Since Miranda v. Arizona, a person in custody subject to police interrogation must be read their rights and warned before questioned. In a U.S. Supreme Court opinion released June 16, 2011, a 5-4 majority of the court held that officers and courts must consider a child’s age when determining whether the child is in custody for purposes of Miranda.
In J.D.B. v. North Carolina, a uniformed police officer entered a seventh-grade classroom in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The officer removed J.D.B. and took him to a closed conference room where he was questioned for approximately half an hour about break-ins at the school. This was the second time he was questioned with in one week. He was questioned by two police officers and two school administrators. The officers did not give J.D.B. his Miranda warnings or allow him to speak to his grandmother. Eventually, J.D.B. admitted that he and his friend were responsible for the break-ins.
J.D.B. was charged and his attorney sought to suppress his statements because he was interrogated by the police while under custody without being told his Miranda warnings. As a result, the statements given were involuntary. The trial court rejected the defense argument.
The Supreme Court begins it analysis by noting that custodial interrogations are “inherently coercive” and can bring about false confessions. Id. at 6. The court points out that the risk of a false confession is greater when the person subject to custodial interrogation is a child. Id. Therefore, when a suspect is deemed in custody and before he undergoes interrogation, he must be read his Miranda rights. In determining whether a person is in custody, the court will consider whether a reasonable person under the circumstances would have felt free to leave. Id. at 7. If a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have felt compelled to stay, then he or she is in custody. Id. Here, the court holds 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 custody analysis is consistent with the objective nature of that test.” Id. at 14.
Therefore, when officers and courts determine whether or not a thirteen year old is subject to custody, they must now consider how a reasonable thirteen year old would feel under the circumstances, not how a reasonable adult would understand the circumstances. The case of J.D.B. was reversed and remanded to the district court to determine whether J.D.B. was in custody when he was interrogated by the police.
The younger a child is, the more likely they can be coerced into giving a false confession. If your child or family member is facing police questioning, contact an experienced attorney at Bell Folsom, P.A.