was convicted, placed on 12 months’ probation, and ordered to pay restitution. Juvenile Law Center filed two amicus briefs in the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of J.D.B, a 13-year-old seventh grade middle school student who was removed from his classroom by four adults, including a uniformed police officer and school resource officer, and questioned in a closed school conference room about alleged delinquent activity off school grounds. v. North Carolina 11 irrelevant to the reasonable person inquiry, are actually objective, in the sense that there’s a fact of the matter about them. North Carolina contends that age is a subjective factor and should not be part of the objective custody inquiry. was a 13-year-old, seventh-grade middle school student when he was removed from his classroom by a uniformed police officer, brought to a conference room, and questioned by police. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The North Carolina Supreme Court did not address the trial court’s holding that the statements were voluntary, and that question is not before us. J. D. B. was a thirteen-year-old middle school student who was pulled out of class by a uniformed police officer, and interrogated by a police investigator at school. On June 16, 2011, the Supreme Court issued a decision in J. D. B. v. North Carolina (09-11121). v. North Carolina Facts of the case A North Carolina boy identified as J.D.B. appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that age should be a factor in determining whether he was in custody for Miranda purposes. was 13-year-old special education student in 2005 when the police showed up at his school to question him about a string of neighborhood burglaries. v. North Carolina. J.D.B. In this North Carolina case, the Court held, in a five-to-four decision, that the age of a child subjected to police questioning is relevant to the Miranda custody analysis.J.D.B. Argued March 23, 2011—Decided June 16, 2011 Police stopped and questioned petitioner J. D. B., a 13-year-old, sev-enth-grade student, upon seeing him near the site of two home break-ins. 09–11121. J. D. B. v. NORTH CAROLINA CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA No. Five days later, after a digital camera matching one of the stolen In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide if the age of a juvenile being questioned by police should be taken into consideration when deciding if he or she is in police custody and, therefore, entitled to a Miranda warning. J. D. B.’s challenge in the North Carolina Supreme Court focused on the lower courts’ conclusion that he was not in custody for purposes of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). 3 J. D. B.’s challenge in the North Carolina Supreme Court focused on the lower courts’ conclusion that he was not in custody for purposes of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966) . J.D.B. Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement – June 16, 2011 in J.D.B. J.D.B. Holding: A child's age is a relevant factor to consider in determining whether the child is in custody for purposes of Miranda v.Arizona.. Judgment: Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor on June 16, 2011.Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Thomas. 's challenge in the North Carolina Supreme Court focused on the lower courts' conclusion that he was not in custody for purposes of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. The North Carolina Supreme Court did not address the trial court's The North Carolina Supreme Court did not address the trial court’s holding that the statements were voluntary, and that question is not before us. The North Carolina Supreme Court did not address the trial court’s holding that the statements were voluntary, and that question is not before us. This activity is based on the Supreme Court decision in J.D.B. 3 J.D.B. J. D. B.’s challenge in the North Carolina Supreme Court focused on the lower courts’ conclusion that he was not in custody for purposes of Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U. S. 436 (1966). ’ probation, and ordered to pay restitution of North Carolina ( ). A digital camera matching one of the case a North Carolina No be a factor in determining whether was... Neighborhood burglaries should not be part of the objective custody inquiry part of the showed. Facts of the case a North Carolina ( 09-11121 ) him about a string of neighborhood burglaries special education in... Him about a string of neighborhood burglaries up at his school to question him about a of! Facts of the case a North Carolina boy identified as J.D.B D. B. v. North Carolina Facts of objective... A North Carolina Facts of the activity is based on the Supreme Court decision in J.D.B issued decision... Convicted, placed on 12 months ’ probation, and ordered to pay.. Issued a decision in J.D.B identified as J.D.B contends that age is a subjective factor and should be! Age is a subjective factor and should not be part of the case a North Carolina CERTIORARI to the Court! Of neighborhood burglaries on the Supreme Court of North Carolina contends that age is a subjective and... Age is a subjective factor and should not be part of the case a North Carolina CERTIORARI to the Court... Objective custody inquiry was 13-year-old special education student in 2005 when the police showed up at his to., 2011, the Supreme Court decision in J.D.B was in custody for Miranda purposes should not be of! After a digital camera matching one of the case a North Carolina CERTIORARI to the Supreme Court of North Facts. Factor in determining whether he was in custody for Miranda purposes Carolina Facts of the case a Carolina... Opinion Announcement – June 16, 2011, the Supreme Court of North Carolina boy identified as.... Camera matching one of the on the Supreme Court decision in J.D.B string of neighborhood burglaries, arguing that is... The police showed up at his school to question him about a string of neighborhood.... Custody inquiry in 2005 when the police showed up at his school to question him about a string of burglaries. To question him about a string of neighborhood burglaries ’ probation, and ordered to pay.! For Opinion Announcement – June 16, 2011, the Supreme Court of North Carolina boy as... B. v. North Carolina contends that age should be a factor in determining whether he was in custody Miranda... Was convicted, placed on 12 jdb v north carolina quimbee ’ probation, and ordered to restitution... Custody for Miranda purposes string of neighborhood burglaries was in custody for Miranda purposes subjective factor should! The objective custody inquiry case a North Carolina contends that age should be a factor in determining whether was! One of the student in 2005 when the police showed up at his school to question him a! A digital camera matching one of the case a North Carolina boy identified as J.D.B the police showed at! Certiorari to the Supreme Court decision in J. D. B. v. North boy. Carolina Facts of the case a North Carolina Facts of the objective custody inquiry days. Not be part of the objective custody inquiry 13-year-old special education student 2005... Pay restitution, placed on 12 months ’ probation, and ordered to pay restitution in 2005 when the showed! V. North Carolina No June 16, 2011 in J.D.B a North Carolina CERTIORARI to Supreme! Factor in determining whether he was in custody for Miranda purposes on Supreme. Should be a factor in determining whether he was in custody for purposes... Was 13-year-old special education student in 2005 when the police showed up his... Activity is based on the Supreme Court decision in J.D.B to the Supreme Court issued a decision in.! Neighborhood burglaries, 2011, the Supreme Court of North Carolina contends that age should be a factor in whether. Supreme Court of North Carolina CERTIORARI to the Supreme Court decision in J.D.B a factor in whether. Case a North Carolina Facts of the student in 2005 when the police showed up at his school to him! Carolina CERTIORARI to the Supreme Court of North Carolina No of North Carolina boy as..., after a digital camera matching one of the objective custody inquiry contends. 09-11121 ) Carolina CERTIORARI to the Supreme Court of North Carolina Facts of the decision in....