Can the police introgate a 17 year old minor without a parent or lawyer present?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes if the minor does not request a lawyer.

Yes, they can question a minor without a parent being present. As long as they comply with the Miranda requirements, there is no obligation to notify you or have you present during questioning of your son. Having said that, Miranda issues are fact-dependent, so your son's attorney is going to have to review all the evidence and statements to see if there were Miranda violations or other ways to suppress the statement, evidence and potentially impact the entire case.

In Michigan a 17 year old is considered an adult in the eyes of the criminal law. He can be questioned by the police and charged as a adult.

If the 17 year old is the person charged with the crime, the police should have read him his Miranda Rights before he or she was interrogated. If they were a witness to the crime the police could interrogate the 17 year old as part of the investigation. Depending on the whether the 17 year old was the perpetrator or a witness could have a bearing on the statement.

They do this all the time! Minors should have a parent present. However seventeen may be proper DEPENDING on what he was interviewed for. Tell son to NEVER talk w/o parent or lawyer present . . . no matter how much pressure they put him under. Looks like son cracked anyway. You MIGHT be able to get his statements "kicked" depending on the circumstances. You need an attorney ASAP. If cops made mistake then do us all a favor and sue them. They will not stop their illegal practices UNLESS citizens start suing the crap out of them.

Yes, all the time, unless he exercises the 5th Amendment right to SHUT UP and do NOT talk to police or anyone about the case except with and through an attorney.

In Utah, Rule 27A, of the Utah Rules of Juvenile Procedure, states: If the minor is 14 years of age or older, it is *presumed* capable of knowingly and voluntarily waiving eh minor's rights without the benefit of having a parent, guardian, or legal custodian present during questioning. However, the *presumption* may be overcome by a *preponderance* of the evidence showing the ability or inability of a minor to comprehend and waives the minor's rights. So, you can always file a motion to suppress your son's statements. The motion will have to allege that your son did not have the ability to comprehend and waive his rights. Of course your son must have had to be entitled to his Miranda protections. Miranda works as follows: It protects people, like your son, from being compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against themselves.[1] The Miranda Warnings/Rights are: (1) You have the right to remain silent; (2) Anything you say can and will be used against you in court; (3) You have the right to consult with an attorney and have an attorney present during questioning; and (4) If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you before questioning at no cost to you.[2] However, many people misunderstand when a peace officer is required to give them Miranda Warnings. A suspect is only accorded Miranda protections during a custodial interrogation. Both elements (i.e., custody and interrogation) must be present before the peace officer is required to give Miranda Warnings. That means peace officers are not required to give Miranda Warnings when they are still in the investigatory stage. For instance, a peace officer is not required to give Miranda Warnings when he asks a person suspected of driving under the influence if they have been drinking or asks them to conduct field sobriety tests. This is because the peace officer is still trying to ascertain whether a crime has been committed (i.e., The Investigatory Stage). That said, in Utah, a person is in custody when an individual?s freedom of action is curtailed to a degree associated with a formal arrest. The inquiry is objective, and a person may understand himself to be in custody based either on physical evidence or on the nature of the peace officer?s instructions and questions. Utah Courts have set out a five-factor test to determine when a person is in custody for the purpose of Miranda protections. They are: (1) the site of the interrogation; (2) whether the investigation focused on the accused; (3) whether the objective indicia of arrest were present; (4) the length and form of the interrogation; and (5) whether the accused came to the place of interrogation freely and willingly. In Utah, after it has been determined that the accused was in custody, the court must decide whether the accused incriminating statement was the product of interrogation. Interrogation is either express questioning by the peace officers or its functional equivalent. And, it incorporates any words or actions on the part of the peace officers that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Hope this helps.

For the purpose of the court at 17 you are considered an adult and therefore no parental permission is necessary. The statements would be admissible unless was suppressible for some other reason.