{"id":211952,"date":"2025-07-10T10:44:35","date_gmt":"2025-07-10T14:44:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/?post_type=case&#038;p=211952"},"modified":"2025-07-10T10:47:50","modified_gmt":"2025-07-10T14:47:50","slug":"state-v-k-r-c","status":"publish","type":"case","link":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/cases\/state-v-k-r-c","title":{"rendered":"State v. K.R.C."},"menu_order":0,"template":"","supreme_court_term":[],"court":[],"class_list":["post-211952","case","type-case","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":{"case_number":"","featured_image":"","issues":[46819,46373,189664,46553,46391],"court_type":"state_supreme_court","case_type":false,"supreme_court_term":null,"state_territory_affiliate":[355],"status":"ongoing","date_updated":"20250710","whats_at_stake":"This case asks whether a 12-year-old boy was in custody and entitled to Miranda warnings during a closed-door police interrogation by a school resource officer in the school building. The court of appeals held that he was not in custody, not entitled to Miranda warnings, and voluntarily incriminated himself. The ACLU\u2019s State Supreme Court Initiative and the ACLU of Wisconsin filed an amicus brief arguing that admitting the boy\u2019s statements into evidence not only violated the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution but Article I, Section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution, and urging the Wisconsin Supreme Court to rest its decision on the state charter to better protect Wisconsinites\u2019 civil liberties.","call_to_action":null,"summary":"In June 2022, a school official removed twelve-year-old \"Kevin\" from class and brought him to a police officer. The officer, wearing a police vest and serving as the school resource officer, questioned Kevin for approximately ten minutes while a second officer, armed and uniformed, stood between Kevin and the closed door. The questioning ceased only after Kevin made an incriminating statement about an allegation that he had struck another student\u2019s groin. Neither officer provided <i>Miranda <\/i>warnings, nor did they offer to call Kevin\u2019s parents during this encounter. Following this encounter, the State filed a juvenile delinquency petition against Kevin. The circuit court denied Kevin\u2019s motion to suppress the statements from his interrogations and, after a bench trial, found him guilty. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of Kevin\u2019s suppression motion.\r\n\r\nThe ACLU\u2019s State Supreme Court Initiative and the ACLU of Wisconsin filed an amicus brief arguing that whether analyzed under the U.S. or Wisconsin Constitution, the court of appeals\u2019 holding is incorrect. As we write in the brief, when police officers corner and question a twelve-year-old child inside a tiny school office with the exit blocked, the child cannot reasonably feel free to leave or to refuse to answer questions.\r\n\r\nIn the brief, we argue that the Wisconsin Constitution grants children stronger protections during police interactions than what is afforded by the U.S. Constitution, especially regarding interrogations. Unlike federal doctrines, which must be sufficiently generic to accommodate variations in police practices across all 50 states, the Wisconsin Supreme Court can and should tailor its holding under the Wisconsin Constitution to the specific ways in which Wisconsin students are policed at school.","case_decision":"","featured_case":false,"legal_project":"","date_filed":null,"administration_challenged":"","constitutional_principle":["Access to Justice"],"drupal_node_id":"","legal_documents":[{"court":1969,"documents":[{"document_options":"document","document":211953,"title":"State v. K.R.C. Brief of Amicus Curiae ","subtitle":"","date_filed":"20250709","drupal_node_id":"","slug":"","child_documents":null}]}],"plaintiffs":"","co-counsel":"","press_releases_related_to_cases":"","related_content_cases":"","related_content_documents":"","related_content_publications":""},"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v26.1.1 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>American Civil Liberties Union<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"This case asks whether a 12-year-old boy was in custody and entitled to Miranda warnings during a closed-door police interrogation by a school resource officer in the school building. The court of appeals held that he was not in custody, not entitled to Miranda warnings, and voluntarily incriminated himself. The ACLU\u2019s State Supreme Court Initiative and the ACLU of Wisconsin filed an amicus brief arguing that admitting the boy\u2019s statements into evidence not only violated the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution but Article I, Section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution, and urging the Wisconsin Supreme Court to rest its decision on the state charter to better protect Wisconsinites\u2019 civil liberties.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State v. K.R.C. | American Civil Liberties Union\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"This case asks whether a 12-year-old boy was in custody and entitled to Miranda warnings during a closed-door police interrogation by a school resource officer in the school building. The court of appeals held that he was not in custody, not entitled to Miranda warnings, and voluntarily incriminated himself. The ACLU\u2019s State Supreme Court Initiative and the ACLU of Wisconsin filed an amicus brief arguing that admitting the boy\u2019s statements into evidence not only violated the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution but Article I, Section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution, and urging the Wisconsin Supreme Court to rest its decision on the state charter to better protect Wisconsinites\u2019 civil liberties.