Recently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a plurality decision recommending a per se rule that students are entitled to receive Miranda warnings before being questioned by school police officers.

The case, which is captioned In re: RH, involved a student who was detained and questioned by school police officers regarding an act of classroom vandalism based upon physical evidence which placed the student at the scene. The interrogation, which lasted approximately 25 minutes, occurred without the student being read his Miranda rights. The student also was not allowed to leave the room during the interrogation and eventually admitted his guilt to school police. Ultimately, an adjudication hearing was held and the student was charged with various criminal violations, receiving a nine-month sentence to a residential treatment center and one year probation.

At trial, the student moved to suppress the statements he made to school police, alleging that his 5th Amendment rights had been violated because he did not receive Miranda warnings prior to being interrogated. The trial court denied the motion and the Superior Court affirmed. On appeal to the Supreme Court, four Justices (Zappala, Newman, Saylor and Nigro) agreed that the student should have received Miranda warnings prior to the interrogation because it was clear that he was in custody. Thus, the issue for the Court became whether the school police officers were akin to law enforcement officers for Miranda purposes such that a custodial interrogation compelled giving proper Miranda warnings. As most of the American television viewers of NYPD BLUE and Law & Order know, law enforcement officers are required to give Miranda warnings prior to interrogating any individual who is in custody. In the instant case, the Court noted that the school police officers were judicially empowered with the same authority as municipal police officers, including the power to issue summary citations and detain students until local law enforcement is notified. Notwithstanding the fact that the school police officers were employed by the district, the Court nonetheless held that their police powers elevated them to the status of “law enforcement officers” for Miranda purposes. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s affirmance of the trial court’s Order denying the student’s motion to suppress.

In re: RH appears to establish a per se rule that students are entitled to Miranda warnings before being questioned by school police, but a close reading of the case reveals that only two Justices, Zappala and Nigro, signed on to the main opinion. Justices Newman and Saylor filed separate concurring opinions, which stopped just short of endorsing a per se rule but nonetheless held that the student was entitled to Miranda warnings under the circumstances of that case. The remaining Justices either dissented or did not participate in the ruling. Thus, there was no clear “majority” of the Court which favored a per se rule. Such a circumstance essentially relegates the Court’s opinion to a “plurality” decision which may or may not be followed by the lower courts.

At best, a split amongst the lower courts will occur which will necessitate the Supreme Court taking up the issue again at a later date. For right now, however, any Pennsylvania school police officer who questions students while in custody without, first, issuing Miranda warnings does so at his/her own peril. It is important to keep in mind that “custody” is loosely defined as a significant restriction on one’s freedom of movement or action, and must be determined on a case by case basis. School police officers must be made aware that Miranda warnings should be given under such circumstances before any interrogation begins, otherwise, they run the risk of compromising any related criminal investigation and subsequent adjudication/conviction based thereon.