Is that your opinion or is it based on an examination of applicable laws, existing police procedures, etc. that were somehow violated? The fundamental problem as I see it is that this has been a carefully orchestrated hoax and sandbagging by the family. The actions by Ahmed were purposeful and calculated to elicit specific, predictable responses. Now the family will lawyer up assuming they think this hoax will not be uncovered.
It's based on the premise that he asked for his parents during questioning. It's supposed to stop at that point. It's the same as asking for a lawyer.
LEO's don't get the same latitude with minors that they do with adults.
If he indeed asked for his parents during interrogation it is supposed to stop. I'm not saying that this is or isn't something being pulled by the Father. That can be figured out in the fullness of time and investigation.
Even if the Father put this together as a social experiment then I would have to say that he was successful in making his point. That in and of itself should be food for thought.
I once saw a court case where a licensed driver rear ended an unlicensed driver. The licensed driver was trying to say they shouldn't be guilty of failure to maintain safe distance since the car they ran into shouldn't have been on the road.
But that's not the way it works: The licensed driver was guilty, and the driver of the rear ended car was charged separately and found guilty of driving without a license.
Just because he 'may' have been put up to this is 100% unrelated to possible civil rights violations. It is what it is.
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/felony-offense/can-cops-question-my-child-about-a-crime