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/cases\/state-v-k-r-c\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"American Civil Liberties Union\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-07-10T14:47:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@aclu\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/cases\/state-v-k-r-c\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/cases\/state-v-k-r-c\",\"name\":\"State v. K.R.C. | American Civil Liberties Union\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2025-07-10T14:44:35+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-07-10T14:47:50+00:00\",\"description\":\"This case asks whether a 12-year-old boy was in custody and entitled to Miranda warnings during a closed-door police interrogation by a school resource officer in the school building. The court of appeals held that he was not in custody, not entitled to Miranda warnings, and voluntarily incriminated himself. The ACLU\u2019s State Supreme Court Initiative and the ACLU of Wisconsin filed an amicus brief arguing that admitting the boy\u2019s statements into evidence not only violated the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution but Article I, Section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution, and urging the Wisconsin Supreme Court to rest its decision on the state charter to better protect Wisconsinites\u2019 civil liberties.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/cases\/state-v-k-r-c\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/\",\"name\":\"American Civil Liberties Union\",\"description\":\"The ACLU dares to create a more perfect union \u2014 beyond one person, party, or side. Our mission is to realize this promise of the United States Constitution for all and expand the reach of its guarantees.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"American Civil Liberties Union","description":"This case asks whether a 12-year-old boy was in custody and entitled to Miranda warnings during a closed-door police interrogation by a school resource officer in the school building. The court of appeals held that he was not in custody, not entitled to Miranda warnings, and voluntarily incriminated himself. The ACLU\u2019s State Supreme Court Initiative and the ACLU of Wisconsin filed an amicus brief arguing that admitting the boy\u2019s statements into evidence not only violated the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution but Article I, Section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution, and urging the Wisconsin Supreme Court to rest its decision on the state charter to better protect Wisconsinites\u2019 civil liberties.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State v. K.R.C. | American Civil Liberties Union","og_description":"This case asks whether a 12-year-old boy was in custody and entitled to Miranda warnings during a closed-door police interrogation by a school resource officer in the school building. The court of appeals held that he was not in custody, not entitled to Miranda warnings, and voluntarily incriminated himself. The ACLU\u2019s State Supreme Court Initiative and the ACLU of Wisconsin filed an amicus brief arguing that admitting the boy\u2019s statements into evidence not only violated the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution but Article I, Section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution, and urging the Wisconsin Supreme Court to rest its decision on the state charter to better protect Wisconsinites\u2019 civil liberties.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/cases\/state-v-k-r-c","og_site_name":"American Civil Liberties Union","article_modified_time":"2025-07-10T14:47:50+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_site":"@aclu","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/cases\/state-v-k-r-c","url":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/cases\/state-v-k-r-c","name":"State v. K.R.C. | American Civil Liberties Union","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-07-10T14:44:35+00:00","dateModified":"2025-07-10T14:47:50+00:00","description":"This case asks whether a 12-year-old boy was in custody and entitled to Miranda warnings during a closed-door police interrogation by a school resource officer in the school building. The court of appeals held that he was not in custody, not entitled to Miranda warnings, and voluntarily incriminated himself. The ACLU\u2019s State Supreme Court Initiative and the ACLU of Wisconsin filed an amicus brief arguing that admitting the boy\u2019s statements into evidence not only violated the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution but Article I, Section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution, and urging the Wisconsin Supreme Court to rest its decision on the state charter to better protect Wisconsinites\u2019 civil liberties.","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/cases\/state-v-k-r-c"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/","name":"American Civil Liberties Union","description":"The ACLU dares to create a more perfect union \u2014 beyond one person, party, or side. Our mission is to realize this promise of the United States Constitution for all and expand the reach of its guarantees.","inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"distributor_meta":false,"distributor_terms":false,"distributor_media":false,"distributor_original_site_name":"American Civil Liberties Union","distributor_original_site_url":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org","push-errors":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/case\/211952","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/case"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/case"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/case\/211952\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":211955,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/case\/211952\/revisions\/211955"}],"acf:post":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/affiliate_info\/355"},{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issue\/46391"},{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issue\/46553"},{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issue\/189664"},{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issue\/46373"},{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issue\/46819"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=211952"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"supreme_court_term","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/supreme_court_term?post=211952"},{"taxonomy":"court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/court?post=211952"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}