Fare v. Michael C. (1978)
- Docket
- 78-334
- Decided
- 1978-01-01
Summary
Question: Does a juvenile’s request for his probation officer trigger the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination? Conclusion: No. In a 5-4 decision, Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote the majority opinion reversing the state court. The Supreme Court held that a juvenile’s request for a probation officer does not invoke the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. A court must look at the totality of the circumstances in each case to determine whether a juvenile waived that right. In this case, Michael knowingly waived his right to remain silent, so all evidence obtained during the police questioning is admissible in court. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote a dissent, stating that Miranda requires police questioning to stop whenever a juvenile requests an adult who represents his interests. The case-by-case approach does not provide police with adequate guidance for future procedure. Justices William J. Brennan and John Paul Stevens joined in the dissent. Justice Lewis F. Powell wrote a dissent, expressing that police subjected Michael to a coercive interrogation.