International Law Enforcement Academies (ILEA) Criminal Law Practice Exam

When Jordan decided to speak with detectives, what did his mother's objection signify?

1. Her objection completely blocked the conversation

2. Jordan's "yes" overrules his mother's "no" with legal counsel present

3. Her objection had no legal basis

4. It indicated that Jordan could not legally speak

The correct answer is: Jordan's "yes" overrules his mother's "no" with legal counsel present

The reason why the choice indicating that Jordan's "yes" overrules his mother's "no" with legal counsel present is correct lies in the understanding of legal competency and agency regarding minors. Generally, once a minor is deemed competent to make decisions, their choices can take precedence over parental objections, especially in situations involving law enforcement and legal counsel. In this context, if Jordan was of an age and mental capacity where he could understand the implications of speaking with detectives, he would have the right to make that choice, particularly if legal counsel is present to advise him during the conversation. This underscores the principle that individuals, regardless of their age, can assert their legal rights, especially when they have been granted access to legal representation. Therefore, while his mother's objection might express concern or disapproval, it does not invalidate Jordan's consent to speak to the detectives, particularly in the presence of legal counsel. This understanding is crucial in criminal law, where the rights of individuals to communicate with law enforcement are protected, provided they have the capacity and understanding to make such decisions, and they are advised by legal experts.