Minor detained, questioned and booked - w/o parents

[PottedMeat]

Minors have broader protection than adults concerning 5th Amendment rights. Questioning of a minor must be stopped when the minor asks to have a parent present. They are not required to ask for a lawyer. This is often referred to "Super Miranda" rights/protection. Accordingly, any statements made after requesting a parent/guardian should not be admissible.

Also, most jurisdictions have a "Joy Riding" provision for minors. The theory is that the minor has no means of storing the auto. and did not intend to permanently deprive the owner of their rightful possession.

 

[TripperMore]

And CreativeRandom, you are wrong about the police being required to allow suspects one phone call. That notion is purely a Hollywood invention. Go ahead and try to find a case holding that a phone call must be allowed. You won't find one.

CreativeRandom, nothing personal, but you really need to stop posting erroneous information.

No sir,YOU are wrong.Here is an excerpt straight from supreme court rulings:

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that as soon as you are taken into custody you must be informed of the following: (1) You have a Constitutional right to remain silent. (2) Anything you say can be held against you. (3) You have the right to legal counsel and that if you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you. (4) If you choose, you may have a lawyer present during interrogation.

In addition to advising you of your rights, the arresting authorities must respect your rights. For example, you cannot legally be required or forced by a police officer or any one else to talk, to answer questions, or sign any papers. If by threats, by persistent questioning or other means of coercion, you are forced to give incriminating information, you can prevent its use against you in court.

Within a reasonable time after you have been taken into custody you have a right to make a reasonable number of telephone calls or otherwise communicate with an attorney of your choice and a member of your family. If you are transferred to a new place of custody, this right of communication is renewed.
even if you interpret "reasonable number" differently,it means at LEAST 1 call,and possibly 4 or 5.Here it is 1 to a lawyer and 1 personal call allowed after arrest.After that you gotta use the collect phones in the holding cells.

Not just most state people.....EVERY STATE.It is INDEED a right garaunteed by your constitution.It is illegal for the police or your govt to hold ANYONE incommunicado.Which is what refusing to allow you a phone call amounts to.Keeping you from communicating with someone who might assist you.
So Autopilot,your info isn't even HALF right to be honest.It is maybe 20% right.It aint a constituitional right,but it is sTILL a RIGHT garaunteed by the Supreme court

 

[TripperMore]

I was correct in saying that there is no constitutional requirement that a person taken into police custody be permitted to make a telephone call. In other words, this means that where a person taken into custody is not permitted to make any phone calls, his due process rights have not been violated.
However, despite the fact that my analysis was otherwise correct, it was nevertheless incorrect because it was incomplete. I failed to account for the (universal) trend by states to build this right into their respective statutory frameworks.
.

Again you are WRONG.If you are refused a phone call or other communication with the parties of your choice,your due process rights HAVE been violated.You are entitled to communication with the person or persons of your choice BY LAW "within a reasonable time" after being arrested.
You really need to let folks with some REAL knowledge discuss such things friend.Your misbegotten "facts" are likely to get someone in deeper shit than they would have if they hadn't listened to idiotic nonsense like this.