The court thought it significant that JDB's interrogation occurred at school, since the presence and conduct of students are already subject to a certain level of official control. As the court explained, "The effect of the schoolhouse setting cannot be disentangled from the identity of the person questioned. A student-whose presence at school is compulsory and whose disobedience at school is cause for disciplinary action-is in a far different position than [an adult]. Without asking whether the person questioned in school is a minor, the coercive effect of the schoolhouse setting is unknowable." (J.D.B. v. North Carolina)
The court also considered that children may feel pressure in situations where an adult would perceive no compulsion, declaring that "children generally are less mature and responsible; often lack the experience, perspective, and judgment to recognize and avoid choices that could be detrimental to them; and are more vulnerable or susceptible to outside pressures." This led the court to conclude that "No matter how sophisticated, a juvenile subject of police interrogation cannot be compared to an adult subject."
If, as the court majority found, a juvenile's age could make a difference in deciding whether his or her freedom has been restrained to the degree associated with a formal arrest, then courts deciding on whether officers should have Mirandized before interrogating a juvenile must factor in the juvenile's age and try to view the circumstances from the standpoint of a reasonable juvenile of similar age. "We hold," said the court, "that so long as the child's age was known to the officer at the time of questioning, or would have been objectively apparent to a reasonable officer, its inclusion in the custody analysis is consistent with the objective nature of the test."
The court added, "This is not to say that a child's age will be a determinative, or even a significant, factor in every case." This means that merely because a suspect is under 18 years of age does not necessarily mean that he or she must be Mirandized before interrogation in order to make answers admissible in court. It simply means that a court ruling on a suppression motion based on Miranda must take the minor's age into account in deciding whether the circumstances amounted to the functional equivalent of arrest.
Beheler at School
In a pair of cases (Oregon v. Mathiason and California v. Beheler), the Supreme Court held that when suspects come to the police station voluntarily to be questioned, officers can dispel compulsion by communicating to the person that he or she is not under arrest and can leave at will. As long as nothing is said or done to change this understanding, the suspect's resulting confession is admissible, even though no Miranda warning was given. The wording officers now routinely use to bring their cases within the rulings in Mathiason and Beheler-often referred to as a "Beheler warning"-is this: "You're not under arrest. You're free to leave here anytime you wish."
If a Beheler warning is sufficient to permit unMirandized questioning in the police station, it should presumably be sufficient to permit unMirandized questioning in the principal's office at school. No such warning was given in the JDB case, so the court had no occasion to rule on whether that would have been enough (although the court pointedly noted no such admonition was given to JDB).
The Supreme Court did not rule that JDB was in custody or that his statements were inadmissible. The court merely remanded the case to the state courts to decide that issue. Until further issues relating to Mirandizing juveniles are litigated, officers should consult policy advisers to obtain guidelines for Mirandizing and interrogating juvenile suspects.
Devallis Rutledge is a former police officer and veteran prosecutor who currently serves as Special Counsel to the Los Angeles County District Attorney. He is the author of 12 books, including "Investigative Constitutional Law."
Related: SCOTUS Expands Miranda Rights for Juveniles