action rather than limit themselves to in-school discipline. Moreover, the environment in which he was interviewed was coercive. A School Police officer, escorted R.H. to the office of the School Police, where three uniformed officers questioned him for approximately twenty-five minutes. In light of the aforementioned facts, the failure of the School Police to provide Miranda warnings to R.H. violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Therefore, I agree with Justice Nigro that R.H. was entitled to be read his rights before the School Police interrogated him and, because the School Police failed to do this, his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was violated. 1 . See generally, In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 55, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (<HOLDING>). 2 . For a more in-depth discussion of New
holding that waiver of privilege against selfincrimination is proceeding specific holding that the constitutional privilege against selfincrimination is applicable in the case of juveniles as it is with respect to adults recognizing commonlaw privilege against selfincrimination holding that the drug tax violated the privilege against selfincrimination holding that juveniles request to call parent is assertion of fifth amendment privilege against selfincrimination