Shayna Bower Faulkner Legal Environment of Business Mangers Case Brief September 7, 2011

Case and Citation: J.D.B. v. North Carolina, No. 09-11121 363 N. C. 664, 686 S. E. 2d 135, reversed and remanded. Facts: J.D.B. was taken out of a classroom and interrogated by two police officers and two administrators regarding his involvement in two home break-ins. J.D.B. wad subjected to questioning in a conference room with a closed door for 30 to 45 minutes. While in court regarding the case in question, J.D.Bs public defender moved to suppress his statements and the evidence derived therefrom, arguing that suppression was necessary because J.D.B. had been interrogated by police in a custodial setting without being afforded Miranda warning[s], App. 89a The trial court denied the motion, ruling J.D. B was not in custody at the time of his confession. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, with two dissents. Issue: Is the age of a child subjected to police questioning relevant to the custody analysis of Miranda v. Arizona. Reason: The Supreme Court drew its opinion from the observation that children generally are less mature and responsible than adult, Eddings, 455 U.S., at 115-116; that they often lack the experience, perspective, and judgments to recognize and avoid choices that could be detrimental to them, Bellotti v Baird 443 U.S. 622, 635 (1979)(pluarity opinion). In sum the Supreme Court decided children are not to be considered reasonable persons in the same manner as an adult would be subjected to this requirement. The decision held that this was not a definitive answer in which the same should be applied to a 17 year old child who is likely to react as an adult. But when it is evident that the child is young enough to perceive the situation as one in which he or she could not leave, then age should be considered.

Opinion of the Decision: I agree with the Supreme Courts decision and reasoning it is commen sense that a child of 13 would feel as though they could not refuse to answer under the circumstances to which J.D B. was exposed. As the Supreme Court noted there is precedence here to be followed regarding the case. The Bellotti v. Baird case and the Eddings decision both suggest that children are held to a different standard in terms of the views of a situation. Police should use common sense when approaching situations and not use their authority or that of a childs administrator to force said child into a situation that provides no clear opportunity to not be of detriment to him/herself. The Supreme Courts ruling upheld the distinction between child and adult and an officers responsibility to take that into account.