STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE INTEREST OF I.G.S. (FJ-20-869-16, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-1955-16T2

Background

April 2016: State received referral alleging 14-year-old juvenile I.G.S. sexually assaulted his 6-year-old cousin. Detective Keyla Live conducted a Spanish-language, video-recorded interview at the Child Advocacy Center; the juvenile’s mother was present throughout.
Detective Live provided a Spanish juvenile-rights form; I.G.S. read each right aloud, orally and in writing acknowledged understanding, and initially indicated he wanted counsel.
Detective Live said she could not bring an attorney then and asked if they wanted to consult privately; she left them in the hallway, they consulted, returned, and I.G.S. (after confirming it was his decision) waived counsel and made inculpatory statements.
Motion court granted suppression, finding procedural errors in how Miranda warnings were administered and that the mother’s misunderstanding about cost of counsel led to an invalid waiver.
Appellate Division vacated and remanded, concluding the motion court erred on several legal points and directing reconsideration free of those errors (but permitting further factfinding about whether Live’s phrase “you can find one with your mother” caused misunderstanding).

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether having the juvenile read Miranda warnings aloud invalidates waiver	Reading aloud is permissible if the suspect can and does read and shows understanding	Reading aloud is improper; officer must read warnings to juvenile	Court: Permissible. Juvenile read and acknowledged understanding; A.S. was distinguishable.
Whether warnings adequately informed of right to court‑appointed counsel	Spanish form and oral explanations satisfied Miranda’s requirement to advise of appointed counsel	Mother misunderstood that counsel would be provided free and that led to invalid waiver	Court: Warnings were adequate; lack of explicit phrase "free of cost" not required; remand to assess effect of officer’s phrase about "finding" counsel.
Whether officer may clarify an ambiguous invocation of counsel when juvenile and parent disagree	Clarification is allowed to determine whether right was invoked (officers may ask follow-up)	Ambiguous invocation should be treated as invocation, interrogation must cease	Court: Clarification was proper; parent has advisory role and private consultation is appropriate.
Whether arranging private consultation and asking them to knock constituted reinitiation of interrogation after invocation	Steps to allow private consultation and to receive their response are not reinitiation; clarifying follow-ups are not interrogation	Any post-request communication after asking for counsel is impermissible reinitiation	Court: Not reinitiation; officer appropriately ceased questioning, afforded privacy, and confirmed juvenile’s voluntary decision before resuming.

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishes warnings and need to advise of right to appointed counsel)
State v. Presha, 163 N.J. 304 (framework for evaluating voluntariness of juvenile confessions)
State ex rel. A.S., 203 N.J. 131 (criticized use of parent to read warnings and emphasized parental advisory role)
State v. Alston, 204 N.J. 614 (clarification permitted for ambiguous invocation of counsel)
State v. Mejia, 141 N.J. 475 (Spanish-language warning imperfections do not necessarily mislead)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (waiver and voluntariness principles)
Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146 (once counsel requested, interrogation generally must cease until counsel present)
State ex rel. A.W., 212 N.J. 114 (juvenile waiver principles and parental role)
State ex rel. Q.N., 179 N.J. 165 (parental urging to cooperate does not automatically invalidate waiver)