## Facts

- Michael C., a 16½-year-old juvenile on probation, was taken into custody by police in connection with a homicide.
- Police advised Michael of his Miranda rights and began custodial interrogation.
- Michael asked to see his probation officer; police denied the request.
- After the denial, Michael stated he would speak without consulting an attorney and made incriminating statements and drawings related to the killing.
- In juvenile court delinquency proceedings, Michael moved to suppress the statements and drawings, arguing his request for a probation officer was equivalent to requesting counsel under Miranda.
- The juvenile court denied suppression, finding Michael waived his rights and voluntarily spoke.
- The California Supreme Court reversed, adopting a per se rule that a juvenile’s request for a probation officer invokes Miranda protections requiring interrogation to cease.

## Issues

1. Whether a juvenile’s request to see a probation officer during custodial interrogation is a per se invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege under Miranda, requiring police to stop questioning.
2. What standard governs whether a juvenile validly waived Miranda rights.

## Decision

- The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the California Supreme Court and remanded.
- The Court held a request for a probation officer is not a per se invocation of Miranda rights and does not automatically require cessation of questioning.
- The Court held a juvenile’s Miranda waiver is evaluated under the totality of the circumstances.
- Applying that standard, the Court concluded the record supported the juvenile court’s finding that Michael knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his rights.

## Legal Principles

- Miranda’s rule requiring interrogation to cease upon a request for counsel rests on the attorney’s unique role in providing legal advice and protection in the adversarial system.
- A probation officer, even if trusted by the juvenile, is not functionally equivalent to counsel for Miranda purposes and cannot provide the same legal assistance during interrogation.
- A juvenile’s waiver of Miranda rights is assessed under a totality-of-the-circumstances test, considering factors such as age, experience, education, background, intelligence, and understanding of rights and consequences.
- A court may find a valid waiver where Miranda warnings were given and the juvenile affirmatively chooses to speak after being advised of the right to remain silent and the right to counsel.

## Conclusion

The Court rejected a categorical rule treating a juvenile’s request for a probation officer as a Miranda invocation, instead requiring courts to evaluate juvenile waivers case by case under the totality of the circumstances, and it upheld admission of Michael’s statements and drawings based on a supported finding of a voluntary, knowing waiver.


Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979)