Wisconsin Supreme Court takes oral arguments on the road

By Alexandria Staubach

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin heard oral arguments on the road for the first time since 2019. Its first stop was Richland County, the birthplace of retired Chief Justice Ann Walsh Bradley. The court revived the program, Justice on Wheels, conceived in 1993, which provides locals with the opportunity to be up close and personal with the justices and see the highest court in action.

The court heard two cases, Wren v. Columbia St. Mary Hospital Milwaukee, Inc., and State v. K.R.C., the latter which has implications for the way school resource officers conduct investigations in school, in Wisconsin.

K.R.C. asked the court to define the circumstances under which questioning by law enforcement generally and school resource officers (SRO) specifically constitutes custodial interrogation.

With fifth graders in the audience, the court considered arguments centered around the police questioning of a 12-year-old boy, K.R.C. The parties kept the facts vague but shared what was necessary about the circumstances for everyone to understand the arguments.

The question, argued K.R.C.’s attorney, Colleen Marion, was whether a reasonable innocent 12-year-old would have felt “coercive police pressures that overcame K.R.C.’s ability to resist the pressure to subject himself to questioning.”

In other words, was his questioning “custodial” in nature and should it have required the presence of a known friendly adult or some other warning about incriminating himself?

Everyone agreed that the defining line was a close call.

Marion outlined a generally accepted set of facts: K.R.C. was removed from class by an SRO, questioned in an office solely used for law enforcement purposes, made incriminating statements against himself regarding the unwanted sexual touching of another student, and a second armed police officer was present and blocking the door during the interview.

A sign, written in magic marker, hung askew on the wall and read, “You are here voluntarily unless told otherwise. You are free to leave at any time. You are being filmed,” but was never referenced by law enforcement during K.R.C.’s interview.

Consensus among the justices and attorneys also included that Miranda rights, or the set of legal protections which require law enforcement to inform a person in custody of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney in a custodial situation, are generally not applicable to the schoolhouse questioning of a juvenile.

Both sides admitted that the police had used coercive questioning and that K.R.C. wasn’t given any instruction regarding his ability to end or otherwise control the interaction.

Marion argued that the nature of school means that “every aspect of movement throughout the day is controlled.” She argued the school environment inherently creates an imbalance of power and a dynamic where K.R.C. or any other reasonable 12-year-old would be unable to stand up and say “‘excuse me, sir, I am leaving this office,” if being questioned by law enforcement.

“School is a uniquely coercive environment,” Marion also told the justices.

That nature, according to Marion, imposes “additional restraints above and beyond what is normal,” and that K.R.C.’s questioning should be considered a custodial interrogation.

Justice Brian Hagedorn grappled with how the questioning differed from that done by a principal or other school official.

“Give me the details of what makes this so unique,” said Justice Annette K. Zeigler.

Marion responded that K.R.C. was taken out of class versus being stopped in the hall on the way to the bus; he was called down to see not one, but two, police officers; he was not informed he could leave; and he was given guilt presumptive questions with the door blocked by an armed officer, with no other friendly adult in the room.

Attorney Kara Lynn Janson represented the state, arguing that K.R.C.’s questioning was more akin to a police interrogation during a traffic stop than a custodial interrogation. Janson cautioned, saying “it is going to be difficult to decide what the dividing line (is) between formal interrogation and something that looks more like a traffic stop in the school setting.”

Janson argued that the degree of compulsion necessary to say that questioning of K.R.C. was custodial occurs on a “sliding scale depending on how young the juvenile is.”

Janson asked the justices to focus their attention on the relatively short duration of the interview, at 10 minutes and “a near total absence of menacing police questioning.”

In addition to hearing oral arguments, fifth grade students from area schools were recognized by the court for their contributions to its Justice on Wheels Civics Contest. Through writing and other projects, the contestants were encouraged to engage with questions regarding fairness, justice and the Constitution.

Bradley was present and honored at the beginning of the event. Chief Justice Jill J. Karofsky gave Bradley an award and commemorative plaque, which recognized Bradley's more than 40 combined years on the circuit and Supreme Court benches.