I'll try to keep this short, yet provide the pertinent facts.
My 14 yo daughter is being prosecuted for letting a friend try one of
her Adderall pills at school a few weeks ago. Later that evening the
"friend" informed her parents that she took 15 pills rather than just
one, and of course the parents went ballistic. They didn't take her to
the hospital though, and she suffered no ill effects. I know without a
doubt she did not take 15 pills, but that's beside the point. Since it
is a controlled substance, my daughter is being charged with a felony.
She was not arrested for this, nor was she read her rights. When the
police went to the school they asked her all kinds of questions. (Of
course they scared her so she told them everything they wanted to know
and then some.) When I got to the school they specifically said she was
not under arrest, they were just trying to ascertain what exactly
happened because they were concerned about the girl. They did not take
a recorded statement or anything like that. But now, based on what my
daughter admitted to the police, the county attorney is prosecuting.
The only other evidence they have is her friend saying she took the
pills.
To me this seems wrong. If she had been read her rights and/or if my
husband and I had been told she was being arrested for this crime, we
would have advised her not to say anything and would have consulted
with an attorney. My daughter also asked them to call us immediately
but they said they wanted to talk to her alone first. She then told
them she wanted to plead the 5th (I guess they do learn something in
civics class lol) but the cops and principal told her to "quit being
smart" and "if you don't cooperate with us then that means you don't
care about your friend."
We are of course going to talk to an attorney on Friday but this is
eating me up inside and I'm hoping to get some thoughts about it from
people more knowledgable about the law than I am. Also any thoughts on
what we might expect for a first time offense of this caliber. She's
been an honor roll student for the last 2 years straight and has never
been in any trouble before. Oh and we live in MN fwiw.
For the record, we don't condone what she did in any way, shape, or
form. She is suffering the consequences we've given her already. She
knows she made an error in judgement (as all teenagers do) - and it's a
whopper.
And now I am worried sick about what may happen.
Any insight GREATLY appreciated!!!!

Thanks for your reply McGyver.
The paper we got says this:
********************************************************************
Juvenile Petition
Controlled Substance Crime in the Fourth Degree
M.S. 152.024, subd.1(1); subd. 3(a) Felony
That on or about [date], [daughter's name] gave away several
dextroamphetamine pills prescribed for her. Dextroamphetamine is a
Schedule II controlled substance.
********************************************************************
Looks like a felony charge to me but then again it does say juvenile
petition so I don't know.
I looked up the statute on our state website and it says this:
152.024 Controlled substance crime in the fourth degree.
Subdivision 1. Sale crimes. A person is guilty of
controlled substance crime in the fourth degree if:
(1) the person unlawfully sells one or more mixtures
containing a controlled substance classified in schedule I, II,
or III, except marijuana or Tetrahydrocannabinols;
and
Subd. 3. Penalty. (a) A person convicted under
subdivision 1 or 2 may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more
than 15 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $100,000,
or both.
So now I'm even further baffled. Why would the county attorney pursue
this when there clearly was no sale involved, and even in their own
petition it states that she gave them away?? If the law said something
about *transfer* of a controlled substance that'd be different, but
there currently is no law for transferring. Hmmm.
I thought by doing some research I might be able to understand better,
but I think I'm only confusing myself more LOL. And yes we definitely
are getting an attorney like you said, I guess I'm just really needing
to bounce this off other people until then, and I really appreciate
having this outlet for doing so.

"DigiChick" <digichick@gmail.com> wrote:
I know what you mean by the more you research, the
less you know : ). It clearly states 'sale' in the law,
but I've found definitions can be misleading. * * *

I know what you mean by the more you research, the less you know : ). It
clearly states 'sale' in the law, but I've found definitions can be
misleading. Our state defines words like this, when required, at the
beginning of each titled code. If you can't find a specific definition,
then you should search appeal decision if you can because I'm sure this
would have come up at some point in a past case.
Simple math may determine the number of pills unaccounted for proving

15 is an exaggeration or a possibility. This may not make a difference in
the 'eyes of the law' (1 is just as illegal as 15).
While it is a felony, her juvenile status will affect how it is handled

any potential punishment.
The prosecutor may pursue this for any number of reasons including using

as a means to look closer at the family situation.
I know from personal experience how cops can pressure kids into saying

they want.
After talking to your lawyer, he will be able get you a copy of the police
report including all statements. You'll want a lawyer with Juvenile crime
experience.
good luck
nan


"DigiChick" <digichick@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117050769.385207.207080@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

I had also asked our attorney

about her not being arrested or read her
rights and he basically said it doesn't matter. Not an answer I was
satisfied with but not one he seemed to want to elaborate on.

Yes that's what I was thinking of. The right to remain silent, anything
you say can and will be used against you in a court of law....all that.
If they had read this Miranda warning I would have told my daughter not
to say anything. But the cop specifically said she was not under
arrest, and she was just trying to ascertain what happened. Then they
turned around and used everything my daughter said against her to bring
her to court! I thought that's why such a thing as a Miranda warning
exists?
Yes I'm a clueless civilian, which is why I paid for an attorney. And
although he was representing my daughter, I was the one paying the
bill, which is why I said "our attorney". If it's too much trouble for
him to answer a straighforward question about something that seems to
negate what we've learned in civics class then you better believe I'll
look elsewhere if I have questions in the future.

