A 9-year-old Oregon girl was removed from her classroom by a Sheriff's deputy in order to investigate a sexual abuse allegation against her father. The little girl said she falsely incriminated her father because the deputy would not take no for an answer.
The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case which has caused considerable interest in the legal community. In a lawsuit filed by the girl's family, a California Appeals Court held that her rights had been violated by the State. The State appealed the case and it is now in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.
The issue presented is whether there was an unlawful search and seizure when the girl was interrogated without her mother's consent, a warrant or exigent circumstances. The State is arguing this technique is a proven method of investigation and requiring a warrant would severely interfere with law enforcement's ability to acquire evidence in child abuse cases. Conversely, the defense's argument is that a warrant should have first been obtained.
Each side of the argument has considerable support from interested third parties. This will be the first case of this kind the U.S. Supreme Court has handled in many years and is a very sensitive issue which may have far-reaching results. On one hand is the need to protect children while, on the other hand, is the need to exercise control over aggressive police interrogation methods.
Beginning with the McMartin case, there have been untold numbers of police interrogations of children which have produced inaccurate and/or false evidence. Police interrogation tactics are often unsuited to interviews with children. That is, since most officers deal primarily with adults, sometimes with career criminals who are very sophisticated, their approach to interrogations often involve aggressive and confrontational police methods. Said methods, however, are counterproductive when applied to children.
It is thus necessary to have clear guidelines and restraints on the police so children are not traumatized and false evidence is not obtained. This is why the U.S. Supreme Court should rule for the defense in this case.
