Supreme Court: Whether A Court May Consider Age In A Miranda Custody Analysis?
A very interesting case was recently argued at the United States Supreme Court. The issue is whether the age of the juvenile suspect should be taken into account into account in deciding whether the youth, about to be questioned by police about a crime, is "in custody" and is entitled to be told his rights before any questions may be asked?
Miranda v. Arizona requires police to warn suspects in custody (that is, not free to leave) of their constitutional rights. As of right now, there is a reasonable person test: whether a reasonable person would understand his or her situation based on the objective circumstances known to both the office and the suspect. That situation is whether "a reasonable person in the position of the defendant would believe himself
to be in custody or that he had been deprived of his freedom of action in some significant way."
In this case, J.D.B. was a 13-year-old special education student was linked to several break-ins and was taken out of class to speak with an investigating officer. He was not told his rights and was not told that he was free to leave the encounter. After a short interrogation, the boy confessed to the crimes.
Interestingly, the argument focused on the ole' reliable "slippery slope" argument. That is, whether having age as an issue will muddy a relatively simple Miranda analysis. It is hard to imagine a situation where a 13-year-old, surrounded by an investigating officer and an assistant principal, would ever feel free to leave. Most adults do not feel free to leave with an officer, but coupled with another authority figure in the room muddies the issue. It will be interesting to see how the Court resolves this issue.