In the Matter of S.C.

S.C. (defendant) was a 15-year-old child suspected by a witness of burglarizing a residence. A police officer went to S.C.’s home and spoke to his mother, who said S.C. was not home. The officer found S.C. down the street, asked him questions, and went back with him to his home. The officer asked S.C. about the burglary again in his mother’s presence, at which point S.C. became fidgety. The officer, with the assistance of other officers who had arrived, placed S.C. in handcuffs. Two officers advised S.C. that he was being detained but not arrested. After placing S.C. into the patrol car, the officer asked S.C.’s mother for consent to enter the house. S.C.’s mother refused to provide consent numerous times. An officer then approached S.C., informing him that if he did not return the stolen property and it was later found in his house, the owner of the house could be arrested. S.C. acquiesced, informed the officer that the property was inside the house, and agreed to show it to him. Officers followed S.C. into the house, and S.C.’s mother did not object to their entry again at that point. S.C. revealed part of the stolen property to the officers. S.C. was not arrested, but the state (plaintiff) filed a petition alleging that he, as a juvenile, committed burglary. S.C. moved to suppress the evidence, which the trial court denied. S.C. pleaded guilty, then appealed, arguing that his motion to suppress should have been granted because the entry into his home violated his rights.