Riley v. Illinois

Background

A 16-year-old boy was arrested in connection with three killings. Police held him in a car, took him to the station, removed his clothing for evidence, gave him a blanket, and placed him in a cell. After being told he could remain silent and consult a lawyer, he asked to see his father, who was at the station, but the police did not honor that request. He then confessed and repeated that confession to a prosecutor that evening without having spoken to his father or another supportive adult. The confession was used at trial over objection, and he was convicted and given lengthy prison terms.

Reasoning

The narrow question raised was whether police must stop questioning a young person when that person asks to see a parent, at least when the parent is present and wants to speak with the child. Illinois courts rejected the young man’s argument that such a request should be treated like an adult’s request for a lawyer. The lower courts and several other state and federal courts are split: some require a parent be allowed or even require adult advice before any juvenile confession; others allow confessions after such requests are ignored. The Supreme Court declined to review the case.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused to take the case, the Illinois convictions and sentences remain in place. The national disagreement among courts about how to handle juveniles’ requests to see parents likewise remains unresolved, so police practices and trial results can vary by jurisdiction. This was a denial of review, not a final decision on the legal issue, so the question could return to a court later.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Brennan, dissented from the refusal to review. He argued the issue is substantial, highlighted earlier warnings about protecting juveniles during interrogation, and would have granted review because courts are divided on protecting young people who ask for a parent.