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) . 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement – June 16, 2011 in J.D.B. 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 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. 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. appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that age should be a factor in determining whether he was in custody for Miranda purposes. '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. v. North Carolina Facts of the case A North Carolina boy identified as J.D.B. 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 3 J.D.B. This activity is based on the Supreme Court decision in J.D.B. 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. 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. was convicted, placed on 12 months’ probation, and ordered to pay restitution. 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). On June 16, 2011, the Supreme Court issued a decision in J. D. B. v. North Carolina (09-11121). v. North Carolina. 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. J.D.B. 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). 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. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). North Carolina contends that age is a subjective factor and should not be part of the objective custody inquiry.