When police question a child suspected of committing a crime, Utah law provides protections that generally do not apply to an adult suspect.
These protections concern the presence of a parent or another trusted adult, consultation with an attorney, promises of leniency, false claims about evidence, and recording the interrogation.
The governing statute is Utah Code § 80-6-206. Whether the police complied with this statute can determine whether a juvenile’s admission, confession, or other statement may be used in court.
Juveniles Have the Same Basic Miranda Rights as Adults
Both adults and juveniles have constitutional rights during a custodial interrogation. These are commonly known as Miranda rights, from Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Before conducting a custodial interrogation, police ordinarily must advise a suspect of the right to remain silent, that statements can be used in court, and the right to consult with an attorney.
These rights apply when the person is both:
- In custody; and
- Subject to interrogation.
“Custody” does not necessarily require a formal arrest or handcuffs. The question generally is whether a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would believe that the person was free to end the questioning and leave.
“Interrogation” includes direct questioning as well as words or conduct reasonably likely to produce an incriminating response. Routine questions and actions normally associated with an arrest ordinarily are not interrogation.
For juveniles, age can matter when determining whether the child was in custody. Questioning in a school office, police vehicle, station interview room, or another controlled setting may amount to custody even when an officer describes the encounter as voluntary.
Utah Gives Children Additional Statutory Protections
An adult ordinarily may waive Miranda rights and agree to speak with police without a parent, spouse, friend, or attorney present.
Utah law places additional safeguards around the custodial interrogation of a child.
Under Utah Code § 80-6-206, a child generally has the right to have a parent or guardian present during a custodial interrogation.
If the parent or guardian has abused or threatened the child, or if the adult’s interests are adverse to the child’s interests, the child may instead have a “friendly adult” present.
A friendly adult must have an established relationship with the child and be capable of providing meaningful advice and concerned assistance. The person cannot be hostile or adverse to the child. The statutory definition does not include the child’s parent or legal guardian because those individuals are addressed separately.
The parent, guardian, or friendly adult may participate in person or by video. An interpreter must be provided when the child or the participating adult cannot speak or understand English.
The Adult Must Be Present for the Waiver
It is not always enough for a parent to arrive after the child has already agreed to speak.
When the statutory adult-presence requirement applies, the parent, guardian, or friendly adult generally must be present when the child waives constitutional rights. That adult must also give permission for the child to be interrogated.
This protection is substantially different from the ordinary rule for adults. An adult suspect generally may waive Miranda rights alone if the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
Utah law recognizes that a child may not fully appreciate the consequences of speaking with police, even after receiving a technically correct Miranda warning.
A parent’s presence does not automatically make the interrogation lawful. Courts may still examine whether the child understood the rights, whether the waiver was voluntary, and whether the parent helped the child or instead pressured the child to confess.
Utah Requires Juvenile-Specific Warnings
Section 80-6-206 contains a detailed juvenile advisement. Among other things, the officer must explain that:
- The child has the right to remain silent.
- The child does not have to speak with the officer.
- The child may stop answering questions at any time.
- Anything the child says can be used in court.
- The officer may tell the judge and others in court what the child said.
- The child has the right to a parent, guardian, or qualifying friendly adult.
- The child has the right to speak with a lawyer before questioning.
- A lawyer may be present during the questioning.
- A lawyer will be provided without charge if the child wants one.
The officer does not necessarily have to recite the statutory language word for word. The court evaluates the officer’s advisement as a whole.
A minor wording difference alone does not automatically make the statement inadmissible. The real questions are whether all required rights were communicated and whether the child actually understood them.
A Child in Juvenile Detention Generally Must Consult an Attorney
Utah provides even greater protection when a child is being held in a detention facility or secure-care facility.
Before a custodial interrogation in that setting, the child generally must:
- Have a meaningful opportunity to consult with appointed or retained counsel;
- Waive constitutional rights after consulting counsel; and
- Have counsel present during the interrogation.
The attorney may participate in person or by video.
This requirement ordinarily does not apply to routine communications with a juvenile probation officer or facility employee. It can apply, however, when the probation officer or facility employee is questioning the child on behalf of law enforcement.
That distinction should be carefully investigated. The government cannot necessarily avoid the statute merely by having someone other than the investigating detective ask the questions.
Police Generally Cannot Lie About Evidence to a Child
One of the most significant differences between adult and juvenile interrogations concerns deceptive interrogation tactics.
During adult criminal investigations, police may sometimes use deception, such as falsely claiming that another person confessed or that physical evidence connects the suspect to the crime. Although extreme coercion may make an adult’s statement involuntary, police deception does not automatically invalidate an adult confession.
Utah law imposes a more protective rule for children.
During a child’s custodial interrogation, an officer—or someone questioning the child on behalf of law enforcement—may not knowingly provide false information about evidence when that false information is reasonably likely to produce an incriminating response.
The statute also prohibits an unauthorized statement about leniency. An officer should not induce a child to confess by making an unauthorized representation about what will happen to the child in exchange for speaking.
These restrictions recognize a practical reality: children are generally more suggestible, more trusting of authority figures, and less capable of evaluating long-term consequences than adults.
Juvenile Custodial Interrogations Must Be Recorded
Utah law requires a law-enforcement agency to make an audio or audiovisual recording that accurately captures the custodial interrogation of a child.
