiary error and that sufficient evidence supports D.Z.'s criminal-mischief adjudication, so we affirm the juvenile court.

Facts…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Drane v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Illinois v. PerkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  3. Ritchie v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Mathew W. McCallister v. State of IndianaIndiana Supreme Court · 2018
  5. Michael J. Lock v. State of IndianaIndiana Supreme Court · 2012

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Shakur Johnson v. State of IndianaIndiana Court of Appeals · 2018
  2. In re: D.A.H.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2021
  3. Isaiah Albert Hagan v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)Indiana Court of Appeals · 2019
  4. J.F. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)Indiana Court of Appeals · 2020
  5. Jennifer T. (Garnet) Behrens, M.D. v. Jerry O. WarrenIndiana Court of Appeals · 2026

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API