preview

US 707 Fare Case Summary

Satisfactory Essays
Case 442 U.S. 707 Fare v. Michael C. February 27, 1979 through June 20, 1979. This case involves Michael C., a sixteen year old juvenile, brought to the police station in California by Van Nuys police on a murder investigation. The juvenile was read his Miranda prophylactic protection rights before being questioned; he requested to speak to his probation officer but was denied. Michael agreed to speak with the officers and also waived his rights to counsel. While doing this, he brought forward incriminating statements against him that in return, the juvenile landed himself in court on a murder trial.
Fact: Michael is a sixteen year old juvenile who is already on probation from several other offenses he has gotten before this incident had occurred.
…show more content…
Fifth Amendment was violated when he asked to speak to his probation officer and was denied. This decision was based on state law. During this time Kenneth Fare, Chief Probation Officer, spoke on behalf of the State of California.
Fact: In the State of California probation officers can represent the interest of a juvenile.
Issue: My last issue with this case is Kenneth Fare, the Chief Probation Officer v. the Respondent Michael C, the juvenile. Why is v. between their names and not their names together v. The Supreme Court?
Court holding on this case, Probation officers are not attorneys in the criminal justice system.
Michael C., the juvenile, requesting to speak to his probation officer is not the same as asking to speak to an attorney. My opinion on this case would be I feel that the Van Nuys Police Department was more concern about getting to the bottom of this murder even with the fact their suspect could be a juvenile. Their concerns of whether or not the juvenile, Michael C. understood the seriousness of the charges, his rights and his maturity level of understanding was not important. I do not feel his Fifth Amendment was violated when asked to speak to his probation
Get Access