The recording may provide critical evidence concerning:
- Whether the child was told that the interview was voluntary;
- Whether the child was actually free to leave;
- The warnings given to the child;
- Whether the child appeared to understand those warnings;
- Who was present during the waiver;
- Whether a parent or friendly adult gave permission;
- Whether the child requested an attorney;
- Whether police supplied false information about evidence;
- Whether an officer offered or suggested leniency;
- The child’s age, maturity, emotional condition, and level of comprehension; and
- Whether the child’s statements were spontaneous or suggested by the interviewer.
Recording issues may also implicate Utah’s Rules of Evidence, including Rule 616, depending on the circumstances.
The absence of a required recording can become an important issue in a motion to suppress.
What Happens When Police Violate the Juvenile Interrogation Statute?
A violation does not always produce automatic suppression. The statutory remedy nevertheless creates a significant protection for the child.
If a peace officer or juvenile probation officer intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly fails to comply with the custodial-interrogation requirements, a resulting admission, confession, or statement is presumed:
- Not to have been made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently; and
- Not to be admissible against the child.
The prosecution may attempt to overcome that presumption by proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the child could comprehend and waive the applicable constitutional and statutory rights.
This makes the officer’s intent and level of fault important.
A suppression motion should therefore address more than whether a technical violation occurred. It should examine the officer’s training, knowledge of the juvenile’s age, knowledge of the statute, efforts to contact an adult, recording practices, interrogation plan, and reasons for departing from the statutory requirements.
Juvenile and Adult Interrogations Compared
There are several important differences between interrogating an adult and interrogating a child under Utah law.
Miranda Rights
Adults: Miranda warnings are required during custodial interrogation.
Juveniles: Miranda rights apply, along with detailed child-focused statutory explanations.
Parent or Trusted Adult
Adults: A parent or trusted adult generally is not required.
Juveniles: A parent, guardian, or qualifying friendly adult is generally required when the statutory protection applies.
Permission From an Adult
Adults: Permission from another adult generally is not required.
Juveniles: The participating parent, guardian, or friendly adult generally must authorize the questioning.
Attorney in Detention
Adults: An adult may generally waive Miranda rights without first consulting counsel.
Juveniles: A child in juvenile detention or secure care generally must consult counsel and have counsel present before custodial interrogation.
Police Deception About Evidence
Adults: Some police deception may be constitutionally permissible.
Juveniles: Knowingly providing qualifying false information about evidence is prohibited.
Statements About Leniency
Adults: These issues are generally evaluated under constitutional voluntariness principles.
Juveniles: Unauthorized statements about leniency are specifically prohibited by Utah statute.
Recording
Adults: Recording requirements depend on the governing law and circumstances.
Juveniles: Utah law specifically requires an accurate audio or audiovisual recording of a child’s custodial interrogation.
Consequences of a Violation
Adults: Statements are generally analyzed under Miranda and constitutional voluntariness principles.
Juveniles: A qualifying statutory violation creates a presumption against voluntariness and admissibility.
What Should a Parent Do If Police Want to Question a Child?
A parent should not assume that permitting an interview will make the situation go away.
Statements made early in a juvenile investigation can determine whether the case is diverted, formally prosecuted in juvenile court, or—in the most serious cases—considered for transfer to adult court.
A child and parent should clearly state:
“The child will remain silent. We want to speak with an attorney before any questioning.”
A parent should not question the child in front of an officer, attempt to negotiate with the investigator, or pressure the child to explain what happened.
Police vehicles, station lobbies, body cameras, school offices, and telephone calls may all create evidence.
The right to remain silent is not an admission of guilt. It is a constitutional protection designed to ensure that decisions about police questioning are made carefully and with the assistance of counsel.
If your child is under investigation, speaking with a Provo criminal defense attorney before agreeing to an interview can help protect the child’s rights.
Challenging a Juvenile’s Statement in Utah
A defense attorney examining a juvenile interrogation should obtain and review:
- The complete audio or audiovisual recording;
- Body-camera recordings from every involved officer;
- Dispatch and computer-aided dispatch records;
- Reports describing whether the encounter was voluntary;
- The precise Miranda and statutory warnings;
- Records of calls or attempted calls to the child’s parents;
- Evidence identifying everyone present;
- School security and school-resource-officer recordings;
- Detention admission and communication records;
- Communications between police, probation officers, school personnel, and DCFS; and
- Any promises, threats, claims about evidence, or suggestions of leniency.
The legal analysis must consider custody, interrogation, waiver, adult presence, attorney consultation, recording, voluntariness, and compliance with § 80-6-206.
A violation may support a motion asking the juvenile court to suppress the child’s statements.
Speak With an Experienced Utah Juvenile Defense Attorney
Juvenile cases can move quickly, and statements made at the beginning of an investigation can shape the entire case.
A family should seek legal advice before allowing a child to participate in a police interview.
Jacob S. Gunter is an experienced Utah criminal and juvenile defense attorney who has practiced law since 2004. He represents minors and families in juvenile delinquency cases and related proceedings throughout Utah.
If police want to question your child or your child has already made a statement, contact a Provo criminal defense attorney to discuss the situation.
This article provides general legal information and is not legal advice for a particular case. The law may change, and the result of any interrogation issue depends on the specific facts.