Summary of Argument

In Miranda v. Arizona, this Court recognized that “rights declared in words might be lost in reality.” 384 U.S. 436, 443 (1966). Thus the Court not only stated a broad principle regarding Fifth Amendment rights, it also outlined the specific procedures needed to protect an individual from making a compelled confession. Id. Without considering the age of the suspect in a custody determination, adolescents will be effectively excluded from the protections and guarantees of the Fifth Amendment.

It is now well settled that youth status bears on legal status. The “kids are different” doctrine for the purposes of constitutional jurisprudence is a principle firmly established in the decisions of the Court. In recent years, the doctrine has been buttressed by a burgeoning body of social science and neurological research demonstrating that the differences between youth and adults are psychological and physiological, as well as social. See, e.g., Graham v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2011 (2010); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005). The Court has thus repeatedly recognized that to make constitutional rights a reality for youth, an adolescent’s age must be taken into account.

The facts of the instant case involve the interrogation by law enforcement of a thirteen year old middle school student in a closed conference room undertaken by both law enforcement and school administrators. The relevance of age to the Miranda custody determination is a question of first impression for the Court. However, the question does not arise in a vacuum. Ample precedent in this and related areas support a holding by this Court that age is an objective factor that must be considered in determining whether a reasonable person would have felt free to terminate an interrogation.

For example, this Court has already acknowledged that youth are more susceptible to coercion and outside pressure, and specifically more susceptible to coercion during police interrogations. See, e.g., Haley v. Ohio, 332 U.S. 596, 599 (1948); Gallegos v. Colorado, 370 U.S. 49 (1962). Moreover, this Court has previously recognized the special vulnerability of youth to social and other pressures in the school setting, both because attendance at school is compulsory and because of youth’s inherent deference to authority. See, e.g., Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 592-93 (1992).

This Court has also highlighted the importance of providing “clear guidance to the police” regarding interrogations. Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 668 (2004). The consideration of age serves this goal. Age is an objective, categorical and knowable characteristic, rather than a personal idiosyncrasy that an officer could not be expected to know at the time of interrogation. Indeed, as evidenced by state statutes, case law and police manuals, officers throughout the country routinely take age of the suspect into account at the point of interrogation.

As Amici demonstrate below, a child does not perceive of or respond to an interrogation in the same way as an adult. By refusing to make the consideration of age a part of the Miranda custody determination, the North Carolina Supreme Court prevents adolescents from receiving the protections of the Fifth Amendment. It is precisely this disconnect between abstract rights and reality that the Miranda Court cautioned against.

Amici respectfully request that this Court reverse the North Carolina Supreme Court and hold that age must be considered in Miranda custody determinations.

Summary of Argument

In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court recognized the potential for abstract rights to be undermined in practice. To safeguard against compelled confessions, the Court established specific procedures to protect individuals in custody. This article argues that the age of the suspect must be considered in custody determinations to ensure the effective protection of Fifth Amendment rights for adolescents.

The Supreme Court has consistently acknowledged that youth status impacts legal status. Recent advancements in social science and neurological research have demonstrated that adolescents differ from adults in psychological, physiological, and social ways. These differences have been recognized in landmark cases such as Graham v. Florida and Roper v. Simmons.

The instant case presents the question of whether age should be considered in Miranda custody determinations. Ample precedent supports the contention that age is an objective factor that affects a reasonable person's perception of freedom during an interrogation.

The Court has previously acknowledged the increased susceptibility of youth to coercion, particularly during police interrogations. Additionally, the compulsory nature of school attendance and the inherent deference of youth to authority make them particularly vulnerable in school settings.

Considering age in custody determinations provides clear guidance to law enforcement officers. Age is an objective and easily ascertainable characteristic, unlike personal idiosyncrasies that may not be apparent to officers.

By considering age in Miranda custody determinations, courts can ensure that adolescents receive the full protection of their Fifth Amendment rights. Failure to do so risks undermining the very purpose of the Miranda safeguards, which is to prevent compelled confessions and protect the rights of individuals in custody.

Summary of Argument

In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court recognized the importance of protecting individuals from making involuntary confessions. To ensure these rights, the Court established specific procedures for interrogations. This article argues that the age of a suspect should be considered when determining if they are in custody, as adolescents face unique challenges that can undermine their Fifth Amendment protections.

Youth Status and Legal Rights

The Supreme Court has consistently recognized that youth status affects legal rights. Research shows that adolescents differ from adults psychologically, physiologically, and socially. These differences have led the Court to acknowledge that constitutional rights must be adapted to ensure they are meaningful for young people.

Age and Miranda Custody

When determining if a person is in custody for Miranda purposes, courts consider whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave. For adolescents, age is a crucial factor. They are more susceptible to coercion, particularly during police interrogations. Additionally, the school setting, where many interrogations occur, can create an atmosphere of authority and pressure.

Importance of Clear Guidance

The Supreme Court has emphasized the need for clear guidance for police regarding interrogations. Considering age provides such guidance, as it is an objective and easily identifiable characteristic. Police officers routinely consider age in their interactions with suspects.

Conclusion

Failing to consider age in Miranda custody determinations undermines the Fifth Amendment protections for adolescents. The Supreme Court should reverse the North Carolina Supreme Court's decision and hold that age must be a factor in these determinations. This would ensure that young suspects receive the full protection of their constitutional rights.

Summary of Argument

When the police arrest someone, they have to read them their Miranda rights. This includes the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. The Miranda warning is important because it protects people from being forced to confess to a crime.

Why Age Matters

Kids are different from adults. They're more likely to be scared and confused when they're questioned by the police. They may not understand their rights or how to protect themselves. That's why it's important to consider a child's age when deciding if they're in custody for Miranda purposes.

The Case

In this case, a 13-year-old was questioned by police and school officials in a closed room. The question is: should his age have been considered when deciding if he was in custody?

Why It's Important

The Court has said that kids are more likely to be pressured and give false confessions. They're also more likely to be scared and confused in school settings.

Clear Rules for Police

Considering age would give police clear guidance on how to handle interrogations with kids. Age is easy to know, unlike personal characteristics that police might not be aware of.

Conclusion

Kids need the protection of Miranda rights. Considering their age would make sure they're not forced to confess to something they didn't do.

Summary of Argument

What's the Problem?

When police question people, they have to make sure that the people understand their rights. One of those rights is the right to stay silent, so they don't have to say anything that might get them in trouble.

But kids are different from adults. They might not understand their rights as well, and they might be more scared or pressured when they're being questioned.

What's the Solution?

The court should make a rule that says police have to think about a person's age when they're deciding if that person should be told their rights. That way, kids will be better protected.

Why It's Important

• Kids are more likely to be scared or pressured when they're being questioned.

• Kids might not understand their rights as well as adults.

• Police need clear rules to follow so they know when to tell people their rights.

• It's important to make sure that kids are treated fairly and have the same protections as adults.