Minor detained, questioned and booked - w/o parents

Partykid12

Partykid12

Bluelighter
Joined
Sep 19, 2002
Messages
2,453
Location
Ball-more, MD
Ok so my cousin who has had a tough life (no excuse I know.. but still I dont know what I would do if I had his life) just turned 15 last week and was arrested for stealing a car.

Here's everything we know so far:

The car was stolen about 3 days ago by one of my cousins friends. He came by last night and told my cousin he had a car and they went for a drive (my cousin was the passenger). A couple hours later they were picked up because the guy whos car it was picked my cousin out and said it was him who stole it. The reason we are CERTAIN my cousin didn't steal it and he's not lying is becuase the time he stole it he was with my grandmother at home. The let the other kid go right after arresting him because they said he is too short to drive the car and the owner picked my cousin anyways. They arrested, booked, and questioned him without notifying my aunt or grandparents. He continuely asked if he could call his family and they said after he admitted guilt that he could make a phone call. My cousin denied everything until the very end and they finally called his mom.

I quickly called my lawyer (one of the best in Maryland IMO) and he went down to the arraignment the next day (he was sent to the detention center until the arraignement) - they wanted to keep him in there until the court date but the lawyer got them to give him a monitoring bracelet.. hes not even a flight risk so I really don't see the point in this.

They are going to finger print the car and hopefully that will be in next week. But was the questioning legal? What can happen to my cousin - jail time? I am really angry that they kept him in there and interregated him even though he was asking for his mother.. I mean because he has an alliby it seems like it's a certain victory in court but the whole thing just sucks.

Thanks for the help guys.
 
Last edited:
What state did the car theft occur in? Is the other suspect being booked? Did he knowingly, willingfully, deliberetly and unlawfully get into the stolen car?
 
This all happend in Maryland. The other kid had no charges pressed on him because they think he is too small to drive and the owner of the truck picked my cousin out of a lineup. Another weird thing is that only 2 people were in the lineup including my cousin and the other person was about a foot smaller.

My cousin did not know it was 'stolen' until they were arrested. He knew it was 'borrowed' but from the kids parents he thought..
 
I've seen LOTS of these cases. Your cousin just has to keep his mouth shut. In court he can deny, or in his case, tell the truth (did he know? well that doesnt make a difference... because he didn't know).

He needs a lawyer. But if there is no evidence of him actually stealing the car himself, and if he claims he did not know it was stolen, he will have to be dismissed due to lack of evidence, no questions asked.
 
I only see two questions in your original post. The first, "was the questioning legal?", depends on a number of circumstances. Before the police interrogate a suspect in custody, they must advise him of his right to remain silent and his right to an attorney. If the police had your cousin at the station and were asking him questions, chances are that they complied with this requirement, as it is pretty standard practice and unlikely that the police would overlook it under such circumstances. The police were not required to allow your cousin to make any phone calls, so their failure to do so will not affect the legality of the questioning.

The second question I see is "will he get jailtime?" While criminal codes vary from state to state, and although you did not specify the charges against him, it is likely that the crime with which he has been charged includes the possibility of a jail sentence. While minors are generally not tried as adults, and would instead serve any type of imprisonment in a juvenile detention center rather than jail, a minor will be tried as an adult where his crime involves an adult activity, such as driving a car. I would think that in this case, his minority would not save him from being tried as an adult, although I would suspect that a jail sentence would be highly unlikely because of his minority.

Under the facts you described, I think it is highly unlikely that your cousin will be convicted for the theft of the car. It sounds like it is fairly common knowledge in your community that the friend stole the car; not your cousin. This leads me to assume that the friend has admitted to the crime to at least one person. Anyone to whom the friend admitted to the crime may testify in court as to the friend's admission to the crime. This evidence, taken together with a solid alibi, which you indicate your cousin possesses, should be sufficient to overcome the evidence against your cousin.

However, it should be noted that if your cousin knew the car was stolen, he could be charged as an accomplice to the crime if he in some way helped his friend evade the authorities.

As CreativeRandom advised, your cousin should get a lawyer.
 
one more point.... CreativeRandom is not entirely correct about the significance of your cousin's knowledge about the car's status as stolen. Even if he claims he did not know that the car was stolen, he may nevertheless be considered to have such knowledge if, under the circumstances, he should have known the car was stolen.
 
Partykid12 said:
Another weird thing is that only 2 people were in the lineup including my cousin and the other person was about a foot smaller.
Click to expand...
Make absolutely certain his lawyer is aware of this.

If the lawyer is at all competent he will challenge the permissability of the lineup. Without getting into details, basically by having A) Only two people in the lineup and B) having one person who appeared (by his height) to be much too small to drive a car, you could argue that the witness was lead into believing that your (taller) cousin was at fault, or that he was the suspect and the police "wanted" the witness to pick him (this is critical, because often eye witnesses aren't good on faces and will pick almost any option if they feel that option is the option the police 'want' you to pick). I think this leading had a big impact on your cousin(and why he was identified as the one who stole the car), and as such it MUST be brought up in his defense.

If you have any other questions PM me, but your lawyer (if he's half as good as you say) will know exactly what to do if you bring this topic up to him.
 
That's bullshit that "he should have known the car was stoleN". I'm not trying to make any kind of criticism against you autopilot, but if the court said to your cousin "well he should've known it was stolen!" that would be the most fucked up thing ever.

