These New Laws Stop Cops From Lying to Kids
Yes, even children should have access to an attorney.

Based on mounting evidence that minors are especially susceptible to false confessions, criminal justice reformers in several states are demanding tighter rules for juvenile interrogations. The latest such push is happening in New York, where reformers hope to pass legislation requiring that minors have access to legal counsel prior to police interviews.
Maryland and Washington state already enforce such a rule. And in 2021, Illinois and Oregon became the first two states to ban police from lying to minors during interrogations.
Wrongful convictions have shown that teenagers are less likely than adults to understand their Miranda rights and more likely to focus on immediate rewards rather than long-term consequences. According to the Innocence Project, nearly 30 percent of DNA exonerations involved false confessions, and roughly a third of defendants in those cases were 18 or younger when they confessed.
Similar bills have previously been introduced in New York, but none have passed, due partly to opposition from the New York City Police Department (NYPD). "Parents and guardians are in the best position to make decisions for their children, and this bill, while well-intentioned, supplants the judgment of parents and guardians with an attorney who may never have met the individual," a police spokesperson told The City in December.
NYPD detectives obviously would prefer that juvenile suspects consult with their parents rather than lawyers. "Cops asking questions do not have your best interests at heart," says Ken White, a criminal defense attorney and law blogger. "And note that cops consistently demand union rules protecting them from being questioned without counsel when they are investigated."
Law enforcement opposition also scuttled a 2022 Colorado bill that would have banned police from lying to juvenile suspects while trying to extract confessions. "Tough on crime" lawmakers called it "anti–law enforcement" and "pro-criminal."
One person who testified in favor of the Colorado bill was Lorenzo Montoya, who was 14 when he confessed, after several hours of badgering by two Denver police detectives, to being at the scene of a murder. Montoya's mom was present for the first part of the interview but eventually left her son alone with the detectives.
Montoya was convicted of first-degree felony murder, even though there was no physical evidence linking him to the scene. He spent 13 years behind bars before prosecutors agreed to release him.
It would be ideal if everyone had access to an attorney and was free from coercive interrogation techniques. Guaranteeing those rights to children should be a no-brainer.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Evidence indicates that CRT bans are working as intended.
“The article also covers a teacher who pulled her lesson plans on “cake walks,” antebellum dances performed by slaves that mocked the formal dances of their enslavers. But it turns out that parents hadn’t objected to this lesson until the teacher paired it with a reading by critical-race-theorist bell hooks on drag queens in the 1980s. Hooks writes, “Within white supremacist, capitalist patriarchy the experience of men dressing as women, appearing in drag, has always been regarded by the dominant heterosexist cultural gaze as a sign that one is crossing over from a realm of power into a realm of powerlessness.” Parents were not wrong to question the pedagogical value of presenting this perspective without a counter. Not to mention that equating the subversion of race-norms by slaves performing cake walks in the antebellum era with the subversion of gender-norms by drag queens in the 1980s is morally dubious, at best. Another lesson better left untaught.
The lead anecdote covers an Iowa teacher named Greg Wickenkamp who wondered whether he should still assign Zinn’s Education Project material and critical-race-theory guru Ibram X. Kendi’s books. As parental complaints about Kendi flowed in, the school district offered little clarification at first. Finally, Wickenkamp sought a meeting with the superintendent to ask: “Is it acceptable for me to teach that slavery is wrong?” To her discredit, the superintendent did not offer a straight answer. But, as my AEI colleague Robert Pondiscio put it, “If you’re lacking in moral discernment, unfamiliar with history standards, or just so compliance-minded that you need to be told it’s OK to teach ‘slavery was wrong’ you’re either grandstanding or can’t be trusted with teacher autonomy.” Wickenkamp has since left the profession.
It has been two years since the grassroots parental movement against CRT picked up steam, CRT bans were passed, and teachers were put on notice against overly politicized instruction. The Left has warned that these laws and this parental pressure would lead to flat, if not dishonest, discussion of American history. If this is the worst evidence that the Washington Post can come up with, then these laws and the parental-rights movement have been a bigger success than proponents could reasonably have hoped.”
We all hear so much about CRT but it’s so rare to see any of the actual details. I actually understand much more about the CRT that made up the TVs and monitors of 20+ years ago than the CRT people talk about now.
So to read that drag queens are slaves because of some capitalist culture patriarchy (interesting considering that slavery was much more pervasive across the world before capitalism even existed) is mind-blowing. Does this mean that we could conceivably employ drag queens to do domestic chores? I mean in exchange for food only, no actual pay.
Requiring police tell the truth would result in them remaining silent.
I've always thought that the ability of police or LEO's in general to lie to you without consequence and the system having the ability to criminally charge you for lying to the police is, in itself, prima facie evidence that one should limit the information disclosed in most police-citizen interactions, and certainly "formal interviews" (not to say interrogations) to (1) name, (2) address, (3) perhaps your SS number for identification, and (4) a formal, clearly expressed refusal to answer questions until having conferred with an attorney and having the attorney present during the "interview". BTW, when was the last time you heard of a policeman's in-court testimony that was clearly shown to be false by adequate and sufficient video evidence actually result in that LEO's being prosecuted and punished for perjury?
Unless you are clearly and obviously a victim (and not always then), the police are not your friends - they are looking for you to reveal some "evidence" of some non-specified misbehavior that they can charge you with, or use to otherwise leverage you. And this goes double when dealing with a fed of any alphabet-flavor.
