The U.S. Supreme Court rarely renders a decision that directly impacts minors, particularly one that significantly addresses the legal rights of minors in criminal proceedings. But that is exactly what happened last week when the court, in a split 5-4 decision, ruled that a child’s age is relevant in determining whether a child is “in custody” and therefore entitled to Miranda warnings before being questioned by the police.
The Supreme Court has previously ruled that a person is in custody if the person is either under arrest or in a situation in which a reasonable person does not feel free to leave. The landmark Miranda v. Arizona case established the right of a person in custody to Miranda warnings, which give a person the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during an interrogation.
In J.D.B. v. North Carolina, a case that originated in a North Carolina public school, a 13-year-old boy was subjected to a lengthy interrogation by the police inside the school for allegedly committing a crime that occurred off school grounds. The boy was escorted into a closed-door conference room, surrounded by two police officers as well as the assistant principal and administrative intern. The assistant principal told the child that he should cooperate with the police. The child was never given the opportunity to call his legal guardian and was certainly not provided the opportunity to have a lawyer present during questioning. The child was not told that he did not have to answer the questions or that he was free to leave the room. After the child confessed to the crime, he was read his Miranda warnings.
The prosecution argued that the child was not in custody at the time of the questioning, since, just like any adult should know, he did not have to answer the officer’s questions. The majority of the Supreme Court justices broadened this one-size-fits-all approach to Miranda by finding that the child’s age should be taken into consideration in the custody analysis. They recognized that a child might not feel free to leave even if a reasonable adult would feel otherwise. The court cited to a long history of judicial recognition that children cannot be viewed simply as miniature adults.
Based on my experience, questioning of students like J.D.B. in schools is not uncommon. The child may be questioned by a police officer or school resource officer in an administrator’s office. The child is told that if he does not cooperate with law enforcement, he can be expelled from school for refusing to cooperate. The child is never given the opportunity to call a parent for advice or a lawyer before questioning. After J.D.B., these practices should be scrutinized carefully.
The decision in the J.D.B. case, which weighed heavily on the fact that the child was only 13 years old, applies to minors in criminal cases. In Georgia, a minor in criminal cases is any child under 17 years old; any person 17 years old and older is treated as an adult. This case is a step in the right direction in recognizing that children have unique vulnerabilities and need adequate protection under the law.
J. Tom Morgan, a former DeKalb County district attorney, is author of “Ignorance Is No Defense: A Teenager’s Guide to Georgia Law.”
About the Author
