Summary of Argument

Seventy years ago, the United States Supreme Court articulated that “[c]hildren have a very special place in life which law should reflect.” May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 536 (1953) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). Drawing on historical experience, common sense, and scientific research, the Court has subsequently—and repeatedly—affirmed that children possess developmental traits—impulsivity, difficulty weighing risks and rewards, and vulnerability to outside pressures—that distinguish them from adults. See Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 569-70 (2005); Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 68 (2010); Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 471-72 (2012); Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190, 206-08 (2016); Jones v. Mississippi, 141 S. Ct. 1307, 1316 (2021). Childhood has legal significance, and the Court has accordingly required consideration of the distinctive attributes of youth in a diverse array of constitutional rulings, including in school settings. See J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261, 275-76 (2011).

In the instant case, Mr. Baker, Kempsville Middle School vice-principal, acting with the school resource officer (SRO), Officer Carr, compelled O.W. to write a series of statements, the final of which was immediately handed over to Officer Carr and used to prosecute him in juvenile court. Despite a long-standing legal recognition that children are entitled to heightened protections during interrogations by law enforcement, the district court rejected O.W.’s claim that Mr. Baker compelled him to make statements that were then used against him in a juvenile court proceeding in violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self- incrimination. Bass ex rel. O.W. v. Sch. Bd. of the City of Va. Beach, No. 2:21-cv- 448, 2023 WL 1994355, at *11 (E.D. Va. Feb. 14, 2023). Indeed, not only did the school fail to protect O.W.’s constitutional rights, it actively participated in their violation.

Amici write to highlight the implications of the increasing number of law enforcement officers in schools, youths’ unique vulnerabilities in school settings, and how these affect the interrogation analysis under the Fifth Amendment.

Summary of Argument

The United States Supreme Court has consistently recognized the unique vulnerabilities of children, including their developmental traits and susceptibility to outside pressures, necessitating heightened protections during law enforcement interactions. This principle has been repeatedly affirmed in various constitutional rulings, including those concerning school settings.

In the present case, the court's rejection of O.W.'s Fifth Amendment claim against self-incrimination raises significant concerns. The school administration's active participation in compelling O.W. to make statements that were subsequently used in juvenile court proceedings directly contradicts the established legal protections afforded to children during interrogations.

This brief highlights the implications of the growing presence of law enforcement officers in schools, emphasizing the unique vulnerability of youth in these settings, and how these factors impact the Fifth Amendment interrogation analysis.

Summary of Argument

The United States Supreme Court has long recognized that children have unique developmental characteristics that distinguish them from adults. These characteristics include impulsivity, difficulty weighing risks and rewards, and vulnerability to outside pressures. This recognition has led the Court to consistently affirm that childhood has legal significance, requiring consideration of children's distinctive attributes in various legal contexts, including school settings.

In the case of O.W. v. Sch. Bd. of the City of Va. Beach, a school vice-principal and a school resource officer (SRO) compelled O.W. to write statements that were used against him in juvenile court. The district court rejected O.W.'s claim that this violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, despite the long-standing legal recognition of heightened protections for children during interrogations by law enforcement. This case highlights the increasing presence of law enforcement officers in schools and the unique vulnerabilities of youth in these settings. The case also raises concerns about the potential for schools to violate the constitutional rights of students during interrogations.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court has long recognized that children are different from adults and deserve special legal protections. The Court has repeatedly ruled that children are more impulsive, less able to think about the consequences of their actions, and more easily swayed by pressure from others than adults. These differences mean that children need to be treated differently in the legal system.

This case involves a student, O.W., who was interrogated by a school vice-principal and a school resource officer (SRO). The vice-principal pressured O.W. to write a series of statements, which were then used against him in juvenile court. Even though the law recognizes that children need special protections during police interrogations, the lower court decided that the vice-principal's actions were not a violation of O.W.'s rights.

This case is important because it highlights the increasing number of law enforcement officers in schools and the unique vulnerabilities of children in these settings. It is crucial to protect the Fifth Amendment rights of students, especially when they are being interrogated by school officials who are also law enforcement officers.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court has said that children are special and the law should protect them. The Court has said that children are different from adults because they don’t think the same way. They may act without thinking, and find it hard to weigh the good and bad parts of something. They are also more easily influenced by others. This means that the law needs to consider how young people are different when making decisions about their rights.

The Supreme Court has also said that schools have a special duty to protect children. But in this case, a school vice-principal and a police officer made a young person write statements that were then used against him in court. This is a problem because the law says that children have extra protection when talking to the police.

This case is important because it shows how police in schools can make it hard for young people to protect their rights. We need to think about how this affects children and how we can make sure they are protected.