|
The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that law enforcement officers who remove juveniles from class must read them their Miranda Rights -- the “you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you in a court of law” speech you hear on TV and the movies.
In her majority opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated, “[C]hildren cannot be viewed simply as miniature adults” and “a reasonable child subjected to police questioning will sometimes feel pressured to submit when a reasonable adult would feel free to go.”
In dissent, the more conservative judges said that the ruling placed an added burden on law enforcement officers and would hamper their ability to do their job in certain cases.
What are Miranda Rights?
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |

The Miranda rights do not have to be read in any particular order, and they do not have to precisely match the language of the Miranda decision, as long as they are adequately and fully conveyed. |
 |
 |
The Miranda Rights were put in place after the Supreme Court's landmark 5-4 decision in the case, Miranda v. Arizona, in 1966.
Miranda Rights are issued to suspects of crimes by arresting officers to let the accused know of their constitutional rights – the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney -- before they are interrogated.
Information provided by the person accused of a crime cannot be used in trial unless the prosecution can show the defendant was informed of his rights.
The question before the court in the recent case had to do with the definition of “in custody” and whether a reasonable person would have felt free to leave. The court concluded that teenagers are likely to think they are not free to leave an interrogation even if a reasonable adult would think otherwise.
J.D.B v. North Carolina
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |

The courts have ruled that the warning must be "meaningful", so it is usually required that the suspect be asked if he understands his rights. Sometimes, firm answers of "yes" are required. Some departments and jurisdictions require that an officer ask "do you understand?" after every sentence in the warning. |
 |
 |
In the case, J.D.B v. North Carolina, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a 13-year-old student who was removed from class for questioning by police who suspected him of two home break-ins.
A uniformed officer questioned J.D.B for 30 minutes in a closed-door conference room, along with an investigator, the assistant principle and the administrative intern.
The suspect first denied his involvement in the crimes but later confessed. Only after his confession was the student informed that he could have refused to answer any questions and was free to leave.
Two juvenile petitions were filed against the boy, charging him with breaking and entering and with larceny. His public defender appealed the case, arguing that the jury should not have been allowed to hear evidence taken from the interrogation because it was given before he was informed of his Miranda Rights.
Suspect’s age must be considered
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |

Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy and Elena Kagan joined Sonia Sotomayor in the 5-4 vote. |
 |
 |
The Supreme Court’s decision means police willneed to consider a suspect’s age.
Justice Sotomayor outlined a two-part test to determine whether a suspect is "in custody" for Miranda purposes: "[W]hat were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and…given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave."
The justices who joined Sotomayor in the majority were Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy and Elena Kagan.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissent, arguing that the decision complicates a simple task and forces police to make in-the-moment decisions that could upset the balance between society’s and a suspect’s interests. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. |