December 30, 2011 | Bulletin No. 975142.3

In J.D.B. v. North Carolina (131 S.Ct. 2394, U.S.N.C., June 16, 2011), the United States Supreme Court held that a child’s age must be taken into account when determining whether the child is in custody for the purpose of giving Miranda warnings.

Facts

The police questioned J.D.B., a thirteen-year-old seventh grader, about two home break-ins where various items were stolen after they saw him behind a residence in the same neighborhood where the break-ins occurred. That same day, the police also spoke with J.D.B.'s grandmother, (his guardian) and his aunt.

Within a week after J.D.B. was first questioned, the police learned a digital camera that matched the description of one stolen during the break-ins had been found at J.D.B.'s middle school and had been seen in J.D.B.'s possession. Investigator DiCostanzo went to the school to question J.D.B. DiCostanzo told school administrators that he was there to ask J.D.B. about the break-ins, but neither the school nor the police officers contacted J.D.B.'s grandmother before questioning him.

J.D.B. was questioned for 30 to 45 minutes in a school conference room. J.D.B. was not given Miranda warnings or the opportunity to speak to his grandmother prior to this questioning. J.D.B. was also not told that he was free to leave the room.

J.D.B. initially denied any involvement in the break-ins, but then confessed. It was only after J.D.B. confessed that DiCostanzo informed him that he could refuse to answer questions and that he was free to leave. When he was asked if he understood, J.D.B. nodded and provided further detail, including information about the location of the stolen items and a written statement. J.D.B. was allowed to leave and catch the school bus at the end of the day.

J.D.B. was charged with larceny and breaking and entering. J.D.B. moved to suppress his statement because he had been interrogated by police in a custodial setting without being afforded Miranda warning[s] . . . and because his statements were not given voluntarily. The trial court denied the motion finding that J.D.B was not in police custody at the time of the interrogation and that J.D.B.'s statements were voluntary. The North Carolina Supreme Court also held J.D.B. was not in custody when he confessed.

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court determined whether the Miranda custody analysis includes consideration of a juvenile suspect’s age. Miranda established measures that are designed to safeguard the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination. Any police interview of a suspect has coercive aspects to it. However, only interviews that occur while a suspect is in police custody heighten the risk that statements obtained are not the product of the suspect’s free choice but rather are the product of coercion.

Miranda requires that before questioning, a suspect must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. These measures only apply when “there has been such a restriction on a person’s freedom as to render him ‘in custody.” Whether a suspect is actually in custody is an objective inquiry which requires a determination (1) of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, and (2) given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. Police officers and courts must look at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, including any factors that would have impacted how a reasonable person in the position of the suspect would have viewed whether he was free to leave.

The Supreme Court rejected the State of North Carolina’s argument that “a child’s age has no place in the custody analysis, no matter how young the children subjected to questioning.” Rather, under “some circumstances, a child’s age ‘would have affected how a reasonable person’ in the suspect’s position ‘would perceive his or her freedom to leave.’” The Court stated that “a reasonable child subjected to police questioning will sometimes feel pressured to submit when a reasonable adult would feel free to go.”

The Court held “that so long as the child’s age was known to the officer at the time of police questioning, or would have been objectively apparent to a reasonable officer; its inclusion in the [Miranda] custody analysis is consistent with the objective nature of that test.” The Court cautioned that a child’s age will not “be a determinative, or even a significant, factor in every case,” but that it is “a reality that courts cannot simply ignore.”

The Court remanded the case to the state court to determine whether J.D.B. was in custody when the police interrogated him. The Supreme Court directed the state court to take into “account all of the relevant circumstances including J.D.B.’s age at the time.”

What This Means To You

When in doubt, school officials should contact legal counsel regarding Miranda warnings. A student’s age is just one factor to consider when determining whether to issue a Miranda warning. This ruling confirms that minors and adults are viewed differently within the criminal justice system and that police officers should be sensitive to a suspect’s age in the context of Miranda warnings.

Note

This is the second case the Supreme Court considered this term that involved the questioning of a minor at school. In Camreta v. Greene, the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether interviewing a suspected child abuse victim at school without a warrant or parental consent violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable seizures. However, the Supreme Court did not reach the merits of that case in regard to the legality of the interview because it found the question was moot. For more information on the Camreta case, please refer to our Legal Alert entitled, “UPDATE: U.S. Supreme Court Vacates Ruling That Child Protective Services Worker Must Obtain Warrant Before Interviewing Suspected Child Abuse Victim At School,” June 15, 2011.

Questions

If you have any questions concerning the content of this Legal Alert, please contact the following from our office, or the attorney with whom you normally consult.

Christian M. Keiner or Meghan Covert Russell | 916.321.4500

Sally Jensen Dutcher | 925.395.2380