interested adult rule in Massachusetts

2021There may be circumstances, on facts not proven here, where evidence including a juvenile's lies or evasive answers about his or her identity may demonstrate "a high degree of intelligence, experience, knowledge, or sophistication," Alfonso A., 438 Mass. at 384 , quoting A Juvenile, 389 Mass. at 134 , excusing police from adherence to the interested adult rule.

2015Even if this opportunity is not given, a Miranda waiver made by a juvenile of fourteen to seventeen may be valid if “the circumstances . . . demonstrate a high degree of intelligence, experience, knowledge, or sophistication on the part of the juvenile.” A Juvenile, supra. The interested adult rule provides “additional protection[ ] under the common law . . . that go[es] beyond what the Supreme Court would require in similar circumstances.” See Commonwealth v. Simon, 456 Mass. 280, 303 , cert. denied, 562 U.S. 874 (2010), quoting Commonwealth v. Snyder, 413 Mass. 521, 531 (1992) .

2021In Commonwealth v. Lopez, 485 Mass. 471 , 482 & n.12 (2020), the court expressed "concern" about the validity of the Miranda waiver of a seventeen year old, although that interrogation occurred prior to Smith, 471 Mass. at 162 , Page 302 and so the interested adult rule did not apply.

2020Commonwealth v. Smith, 471 Mass. 161, 162, 167-168 (2015). 20 omitted).

2021L. c. 268, § 34A, as amended by St. 2018, c. 69, § 156, provides that an arrestee may not knowingly and willfully furnish to police certain false information, including a false date of birth, address, telephone number, "or other information as may be requested for the purposes of establishing the person's identity." We need not reach the question whether a suspect's giving a middle name to police and claiming that it was his surname would amount to false information in the latter category. [Note 7] The Commonwealth relied on People v. Salaam, 83 N.Y.2d 51, 54 (1993), in which the New York Cour

2015See Commonwealth v. Woods, 466 Mass. 707, 720 , cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2855 (2014), quoting Commonwealth v. Dagley, 442 Mass. 713, 720-721 (2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 930 (2005).

2015Contrast Commonwealth v. Figueroa, 413 Mass. 193, 201-202 (1992) (discussing retroactive application of constitutionally required rule). 3 Prospective application is particularly appropriate in the current context, *168 given that the interested adult rule is specifically intended to establish fixed procedures that may be relied upon by police and by the courts.

2015See Commonwealth v. Woods, 466 Mass. 707, 720 , cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2855 (2014), quoting Commonwealth v. Dagley, 442 Mass. 713, 720-721 (2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 930 (2005).

2015See Commonwealth v. Woods, 466 Mass. 707, 720 , cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2855 (2014), quoting Commonwealth v. Dagley, 442 Mass. 713, 720-721 (2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 930 (2005).

2015This rule is essentially a prophylactic device, which seeks to “establish[ ] ... definite procedures” that “inform[ ] police and prosecutors with specificity as to what they may do in conducting custodial interrogation” and “inform[ ] courts under what circumstances statements obtained during such interrogation are not admissible.” Commonwealth v. Philip S., 414 Mass. 804, 812-813 (1993) , quoting A Juvenile, 389 Mass. at 135 . b.

2015See Commonwealth v. Philip S., 414 Mass. at 812-813 , quoting A Juvenile, 389 Mass. at 135 .

2015Even if this opportunity is not given, a Miranda waiver made by a juvenile of fourteen to seventeen may be valid if “the circumstances . . . demonstrate a high degree of intelligence, experience, knowledge, or sophistication on the part of the juvenile.” A Juvenile, supra. The interested adult rule provides “additional protection[ ] under the common law . . . that go[es] beyond what the Supreme Court would require in similar circumstances.” See Commonwealth v. Simon, 456 Mass. 280, 303 , cert. denied, 562 U.S. 874 (2010), quoting Commonwealth v. Snyder, 413 Mass. 521, 531 (1992) .

2015Even if this opportunity is not given, a Miranda waiver made by a juvenile of fourteen to seventeen may be valid if “the circumstances . . . demonstrate a high degree of intelligence, experience, knowledge, or sophistication on the part of the juvenile.” A Juvenile, supra. The interested adult rule provides “additional protection[ ] under the common law . . . that go[es] beyond what the Supreme Court would require in similar circumstances.” See Commonwealth v. Simon, 456 Mass. 280, 303 , cert. denied, 562 U.S. 874 (2010), quoting Commonwealth v. Snyder, 413 Mass. 521, 531 (1992) .

2015See Commonwealth v. Simon, 456 Mass. at 303 .

2015See Commonwealth v. Woods, 466 Mass. 707, 720 , cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2855 (2014), quoting Commonwealth v. Dagley, 442 Mass. 713, 720-721 (2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 930 (2005).

2012See Commonwealth v. Dillon D., 448 Mass. 793, 796 (2007), quoting from Commonwealth v. McCra, 427 Mass. 564 , 568 n.2 (1998) (“[I]n order to waive their Miranda rights validly, juveniles under fourteen years old must ‘actually consult’ with an interested adult”).

2012See Commonwealth v. Ira I., 439 Mass. 805 , 815 n.11 (2003).

2012See Commonwealth v. Dillon D., 448 Mass. 793, 796 (2007), quoting from Commonwealth v. McCra, 427 Mass. 564 , 568 n.2 (1998) (“[I]n order to waive their Miranda rights validly, juveniles under fourteen years old must ‘actually consult’ with an interested adult”).