J.D.B v. North Carolina, involved a 13-year-old, seventh-grade student. J.D.B was stopped and questioned by police when they observed him near the site of two home break-ins. Five days later, a digital camera matching one of the items from one of the home break-ins was found at J.D.B’s school and was observed to be in J.D.B.’s possession. Investigator Diconstanzo went to the school and a uniformed police officer went to the school and removed J.D.B. from his classroom and escorted him to a closed-door conference room. Police and school administrators questioned him for a minimum of 30 minutes; without giving him his Miranda warnings or the opportunity to call his legal guardian. They also did not advised him he was free to leave the room. At first J.D.B denied any involvement, but later confessed after being urged by officials to tell the truth and informing him of the possibility of juvenile detention. After J.D.B. confessed Diconstanzo told him he could refuse to …show more content…
The question specifically posed for the court to address is whether the courts should consider the age of a juvenile suspect when deciding whether he or she is in custody for Miranda purposes. The Supreme Court issued an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor determining that a age should be considered when determining if a juvenile suspect is in custody and should be issued their Miranda rights. Sotomayor’s opinion stated, “It is beyond dispute that children will often feel bound to submit to police questioning when an adult in the same circumstances would feel free to leave. Seeing no reason for police officers or courts to blind themselves to that commonsense reality, we hold that a child’s age properly informs the Miranda custody analysis” (The Oyez Project as IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law). The case was returned to a lower court to determine how the age of J.D.B. may have impacted the statements and evidence obtained by