B, the fourteenth amendment. I hope that answered your question!
According to data, it is found that juveniles do not sufficiently understand the Miranda warning and find it difficult to exercise their right of remaining silent.
<h3><u>Explanation:
</u></h3>
Juveniles are far more sensitive than adults are. This is the reason what may not mean coercion in the case of an adult may be considered as coercion in the case having a juvenile involved. According to the data obtained from a number of juvenile justice cases, it is clear that the juveniles do not choose to make use of their right to remain silent.
This may be either because they don't properly come to terms with what Miranda rights actually are or they are too vulnerable to the interrogation and can't resist speaking out of fear.
The SCOTUS did not rule that T.L.O’s 4th amendment (searches and seizures) rights had been violated. They ruled that the school administrations search of the bag was reasonable under the circumstances (i.e T.L.O. Being a minor and on school property, meaning that while at school, administration is responsible for the well-being and safety of all students, thus allowing them to search T.L.O’s bag for marijuana). A good way to think of it is that while you’re at school, the administration acts as your parents. Your parents don’t need a warrant to search through your room and neither does the administration if you are on school property. The 4th amendment applies to this case because it protects against unlawful searches and seizures (i.e. searches and seizures that are without a warrant). The constitutional question was whether or not T.L.O. Could be charged with a crime/punished or not because the school administration did not have a warrant. However, because the school administration was acting as a loco parentis (latin term for “in place of the parent”) they did not need a warrant to search her bag. Hope this helped!