How the hell is the court going to tell your cousin what he should and shouldn't know? Obviously, your cousin would've gotten out of the car immediately and called the cops if he knew it was stolen (I know that this may not be the case, but this is the way it WILL be)!

The judge cannot just dictate what happened. That's like a dead body is found next to someone, and that someone is charged with murder using a shotgun because the judge dictates that's what happened. I'm not going to say anymore about that example, my point being is that the judge just can't dictate like that what happened.

If you are arrested and detained, you MUST get ONE phone call within 24 hours. It is called your "intake call". I don't think this is really a matter you would argue in court though. After 24 hours and you haven't made a call, it is up to the detention center to decide how you make calls.

Your cousin can be detained until his trial. Nothing you can do about that.
 
Ok so I talked it over with my grandparents who know a little bit more about the case and they confirmed that my cousin was with them at the time the car was stolen and 30 minutes before that he was with many friends and adults at a public place - not enough time to go to the place the car was steal it and get back to my grandparents in time for dinner. So the alibi is solid.

Autopilot: I have been arrested before and know how the whole thing goes down but I also know that if I ask for a lawyer after I was read my rights they can't ask me anything else until I get my lawyer - I can still talk and they can use it against me but they can't continue the interrogation. My cousin was interrogated at age 15 without any family/attorney present. He continuely asked to speak with an family member and they told him that he was not able to speak with his mother/grandmother until he admitted guilt. He kept denying everything (I'm proud of him for doing this - he was in there for a long time being questioned and they got no where with him) and just kept asking for mom.

The lawyer we got for him is my lawyer who is my best friends family friend and he's one of the best in the state - has gotten me off numerous charges when I thought there was no hope... so I have no doubt in my mind that he is going to do everything he can for my cousin. He has hired a private investigator to do some digging on the real driver as well as find witnesses for my cousin.
 
There is a legal doctrine known as constructive knowledge. Allow me to provide you with an example. Suppose the cousin's friend pulled up in a shiny new Lamborghini. Suppose further that the cousin knew that the friend's parents' employment status would preclude ownership of such an expensive car. Under those circumstances, the friend's claim that the car was borrowed from the friend's parents would be obviously false. Under those circumstances, the Court would not allow the cousin to "intentionally close his eyes to the truth" in order to avoid legal liability. Despite the fact that the cousin may never have been expressly told that the car was stolen, the Court would find that under the circumstances, the cousin should have known the car was stolen, and would charge him with constructive knowledge of the status of the car as stolen.

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.
 
autopilot said:
And CreativeRandom, you are wrong about the police being required to allow suspects one phone call.
Click to expand...
Heh, you'd be surprised how many people swear up and down that this is in the bill of rights(!!!). I'm not joking.

I do believe a very select minority of states may have some "phone call" provision (for minors only), but I may be wrong on this(only a hunch).
 
well, a state legislature could enact such a law, but a phone call is not constitutionally mandated, and i am not aware of any states that have enacted such legislation.
 
Calm Like the Bomb, you are correct that a minor's parents must be notified if he is taken into custody by police, but this does not mean that the minor is the one who gets to do the notifying. The police will call the parents. The minor is not entitled to any phone calls.
 
Just an example of some states and their laws...

Rhode Island law states that you have a right to make a telephone call to secure a lawyer or to arrange for bail as soon as practicable after your arrest. The period of time, however, shall not exceed one hour. This telephone call shall be carried out in such a manner as to provide confidentiality between yourself and the person you call.

Rhode Island Law

--------------------------

Once you are booked, meaning your arrest is written into official police records and you are fingerprinted and photographed, you have a right to make and complete three telephone calls that are free within the local dialing area.


Maryland/DC Law

--------------------------

A resource for all of the US .. so I imagine it's a national thing..

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.

Under the "What to do when arrested" heading
 
HobbyIsBowling said:
I do believe a very select minority of states may have some "phone call" provision (for minors only), but I may be wrong on this(only a hunch).
Click to expand...
My hunches are usually right ;)
 
I apologize to CreativeRandom. Your information was not erroneous. While I did not check every state's statutes, it seems that most, if not all, have a statutory requirement (or a variation thereof) that a person taken into custody by the police be permitted to make a telephone call within a reasonable period of time after having been taken into custody, in order to alert his attorney or family members of his whereabouts.

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, while the states are not free to deprive arrestees of constitutionally guaranteed rights, they are permitted to mandate greater rights than due process requires. It seems that most states have enacted legislation requiring the police to allow persons taken into custody to make a phone call within a reasonable time.

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, CreativeRandom, I apologize. You were right, and I was wrong.
 
Apology accepted autopilot. I never said it was in the Bill of RIghts, and I would agree. However, I should've specified myself in the first place. I was talking about Virginia with the intake call rule. I wouldn't doubt it would be different in other places.

You must get your alibis to write statements, send it to the court, et cetera et bullshit. I am not entirely familiar with the process, but if you do no do "THE PROCESS" early enough, the alibi statements will be REJECTED!

So get your alibis to do what they need to do, and get it to the judge NOW!

I had a case that is somewhat similiar to yours. Not the same charge or anything, but my co-defendant had brought four alibi statements to the trial. They were all rejected because it was too late.

Talk to your lawyer IMMEDIATELY about this matter if you believe your alibi is crucial. Even if you don't, bring it. It is all the more work the lawyer can do for you and make work for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top