guardian was not present and the interrogation lasted some 30-45 minutes; for those reasons, the case is factually distinguishable. But many of the circumstances that animated the Supreme Court's "reasonable child" proclamation are present here too. B. N.A.S. Was in Custody $40 The salient features of N.AS!'s schoolhouse interrogation are much the same as those in J.D.B.'s case, right down to his age. Here, the encounter occurred at school in a small, closed room; a uniformed police officer and the two school officials were present; the officer and the principal stood during the interrogation; N.A.S. did not have an opportunity to speak to a parent or legal guardian alone (although his father and uncle were also in the room); the officer did not tell N.A.S. that he was free Colo.1993) (<HOLDING>). 142 The majority emphasizes that the
holding that defendant was in custody when police questioned him in his bedroom late at night holding juveniles statement inadmissible when after being placed in custody police took juvenile to police station and held juvenile in area where adult suspects were held instead of taking juvenile to a juvenile processing office or any of the places listed as an alternative in section 5202 and placing juvenile in specifically designated office for juveniles holding juvenile court lacked jurisdiction over a grandparents deprivation petition where petition was a transparent attempt to use the juvenile court system to seek custody of the child holding that a juvenile questioned by an officer over the phone was not in custody holding that a 17yearold questioned by an officer in the driveway outside of his home was not in custody