Lawmakers weigh in on child interrogation debate after Joppatowne school shooting

JOPPATOWNE, Md. — On Friday, two teenage boys got into a fight in the boys bathroom at Joppatowne High School. It ended with 16 year-old Jaylen Prince allegedly shooting 15 year-old Warren Grant, killing him.

As Harford County Sheriff Jeff Gahler informed the public about what happened, reporters asked questions like, how did the fight start? The sheriff said he had no idea, because he couldn't interview the suspect.

"With our criminal-friendly legislature here in Maryland, this is a 16 year-old suspect that we are now not allowed to talk to," Sheriff Gahler said on Friday.

He was referring to the Maryland Child Interrogation Protection Act. It was passed in 2022, and has been the subject of fierce debate among lawmakers, lawyers, and law enforcement ever since. In the aftermath of Friday's violence, the Sheriff gave that debate new life.

In an interview this week, Senator Charles Sydnor (D- Baltimore County) responded to his comments by saying, "The language that was coming out of the sheriff's mouth was inflammatory when he spoke about me and my colleagues, and it was unacceptable. He caught his suspect, and what he needs to do is his job, rather than telling us how to do our jobs. We sat there with a lot of testimony and none of the decisions that we came to, we came to lightly."

We talked to lawmakers from both sides of the aisle: Senator Justin Ready (R-Carroll County) and Delegate Jason Buckel (R-Allegany County), critics of the law, and Senator Charles Sydnor (D-Baltimore County) and Senator Jill Carter (D-Baltimore City), proponents of it.

The law states that police can't interrogate a child until that child has consulted with an attorney, and the police have notified the parents about the interrogation.

"Until - see that 'until' means it's not a prohibition," Senator Sydnor said. "There's certain things that have to be met, and that's their problem. They don't want that burden [...] “You have to remember, no one has to testify or give any information about themselves. That burden remains with the state."

The goal is to prevent juveniles from being coerced into giving false confessions or incriminating themselves. Advocates for the law say it reinforces constitutional rights kids should already have.

​"I guess my question to that would be then why did we have to do it?"​ asked Del. Buckel. "If there were constitutional rights that extended to kids and were being abused by police officers then I guarantee you that two years ago, three years ago, five years ago, 10 years ago, before we passed this law, that those alleged abuses would’ve been brought up to courts, they would’ve been the subject of lawsuits, they would’ve been the subject of motions to exclude confessions or evidence gained from a juvenile interrogation."

​"There's no requirement that law enforcement is honest," Sen. Carter said. "So a very common thing is - you can go home, you can talk to your parent. We can get your parent here if you just admit that you did this."​

"You've been in this holed up the cell for a number of hours, you just want to get out. I mean, that's how adults feel. You want to get out of that situation. Juveniles are a bit more susceptible to that, and we wanted to ensure that their rights were protected," Sen. Sydnor said.

​"Those confessions will be thrown out already. That already exists in law," Del. Buckel argues.

Senator Carter, who co-sponsored the law, says an attorney can also help a juvenile suspect understand their rights: “Before you give up a right, you ought to understand what the right is.”

Critics of the law say, nine times out of 10, the attorney will tell them not to talk to or cooperate with the police. They believe parents should have a stronger say.

“What the law should be is that if a parent, as the legal guardian of the child, says, I want you to talk to the police, then the child could do it," Sen. Ready told WMAR-2 News. "The child could still say no, by the way. Children don’t always listen to their parents. And if the parents say, no I want to wait for an attorney, then that’s fine.”

"Sometimes their own families are saying, 'I want to save you. You've done a terrible thing or maybe you've just been a witness to it. I want to pull you out of this lifestyle,'" Del. Buckel said.

Carter, who also works as an attorney in Baltimore, says the child just has to consult with an attorney, they don't have to listen to them.

"I’ve had children tell me all the time, when I advise them to do something in their adversarial process, that they don’t want to do something that could be in their best interest all the time, legally. They’d rather just get it over with, or they’d rather just admit to something so they can go home."

