Although the Supreme Court in Dunaway v. New York stated that detention of adults for custodial interrogation intrudes on interests protected by the fourth amendment, a similar case in California involving a 13-year-old boy resulted in a conviction which was allowed to stand. In both cases, the defendants did not consent to go to the police station, no arrest warrant was issued, and no probable cause existed. The confession of the adult was suppressed as the 'fruit' of an illegal arrest, but the confession of the child was allowed to stand. The California court argued that constitutional violation (an illegal arrest) occurred because both the boy and the police officers were merely complying with the mother's request that the boy be taken to the station for investigation. The California Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the case, as did the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Marshall, however, thought that this issue deserved to be heard, although only two other justices agreed. If the assumption in this case is accepted, that a parent's right to guide a child's upbringing includes the authority to waive a constitutional right, then it can be argued that police may constitutionally coerce confessions from minors so long as the officers have the parent's consent to their action. Four footnotes are provided.