A case in which two University of Wisconsin Law School professors filed amicus briefs has been decided in a way that will help protect the constitutional rights of children.
On March 26, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that a 12-year old questioned by a school resource officer was “in custody” and should have received Miranda warnings, emphasizing that courts must take special care when evaluating police interactions with children at school.
In the case, a seventh-grader in Two Rivers was interviewed by uniformed and armed police officers in a closet-sized room. The boy’s parents were not informed, and the boy was not told that he was free to remain silent or leave.
Zoe Engberg, clinical assistant professor who runs the Criminal Defense & Youth Advocacy Clinic, and Rachel Burg, clinical associate professor and co-director of the Wisconsin Innocence Project, both work in the Frank J. Remington Center. Engberg and Burg filed separate amicus briefs asserting that children questioned at school are uniquely vulnerable to coercion and that police interactions must be evaluated through “a reasonable child” lens.
The court agreed and also held that schoolhouse interrogations require consideration of factors unique to students in school settings.
“This decision highlights the important role amicus briefs can play before the Wisconsin Supreme Court and how our clinics contribute their expertise to that work,” Burg said.
“Our briefs aimed to provide broader context, particularly how children experience police questioning differently than adults.”
Engberg’s brief, in particular, emphasized that courts should evaluate these encounters from the perspective of a “reasonable child,” a concept the court returned to throughout its opinion. The decision also acknowledges that questioning students at school can be uniquely coercive.
“This case underscores that when police question children in schools, courts need to account for the realities of that setting and how young people perceive authority,” Engberg added.
When amicus briefs bring in research and perspective beyond the immediate dispute, they help courts see how a ruling will affect children, schools and law enforcement practices across the state, Burg said.
Submitted by Law School News on March 31, 2026
This article appears in the categories: Faculty, Features, Frank J. Remington Center
Related employee profiles: Rachel Burg, Zoe Engberg