Critics say in practice, public defenders often overrule the parents' wishes.

"I don’t have data on it but I do know that testimony in the General Assembly indicates that it happens a lot," Sen. Ready said.

Police can bypass the law if there's a "threat to public safety."

In the Joppatowne High School case, the gun used in the shooting is still missing. When Sheriff Gahler was asked about it on Friday, he said:

​"We have no idea. And the easiest way to get that answer is we have a person who we're gonna be charging as an adult for committing a heinous crime in a school, and we're not allowed to talk to him. That is lunacy," he told reporters.

“And I'm sorry if it takes you a little bit of time to get additional information, because someone decides to exercise his or her right, then that's the part of the process," Sen. Sydnor told WMAR-2 News.

Here's where the biggest misunderstanding seems to be. If detectives had asked the suspect about the gun, in the interest of public safety, would that have violated the law?

Senator Carter says the point of the law isn't about impeding investigations, but rather about deciding what can and cannot be used as evidence against the child in court. She believes police can work within the confines of the law.

"He could’ve asked the suspect [about the gun], but if it’s deemed to be a custodial interrogation then later on down the road, when the child has a defense lawyer at trial, the defense lawyer might raise - 'well the child didn’t consult with an attorney first.' Then there will be an evidentiary hearing and determination - well even though the child didn’t, was the statement knowing and voluntary? And if it was, then it could be admissible. But it may not even need to be admissible. They got the child, they got other evidence, they got other witnesses, they got possible forensics with the ammunition, I don’t know. They might have enough even without that statement," she explained.

We reached out to the Harford County Sheriff's Office for more clarity on whether police could've asked the suspect about the gun.

A spokesperson said: "The simple answer to your question is “yes”. But, you have to consider the entirety of the situation at the time with the totality of what we did know. In this instance, our personnel did not feel the very generalized public safety wording was within our legally permitted ability to use, so consistent with the law, the suspect was not questioned prior to speaking with and attorney.

We knew that the immediate threat had been addressed. The aggressor had removed himself from the scene and was in custody shortly thereafter. The urgency to address the immediate threat was no longer present. The ground search for the gun was immediately started and took some time. At that point we had no reason to believe we were not going to locate the gun during that search. We did not find the gun and as the investigation has progressed we now have a reason to believe the gun was passed off to another person.

The whereabouts of the gun is the most notable thing we would like to know, there are still many other questions we would have asked, had the suspect and parent been allowed to decide to talk with the investigators."

Kimber Watts, Supervising Attorney for the Office of the Public Defender's Forensic Mental Health Divison told WMAR-2 News:

"The law has an explicit exception for imminent public safety concerns, for which an officer may question a child without first providing for legal advisement. In other contexts, whether an officer is subject to disciplinary action for failing to follow the law is not addressed in the statute. The Child Interrogation Protection Act does not give children any additional rights than an adult but ensures that they talk to an attorney in a developmentally appropriate way. It ensures that a child is protected against coercion and reduces the likelihood of a false confession."

Republican lawmakers say the law will be brought up again in the next legislative session, and proponents of the law have promised to protect it.

"I’m open to tons of compromises," Del. Buckel told WMAR-2 News. "Even if we limited it and said, ‘hey, when there’s exigent circumstances and we’re investigating a juvenile about a murder, about a serious, first-degree assault, rape, violent felony, the parents have the ability to waive. It’s a public safety necessity.’ I’d be ok with that."

Senator Carter responded to that idea by saying, "So that doesn’t make any sense because it’s not about the nature of the charge, it’s about the fundamental right. [...] "I think that the public safety exception already in the law is adequate."

Baltimore City State's Attorney Ivan Bates, who has been vocal in his criticism of the law in the past, especially after last year's mass shooting in Brooklyn Homes, declined to comment on this case out of respect for the victim's family.