eighteen-year-old defendant who had opportunity to consult with parent). Eight other states statutorily require police to notify a minor’s guardian or custodian immediately if a minor is taken into custody. See DelCode Ann. tit. 10 § 1004; Idaho Code § 20-516; 705 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. § 405/5-405; Mo.Rev.Stat. § 211.131(2); Neb. Rev.Stat. § 43-250; Nev.Rev.Stat. § 62.170; N.Y.Crim. Proc. Law § 140.20 (McKinney); S.C.Code Ann. § 20-7-7205. Statements made by juveniles during custodial interrogation where law enforcement authorities have violated those statutes consistently are suppressed. See People v. Gardner, 257 A.D.2d 675, 683 N.Y.S.2d 351 (1999) (observing that police are statutorily required to notify immediately guardian or parent of juvenile upon her arrest or stat (1973) (<HOLDING>); State v. Johnson, 221 Mont. 503, 719 P.2d
holding that consequence of deliberate violation of parental notification statute is suppression of statements made by defendant holding that because code  19260 a procedural statute did not expressly provide a right of suppression of evidence a violation of that provision did not require application of the exclusionary rule in the absence of a constitutional violation holding that enhancement of sentence after violation of probation was collateral rather than direct consequence of plea holding that because suppression of illegally obtained evidence is a form of injunctive relief suppression of defendants bank records obtained in violation of rsa chapter 359c is an appropriate remedy holding that technical violations of fedrcrimp 41 d require suppression if there was a deliberate disregard of the rule or if the defendant was prejudiced