"Less unequal footing": State courts' per se rules for juvenile waivers during interrogations and the case for their implementation

Miranda warnings do not adequately protect children from waiving their cons titutional rights unwittingly during custodial interrogations because of ju veniles' immaturity, lack of comprehension, and special status in the justi ce system. This Note considers two competing standards that have emerged from states t o determine the validity of juveniles' waivers of their Miranda rights. The first and most common test considers the totality of circumstances surroun ding the waiver. However, this test has been criticized for its inconsisten t application and lack of guidance it gives to police and the courts. The s econd approach employs a per se rule requiring the presence of or consultat ion with a competent adult-usually a parent-interested in the child's welfa re during the interrogation. Under a per se rule, juveniles' waivers are au tomatically invalid unless law enforcement investigators meet certain proce dural safeguards. This Note advocates state implementation of per se rules to protect childre n during custodial interrogations. Per se rules conserve judicial resources by providing a clear analytical framework for judges. In addition, per se rules dispel uncertainty by furnishing a uniform standard practice to law e nforcement, providing incentives to law enforcement to properly Mirandize b oth the juvenile and the interested adult, and protecting juveniles against coercive police conduct. In summary, per Se rules are the best and most fa ir method of safeguarding juveniles' constitutional rights during custodial interrogations.