One last thought. Whether "guilty" or "innocent", never - never - agree to take a lie detector test, "just to allow us to eliminate you". You can be asked questions under those circumstances that would surprise you! Any refusal or demurral to answer will be regarded as evidence of "concealment" or "deception". You can be evaluated as showing signs of "deception" while telling nothing but the stone-cold truth. You can be lied to and told you "failed" the lie detector test when in fact the operator did not find signs of deception. And if the police are already convinced of your guilt you will not be "eliminated as a suspect" - they will simply assume "you beat the machine".
Interesting comments on polygraphs, and no doubt true. I had the exact opposite experience, though. Some years back (2010) after a stranger assaulted me with an axe, Atlanta Police framed me for two felonies.
I had a clean record and volunteered - insisted! - on taking a polygraph, even offering to pay for it myself. Public Defender wasn't interested as 'they're not admissible in court.' I figured if anything, it would 'serve as an investigative tool to point everyone in the right direction' (har har) and demonstrate that I was telling the truth and thereby perhaps motivate them to dig further.
I was also pretty sure APD cars had video and audio recording, and the cops outright admitted and laughed that they were framing me while we were in the car. Unfortunately, the Public Defender claimed that wasn't the case and the body cam footage 'wasn't available.' Apparently, their resources are incredibly limited and their job is to lend the appearance of 'fairness' to a heavily skewed justice system and get you the 'best' plea deal possible, innocence be damned!
Even contacted APD Internal Affairs. They quickly made it clear their job was gathering evidence to protect their own. Probably shouldn't have been surprised, but... If it weren't for cops and other dishonest, sociopathic state agents I'd probably be a statist Republican. I guess I owe them some grudging thanks for that!
You were probably just as lucky to get turned down for the polygraph. Not only are they pretty much useless (50% accuracy at best, flipping a coin would be cheaper and just as accurate), but as Carey Allison pointed out, the test is rigged in the cops' favor. Once John Law decides you're guilty, confirmation bias tends to kick in big-time. If the operator says you're lying, that counts against you, but if they say you're not, the result is likely to go down as "inconclusive", which isn't going to help you much. Basically, it's a case of "heads they win, tails you lose".
PS I apologize for flagging your comment when I meant to hit Reply. With all the spambots overrunning the place, it's just kind of a reflex. If anybody does actually look over this, hopefully they'll see that it's a valid comment.
Wish it were true that a law requiring police to not do something actually forced them to not do it. Will be interesting to see if any police are actually convicted of breaking this law.
Yeah, that headline struck me as more aspirational than factual. I certainly hope it turns out that way, but I'm gonna have to see some evidence before I believe it.
Earn income while simply working online. work from home whenever you want. just for maximum 5 hours a day you can make more than $600 per day online. From this I made $18,000 last month in my spare time.
Check info here==============>>> http://www.join.hiring9.com
The Innocence Project does not recommend the State being substituted for the rights and wishes of the minor's parents. Instead, '.....States should enact statutes or court rules that require custodial interrogations for at least the most serious crimes to be recorded in their entirety....' Preventing cops from lying in an effort to rebut the presumption of innocence, is stupid.
Fred Rogers assured me all officers were friendly.
One person who testified in favor of the Colorado bill was Lorenzo Montoya, who was 14 when he confessed, after several hours of badgering by two Denver police detectives, to being at the scene of a murder. Montoya's mom was present for the first part of the interview but eventually left her son alone with the detectives.
What was so important to this mother to cause to leave her son with detectives? If your kid is being held by the police, YOU are being held by the police. You don't go anywhere else, until your kid goes with you.
slimey cops badgered a young teen and finally got their man! way to go heroes! assholes need a punch in the nose
there is a very good chance that they asked her to leave, but we don't know. Meanwhile, maybe they had to go to work or any other requirement. And before you jump to...."well then don't go", that doesn't work for many people. Don't go, get fired.
I agree that sounds like a bad idea, but without more knowledge of her circumstances I'm not going to rush to condemn her. I wouldn't be surprised to learn the family was poor. Maybe mom couldn't skip work without risking her job, and her employer wasn't likely to take "My son was arrested" as a good excuse. Or maybe she'd just fallen for the propaganda and couldn't quite believe the cops would railroad her son, even after seeing them in action. Or maybe the cops told her they'd stop the interrogation when she left.
Dollars earning straightforward job to figure and earn on-line. begin now creating daily over $500 merely acting from home.~hn114~ Last month my earning from this are $16205 and that i gave this job solely two hours from my whole day. simplest way to earn additional financial gain online and it doesn’t desires any quite special experience. Move to this web site without delay andfollow details to induce
started right now……………….>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
lying to coerce confessions...just one of the many services we offer. along with evidence tampering, bogus charges, paying informers to snitch, planting evidence, larding up charge sheets to force a plea bargain, lying under oath, beating the snot out of folks, covering for other crooked cops. but hey THANKS FOR YOUR SERVICE FELLAS!
Perhaps it's the police interrogators that need to hear a Miranda style warning: "You have the right to remain honest. Any lie you tell can and will be held against you in a civil trial".
Yes, the NYPD has nothing but the best interests of your children at heart. They also have this lovely bridge for sale, at a surprisingly reasonable price.