bvelliquette@heraldsun.com; 419-6332
CHAPEL HILL — Although the majority of the N.C. Supreme Court justices ruled a 13-year-old boy was not in custody when he was being questioned at a school and therefore did not have to have his Miranda Rights read to him, three justices dissented.
“The majority’s conclusion stands in stark contrast to our State’s public policy of aiding, supporting, and protecting juveniles,” wrote Justice Edward Thomas Brady in a dissenting opinion.
“The manner in which school officials and law enforcement interrogated [the juvenile] more resembles hunters carefully and selectively targeting their prey than a fair juvenile investigation consistent with our General Statues.”
Brady noted that the Police Department’s manual states: “Even if a juvenile is not in custody, it is good practice to have him sign a Miranda Rights waiver form before issuing a statement. If the juvenile does not sign a waiver, the officer must document that the juvenile is told that he is not under arrest and free to leave at any time, and that he agreed to talk.”
“While it is true that handcuffs were never applied to [the 13-year-old] and the closed door of the room where he was detained was not locked, this does not mean he was not restrained,” Brady wrote.
“An examination of the totality of the circumstances leads to the conclusion that a reasonable juvenile in [the 13-year-old’s] position would have believed he was restrained in his movement to the degree associated with a formal arrest,” Brady wrote.
Brady wrote, “Even radical Muslims suspected of terrorism are afforded broader constitutional protections than the majority wishes to give juveniles in [the 13-year-old’s] position.”
Justice Robin E. Hudson also wrote a dissenting opinion, saying that the boy was advised he was free to leave and was not under arrest, he did so only after he had confessed at the prodding of Lyons and Officer Joe DiConstanzo.
“Here, law enforcement questioned a 13-year-old seventh-grader about nonviolent offenses while he was at school, in a closed room, and in the presence of four authority figures, all adults,” Hudson wrote. “Taken with the sequence of events in the interrogation itself, I conclude that [the 13-year-old] was subjected to a custodial interrogation.”
“A reasonable middle school student in [the 13-year-old’s] position after being physically escorted by a uniformed, armed officer to a closed conference room with four authoritative adults, would have considered himself to be physically restrained to the point of formal arrest,” Hudson wrote. “Moreover under school policy, [he] was not free to leave until he was dismissed by an adult.”
