Court of Appeals expands criteria for youth custodial interrogation

From the December 2023 Criminal Defense Newsletter
On November 21, the Court of Appeals issued a published opinion in In re NC, Minor, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 361548). The opinion breaks new ground by expanding the criteria that must be considered when determining whether a child who was questioned by police at school was subjected to custodial interrogation.

Facts: Less than two weeks after the Oxford High School shooting, a student found a threatening note in a school bathroom in Munising. The police responded, and the school was locked down. During the investigation, a video that NC had posted on social media in which he made threatening statements was brought to light. The principal removed NC from class and brought him to the principal’s office. The Munising chief of police questioned NC with both the principal and NC’s father present, but NC was never read his Miranda warnings. During the questioning, NC made inculpatory statements. The Alger County Prosecutor’s Office charged NC with making a false report/threat of terrorism (MCL 750.543m) and intentional threat to commit an act of violence against students or school employees on school grounds or school property (MCL 750.235b).

Trial court proceedings: NC moved to suppress his statements to the police on the grounds that he was subjected to custodial interrogation and not advised of his rights under Miranda. At a hearing on the motion, the trial court heard from the chief of police, the principal, and NC’s father. The trial court acknowledged that some circumstances associated with the interview (such as the presence of NC’s father) weighed against it being considered “custodial.” Ultimately, though, the trial court found that NC was in custody because NC would not have felt free to leave. The prosecutor appealed the trial court’s order suppressing NC’s statements.

On appeal: The Court of Appeals opinion (as authored by Chief Judge Gleicher) noted that, while the Michigan courts have previously addressed how age impacts the Miranda custody analysis, there was no binding precedent in Michigan for cases in which the interrogation took place in a school or principal’s office. The Court quoted JDB v North Carolina, 564 US 261 (2011), in which the Supreme Court observed that “the effect of the schoolhouse setting cannot be disentangled from the identity of the person questioned….” Id. at 276. The Court then discussed the states, such as North Carolina, Indiana, Kentucky, and Minnesota, that have found that the schoolhouse setting is relevant to whether the youth was subjected to a custodial interrogation.

The Court concluded that, “while the fact that police questioning occurred at school or in a principal’s office alone is not dispositive of custody, it is still a highly relevant factor to consider in a Miranda custody analysis involving juveniles at school.” It reasoned that “the movements of a juvenile at school are generally restricted in ways not ordinarily applicable to adults,” which contributes to a belief within youth that they are not free to leave when being questioned.

Like the trial court, the Court of Appeals panel found some aspects of the interrogation would have favored a finding that NC was not in custody. For example, it was a fairly short interview, NC’s father was present, NC was not restrained, and he had a previous encounter with law enforcement. However, the Court found that NC’s young age (13), being pulled from class without explanation during a lockdown, and the overall stressful situation combined with NC’s father believing that NC was not allowed to leave created a circumstance in which NC himself would not have felt free to leave. Therefore, under the totality of the circumstances, the Court held that NC was in custody, and the police were obligated to read him his Miranda warnings before interrogating him.

As in JDB, the Court in NC did not create a new test, but it did expand on what circumstances must be taken into consideration when determining whether a child is in custody during police questioning. The lesson from NC is that being questioned by police in the principal’s office can create a situation in which the child does not feel free to leave, even with a parent present, and weighs in favor of finding that the interrogation was custodial.

Joshua Pease
Youth Defense Project Director