In Roquemore v. State, 60 S.W. 3d 862 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001), the challenged statement was not the result of custodial questioning or, indeed, any questioning at all. Roquemore at 868 ("The oral statements were not the result of any questions or conduct by [the police officer]."). The provisions of 51.095 did not, therefore, apply. As to the stolen property, we found a violation of 52.02(a) and its apparent expression of legislative intent to restrict involvement of law enforcement officers to the initial seizure and prompt release or commitment of the juvenile offender. Section 51.095 sets out what must be done before the statement of a juvenile will be admissible: "the statement of a child is admissible in evidence . . . if: . . . ." The reasonable inference is then that if the stated conditions are not met, the statement of the child will not be admissible. There is a clear legislative intent to suppress the statement if the state violates the statute.