Hennepin County Attorney’s Office introducing internal policy to reduce risk of false confessions, protect children’s constitutional rights

The Hennepin County Attorney’s Office announced a new internal policy that will be implemented regarding courtroom usage of statements extracted from youth in custodial interrogations.

This policy’s final form was reached via meaningful collaboration with the Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association.

VIDEO

TOOLKIT

FULL POLICY

Research shows that around 35 percent of exonerated people who were charged as youth gave false confessions.

Over 60 percent of exonerated people who were charged for offenses that allegedly occurred while under the age of 14 gave false confessions.

“When asked if parents would allow their children to be interrogated without a lawyer present, the answer is always a resounding no,” Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty said. “The research proves that children will say what they think an authority figure wants to hear if they believe it will allow them to go home. Not implementing this guardrail is a disaster waiting to happen, as we have seen in countless cases around the country where individuals were exonerated after making a false confession as a child.”

Under this policy, the constitutional rights of children are protected and the threat of a false confession bringing the child into contact with the justice system is diminished.

Ages 13 and under:

Hennepin County Attorney’s Office prosecutors will not introduce statements made by children under the age of 13 during a custodial interrogation as evidence.

Ages 14 – 17:

Hennepin County Attorney’s Office prosecutors will not introduce statements made by a child under the age of 18 during a custodial interrogation unless the following requirements (in addition to all other requirements under applicable law) were satisfied prior to commencing the interrogation:
- An officer made reasonable efforts to notify a parent, guardian, or custodian that the child was to be interrogated, and the parent, guardian, or custodian was afforded a reasonable amount of time to travel to the location of the interrogation if they chose to do so;
- The child consulted with an attorney in a manner that was confidential, whether in person, by phone, or by video (such consultation not being subject to waiver); and
- Following that consultation, the child was able to explain their Miranda rights in their own words, indicated that they understood those rights, and expressly stated that they would like to proceed to speak with law enforcement.
This policy allows for exceptions in cases where the officer reasonably believed that the information sought from the child was necessary to protect the child or another person from an imminent threat of serious physical harm, and the officer’s questions were limited to those questions reasonably necessary to obtain that information.

Examples that meet this exception include, but are not limited to:
The officer has credible information that a student has a firearm in the school;
The officer has credible information that the youth can identify or help locate other individuals who are engaged in a spree of carjackings that is reasonably believed to be ongoing at the time of the interrogation.

A recent case involving a ghost gun on site at Eden Prairie High School was a clear example of an exception to this policy. Through the efforts of school personnel and law enforcement, the situation was resolved appropriately, and charges were filed.

“This policy was built on strong foundations of research, but it was shaped through conversations with experts in the field, attorneys in our office, and law enforcement partners, whose feedback was invaluable in refining it to its current form,” Moriarty said.

The policy is scheduled to go into effect on January 12, 2026.

#30#