Joppatowne High School shooting sparks new criticism of juvenile crime policy – ​​Baltimore Sun

The shooting at Joppatowne High School that left a child dead has reignited debate over whether a law requiring children in custody to consult with a lawyer before being questioned hinders police investigations.

“The 16-year-old who committed this crime is going to live his life, he's going to be charged as an adult, he's going to go through the legal process as an adult,” Harford County Sheriff Jeff Gahler said in an interview with The Baltimore Sun on Monday. “He made a very adult decision, in my opinion he should be allowed to make the decision to talk to the police.”

On Saturday, 16-year-old Jaylen Rushawn Prince of Edgewood was charged and arrested for shooting 15-year-old Warren Curtis Grant during an altercation in a downstairs bathroom at Joppatowne High School on Friday.

The police are still looking for the weapon. Gahler cites the Maryland Child Protection During Interrogation Act as the reason for the weapon's disappearance.

“I hope my frustration with the legislature handcuffing the police has come through,” he said at a news conference Friday. “There are families … and the parents of the shooter who have a right to know why we are standing here today, why we are all standing here today, and why a person was shot in one of our schools, and we are not allowed to ask the person who committed that act because we have crazy legislation in this state.”

The Child Interview Protection Act, passed in 2022, requires law enforcement to immediately notify a child's parent or guardian upon arrest and to provide minors with the opportunity to speak with an attorney before being interviewed who will explain their civil rights in age-appropriate language.

If the police intentionally disregard the legal requirements, any statements made by the child concerned will be inadmissible in court.

In a January opinion, Democratic Attorney General Anthony Brown said the Child Interrogation Protection Act was constitutional.

There have been several failed attempts, mostly by Republican lawmakers, to reform the policy during the 2024 legislative session.

Among Maryland Republicans who have consistently opposed the law in the past is Republican Rep. Kathy Szeliga of Baltimore County, who formerly represented Joppatowne in the state House of Representatives. She said Gahler's frustration is justified. Although the suspect is in custody, the missing gun is “extremely disturbing,” Szeliga said.

“This is a very family-friendly community – lots of kids here. It would just be terrible if this gun fell into the hands of a child or a criminal,” Szeliga said. “This is a perfect example of how bad policy has unintended consequences.”

Szeliga said she hopes law enforcement officials who have pushed for repeal of the interrogation law in the past will do so again during the annual 90-day session that begins Jan. 8 in Annapolis.

The Protection of Children During Interrogation Act does not prohibit law enforcement from speaking to children during the investigation phase – unless the child is taken into police custody.

A Baltimore Sun investigation last September found that of 77 arrests of juveniles by Baltimore police in July 2023, only one child called the Maryland Office of the Public Defender's 24-hour juvenile access to legal counsel hotline.

Under current law, minors are not entitled to waive their right to legal representation or their right to remain silent.

David Jaros, a law professor and faculty director of the Center for Criminal Justice Reform at the University of Baltimore School of Law, said that while state law may make it harder for police to “persuade or inadvertently override constitutional rights,” there is nothing preventing minors from speaking to police after speaking with their attorney.

“All that is required is for the juvenile to make an informed decision about whether to invoke or waive constitutional rights,” Jaros said. “Our system is based on the belief that we can have effective law enforcement while respecting basic constitutional rights, and the right to remain silent is an essential part of constitutional protection.”

Gahler said he would have to consult with his investigators about the number of cases in which children waive or assert their right to remain silent, but added that “there is no lawyer” who would tell his client to talk to police, “and in this case we have a gun lying on the street.”

He also did not know whether the child charged in last week's shooting had exercised his right to remain silent because officials had “sufficient information” to charge him without questioning him.

“The big question on everyone's mind — and I'm sure parents and students going back to school later this week — is: Where is the gun?” Gahler said. “We know we have the perpetrator in custody, but we don't want that gun out there. It could have been used in another crime. We've been looking for it. It could have been dropped. It could have been passed around. But until we find it, I don't feel comfortable.”

California Senate Judiciary Committee Vice Chairman Jeff Waldstreicher, a Montgomery County Democrat, said the law needs to be revised to ensure it serves its intended purpose, but the law does contain a public safety exception that allows police to question children when seeking information to defend against a public safety threat.

“How do I know? Because I am the one who wrote the public safety exception and included it in the law,” he said Monday.

The public safety exception dates back to the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case New York v. Quarles, which ruled that there is an exception in the interest of public safety to the requirement that officers inform persons suspected of a crime of their Miranda rights.

Scott Shellenberger, a Baltimore County prosecutor and Democrat who has testified before the General Assembly against the Child Interrogation Protection Act, said the Supreme Court case is “all well and good” in terms of constitutional standards, but Maryland's Child Interrogation Protection Act “overrides constitutional rights because it is more stringent.”

He said he would welcome Waldstreicher being able to incorporate clearer public safety standards into the revised law, but: “At the moment, that is not how it is understood.”

“The law is clear. The public defender tells the police, 'Don't talk to my client' – and that's the end of it,” Shellenberger said. “This case of a gun disappearing in public is clearly the most disturbing example of what we are concerned about.”

Baltimore Sun reporter Sam Janesch contributed to this article.

Originally published: September 9, 2024 at 3:50 p.m.