Summary of Argument

The ABA respectfully submits that this Court should reverse the decision of the Supreme Court of North Carolina and hold that a Miranda custody determination for any person under the age of 18 must include a determination of whether a reasonable person of the juvenile’s age would have felt free to terminate police questioning and leave.

This Court, as well as many state courts, state legislatures, the ABA and extensive scientific research, have recognized the unique vulnerabilities of children. Children are less capable than adults of making critical decisions in an informed, mature manner. They are more impulsive and reckless, less self-disciplined, and have less capacity to understand the long-term consequences of their actions. Further, the confessions of children require particular caution. Studies show that children are more susceptible to coercion and pressure, can be overwhelmed by circumstances that would not impact a reasonable adult, and are more likely to make false confessions than are adults.

In the present case, the circumstances petitioner faced when questioned – being escorted by police from his classroom to a school conference room where, with the door closed and without the guidance of a parent or guardian but in the presence of school officials, he was questioned by a police officer and urged to confess after initially denying culpability – would have a far different impact on a reasonable 13 year old than on a reasonable adult.

While some children will have a greater understanding of their constitutional rights than some adults, society has drawn distinctions based on the unique vulnerabilities of children in many areas of the law. The approach requested by the ABA would ensure that the constitutional protections afforded to juveniles in Miranda custody determinations are not less than those guaranteed to adults.

Summary of Argument

Introduction

The American Bar Association (ABA) contends that the Supreme Court should overturn the North Carolina Supreme Court's ruling and establish that Miranda custody determinations for minors must consider whether a reasonable juvenile would have felt at liberty to end police interrogation and depart.

Unique Vulnerabilities of Juveniles

The ABA, along with this Court, state courts, legislatures, and extensive research, acknowledge the distinct vulnerabilities of children. Compared to adults, juveniles exhibit diminished decision-making abilities, increased impulsivity, reduced self-control, and a limited understanding of long-term repercussions. Moreover, juvenile confessions warrant heightened scrutiny due to their increased susceptibility to coercion, susceptibility to overwhelming circumstances, and higher likelihood of false confessions.

Circumstances of the Present Case

In the case at hand, the petitioner, a 13-year-old, was questioned in a closed-door school conference room by a police officer in the presence of school officials but without parental guidance. The circumstances would have had a significantly greater impact on a reasonable juvenile than on an adult.

Age-Appropriate Miranda Standards

While acknowledging that some juveniles may possess a more sophisticated understanding of their rights than certain adults, society recognizes the unique vulnerabilities of children in various legal contexts. The ABA's proposed approach would ensure that juveniles receive equal or greater constitutional protections during Miranda custody determinations compared to adults.

Summary of Argument

Introduction

The American Bar Association (ABA) argues that courts should consider the age of a juvenile when determining if they were in custody for Miranda purposes. This is because children have unique vulnerabilities that make them more susceptible to coercion and false confessions.

Vulnerabilities of Children

• Children are less mature and have difficulty making informed decisions.

• They are more impulsive and reckless.

• They have a limited understanding of long-term consequences.

• Studies show that children are more likely to be coerced, overwhelmed by pressure, and make false confessions.

Case Example

In the case at hand, a 13-year-old boy was questioned by police in a school conference room without a parent or guardian present. The ABA argues that these circumstances would have a greater impact on a child than an adult.

Age-Appropriate Miranda Protections

The ABA proposes that courts should determine if a reasonable person of the juvenile's age would have felt free to leave the questioning. This would ensure that children receive the same level of protection as adults under Miranda.

Conclusion

Recognizing the unique vulnerabilities of children, the ABA urges courts to adopt an age-appropriate approach to Miranda custody determinations to protect their constitutional rights.

Summary of Argument

The American Bar Association (ABA) believes that kids under 18 should have different Miranda rights than adults.

The ABA wants courts to consider whether a kid would feel like they could leave the police questioning if they wanted to. This is different from the current rule for adults, which only considers whether a reasonable adult would feel free to leave. Kids are more vulnerable than adults, and they need more protection. The ABA believes that this change would help to ensure that kids are not unfairly pressured into confessing to crimes they did not commit.

In this case, a 13-year-old boy was taken from his classroom to a conference room and questioned by police. He was not allowed to have a parent or guardian present. The ABA believes that this situation would be more likely to make a child feel pressured than an adult.

Summary of Argument

Some people think that young people should have different rules than adults when they are questioned by the police. this is because young people are not as good at making decisions as adults. They might do things without thinking about what will happen later. They also might get scared or pressured more easily than adults. And sometimes, kids might even say things that aren't true because they want to please the police.

In this case, a 13-year-old boy was taken from his class to a room where he was questioned by a police officer. The door was closed and there was no parent or guardian there. The boy was told to tell the truth, even though he said he didn't do anything wrong. Some people believe that kids should have a special rule that says if a kid feels like they can't leave the room or stop talking to the police, then the police can't use anything the kid says against them. This rule would help protect kids from being pressured or scared into saying things that aren't true. It would also make sure that kids have the same rights as adults when they are questioned by the police.