Question

case 4 - j.d.b. v. north carolina
jdb was a 13 - year - old student in north carolina. one day, he was taken out of his social studies class by a police officer. he was then taken to the conference room of the school where he was then questioned by two school officials and a police officer.
j.d.b was asked about some break - ins that had occurred in the neighborhood. there had been a camera stolen, and other students had seen jdb with that camera. after a period of 30 to 45 minutes, j.d.b confessed that he was involved. the police officer then told jdb that he didnt have to answer any more questions, and that he could leave if he wished. after nodding that he understood, j.d.b then told the police officer where the additional items were hidden.
jdb was ultimately charged with breaking and entering.
jdbs lawyers argued that the police officer had not told him that he had a right to a lawyer before he was questioned. police only need to inform suspects when they are in custody. the lawyers noted that jdb was “in custody” because he was a child and a child would be unlikely to walk out on a police officer.
were j.d.b.s 5th amendment rights violated when he was questioned?

Explanation:

The 5th Amendment's right to counsel and protection against self - incrimination is at issue. J.D.B. was a minor (13 - year - old) questioned without being informed of his right to a lawyer or that he could leave. The key is whether he was in "custody" (a legal standard). In J.D.B. v. North Carolina, the Supreme Court held that a child's age (and maturity) is relevant to determining custody for Miranda rights. Since J.D.B. was a child, in a school setting but questioned by police (with school officials present), and not told he could leave, his 5th Amendment rights (right to counsel, protection from self - incrimination) were violated because he was in custody for Miranda purposes and not properly informed of his rights.

Answer:

Yes, J.D.B.'s 5th Amendment rights were violated. The Supreme Court ruled that a child's age is a relevant factor in determining "custody" for Miranda rights. J.D.B., a 13 - year - old, was in a situation where a reasonable child of his age would feel unable to leave (questioned by police and school officials in a school conference room, not informed he could leave or have a lawyer), so he was in custody for Miranda purposes and should have been informed of his 5th Amendment rights (right to counsel, protection against self - incrimination) but was not, leading to a violation.