v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that age and mental status is relevant when determining police custody for Miranda purposes , overturning its prior ruling from seven years before.
What impact does the Supreme Court's decision in JDB v North Carolina have on juveniles?
Impact of Child's Age
In this case, the North Carolina Supreme Court “... contends that a child's age has no place in the custody analysis, no matter how young the child ... We cannot agree ,” wrote Justice Sotomayor. “A child's age is far ‘more than a chronological fact.
What did the US Supreme Court rule in the case of JDBV North Carolina?
The state trial court ruled that J.D.B. was not in police custody and denied the motion to suppress the statements and evidence . ... The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the test for custody did not include consideration of the age of an individual subjected to questioning by police.
What is JDB arguing in this case?
J.D.B. confessed to the crimes, but later sought to have his confession suppressed on the basis that he was never read his Miranda rights. He argued that because he was effectively in police custody when he incriminated himself, he was entitled to Miranda protections .
What factors have many of the courts looked at in determining whether a person is in police custody for purposes of giving a Miranda warning?
In determining whether a reasonable person would consider himself to be “in custody,” a court should consider four factors, which include: “ (1) the manner in which police summon the suspect for questioning ; (2) the purpose, place, and manner of the interrogation; (3) the extent to which the suspect is confronted with ...
Who is JDB?
J.D.B. was a 13-year-old student enrolled in special education classes whom police had suspected of committing two robberies . A police investigator visited J.D.B. at school, where he was interrogated by the investigator, a uniformed police officer, and school officials. J.D.B.
How does this case relate to the Miranda ruling?
In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination . ... The court disagreed, however, and upheld the conviction.
What was the ruling in Yarborough v Alvarado?
Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court declined to overturn a state court's conclusion that a minor was not in custody for Miranda purposes during his police interview .
What is the significance of the Schall v Martin case as it relates to juvenile justice?
2403 (1984). In Schall v. Martin,' the Supreme Court upheld a New York stat- ute that provided for the preventive detention ofjuveniles accused of a crime , who present a “serious risk” that they may commit an- other crime before trial.
What test is used by the courts to determine a custodial interrogation?
42 Similar to the United States Supreme Court's standard, the basic principle of Maine's test is that “an interrogation is custodial if ‘a reasonable person standing in the shoes of [the defendant] would have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.
What does the case Rhode Island v Innis say about interrogations?
In Innis, the court held that interrogation is not just direct questioning but also its “functional equivalent”; namely, “ any words or actions on the part of the police ... that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.”
What happened in Breed v Jones?
A juvenile court found 17-year-old Gary Jones guilty of acts that would constitute robbery if he were tried as an adult . After the hearing, the court determined that Jones should be prosecuted as an adult. ... The court also held that allowing the criminal verdict to stand would destroy confidence in the judicial system.
What is the significance of the Maryland vs shatzer case?
Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that police may re-open questioning of a suspect who has asked for counsel (thereby under Edwards v. Arizona ending questioning) if there has been a 14-day or more break in Miranda custody.
What are three exceptions to the requirements for a Miranda warning?
- The suspect is being asked questions that are standard booking procedures.
- The situation involves an emergency hostage situation or negotiation.
- The person is unaware that they are speaking with a police officer.
- The police questions is necessary for preserving public safety.
Can you leave an interrogation?
If I agree to police questioning, can I later decide not to answer questions? Yes. Miranda warnings give a person the right to stop a police interrogation at any time even if they already waived the right to remain silent. ... Once a person asserts Miranda rights, the police must discontinue the interrogation.
How is custody defined for Miranda purposes?
The term “custodial” refers to the suspect being in custody. ... Rather, it means that the police have deprived the suspect of his or her freedom of action in any significant way . (See Is a traffic stop an “arrest” within the meaning of Miranda? ) “Interrogation” means questioning.