I'm curious now though, when ARE the police required to read someone
the Miranda warning??? I naively assumed they had to whenever they were
investigating a criminal offense against someone but obviously I was
wrong about that.

Yes that's what I was thinking of. The right to remain silent, anything
you say can and will be used against you in a court of law....all that.
If they had read this Miranda warning I would have told my daughter not
to say anything. But the cop specifically said she was not under
arrest, and she was just trying to ascertain what happened. Then they
turned around and used everything my daughter said against her to bring
her to court! I thought that's why such a thing as a Miranda warning
exists?
Yes I'm a clueless civilian, which is why I paid for an attorney. And
although he was representing my daughter, I was the one paying the
bill, which is why I said "our attorney". If it's too much trouble for
him to answer a straighforward question about something that seems to
negate what we've learned in civics class then you better believe I'll
look elsewhere if I have questions in the future.
I'm curious now though, when ARE the police required to read someone
the Miranda warning??? I naively assumed they had to whenever they were
investigating a criminal offense against someone but obviously I was
wrong about that.

On 9 Jun 2005 06:17:05 -0700, "DigiChick" <digichick@gmail.com> wrote:
You can look elsewhere, but you won't find an ethical attorney who
will act differently. Conflict of interest. Remember, regardless of
who is paying the bills, your daughter is his client. It's awkward
for the attorney, but it's not a difficult ethical problem. If I am
hired to represent a minor, the first thing I do is explain to the
parents that I have a confidential relationship with this child, even
as against them. Then I ask them, in a tactful and friendly way, to
step outside while I talk to "my client." You'd be surprised how
often the child will tell me something and then say "But don't tell my
parents." I assure them that I can't and won't. You'd be surprised
how often the parents ask me to tell them what the child said. I
assure them that I can't and won't. In juvenile cases, the parents
have the right to be represented by an attorney too, but not the same
attorney as the child.

Yes, you are wrong about that. But you are not alone. While you
ALWAYS have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer present
concerning any matter that could incriminate you, they only have to
TELL YOU THAT when you are in CUSTODY -- not free to leave. You
should have told her not to say anything to the police without a
lawyer present-- whether or not they gave her the Miranda warning. And
the lawyer would have told her to say nothing at all.

Everybody please pay attention: You are never required to "cooperate"
with the police in their investigation of YOU. There are tricky legal
rules about when they have to TELL you about your rights, but there
are no tricky rules about when you HAVE those rights. You always do.
Never wait for them to "read you your rights" before you shut up and
demand a lawyer. Just think about what you are going to say in
advance. You don't have to be surly about asserting your rights.
"Officer, I think it's best if I have a lawyer present during our
conversation. May we please reschedule this interview so I can
arrange to talk to a lawyer?" Then politely decline to continue the
conversation.

If I am
hired to represent a minor, the first thing I do is explain to the
parents that I have a confidential relationship with this child, even
as against them.

While you
ALWAYS have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer present
concerning any matter that could incriminate you, they only have to
TELL YOU THAT when you are in CUSTODY -- not free to leave.

Everybody please pay attention: You are never required to "cooperate"
with the police in their investigation of YOU. There are tricky legal
rules about when they have to TELL you about your rights, but there
are no tricky rules about when you HAVE those rights. You always do.
Never wait for them to "read you your rights" before you shut up and
demand a lawyer. Just think about what you are going to say in
advance. You don't have to be surly about asserting your rights.
"Officer, I think it's best if I have a lawyer present during our
conversation. May we please reschedule this interview so I can
arrange to talk to a lawyer?" Then politely decline to continue the
conversation.
- Jon Beaver

Your daughter was clearly under duress (extortion) by the
police to give them the answers they wanted. Her statements to them were
therefore not free and voluntary.

I looked up that Adderall on google. It is an amphetamine/combo used to
drug Attention Deficit Disorder suspects. A few months ago I was reading
about a case here in which the mother resisted a K12 teacher's attempt to
have her child forcibly drugged with Ritalin, which I read is similar to
Adderall. The local judge (same political machine as the K12 schools)
naturally sided with the teacher. In response, the mother escaped with
her child to Canada where the FBI tried to get them to surrender back to
the U.S. More recently, Rehnquist gave the judge a judicial commendation
for running the local juvenile courts here.

Now from your posting it seems like there has been adolescent peer
pressure among kids your daughter's age to experiment with those types of
drugs. Maybe their parents took them in college. What does this mean?

It sounds like you didn't have anything to do with your daughter giving
those pills to her friend. I don't know at this writing whether they can
charge *you* with anything criminal in connection with it.
dhm
http://dhm.best.vwh.net

The police are never required to read someone the Miranda warning. The rule
is not that they must read the Miranda rights. The rule is that they cannot
use at trial anything that the defendant said if (a) she was not read the
warnings and (b) she was in custody at the time of the questioning. And,
the evidence can be excluded at trial only if the defendant raises the
proper objection to the evidence - no objection = no problem. And, if she
pled guilty there is no trial, and no need to introduce any evidence and no
opportunity to raise any objection to any evidence.

I agree with you, that your attorney should have answered your questions. I
would have and most attorneys would have. But sometimes attorneys get into
the assembly line mode, where their objective is to run as many clients
through the system as possible per day. They don't agree with me that the
most fundamental part of an attorney's job is telling people what the law
is.

Don't take offense at posters who are sarcastic or impatient. Usenet is a
place for thick skins. Come back and ask anything anytime.
McGyver