Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Custody Case Analysis

By: dmc-admin//June 9, 2004//

Custody Case Analysis

By: dmc-admin//June 9, 2004//

Listen to this article

The decision may have a substantial effect in Wisconsin, because the facts in the case at bar are almost identical to those in a Seventh Circuit case, A.M. v. Butler, 360 F.3d 787 (7th Cir. 2004), in which the Seventh Circuit, like the Ninth Circuit, held that a juvenile was in custody during police questioning, and granted habeas relief.

A.M. was questioned by police about a murder. He was not a suspect, but was regarded as a potential witness. After information A.M. had earlier provided turned out to be false, a detective asked his mother if he could bring A.M. to the station for questioning. She consented, but asked whether she should accompany him.

The officers said it was not necessary, picked A.M. up, and brought him to the station. During the interview, the detective accused A.M. of lying, whereupon he began crying, and confessed to the murder.

Illinois state courts affirmed his juvenile adjudication, but the Seventh Circuit granted his petition for habeas corpus, relying heavily on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in the case at bar. A.M., 360 F.3d at 797.

The Seventh Circuit stated, “in making the objective inquiry, [A.M.’s] age is an important factor. … Every jurisdiction that has squarely addressed the issue, moreover, has ruled that juvenile status is relevant, either as a factor under the totality of circumstances test or by modifying the usual reasonable person standard.

And Alvarado involved a 17-year-old. [A.M.] was only 11 when he sat alone in the police interrogation room (cites omitted).”

The Seventh Circuit also found that A.M. was “not a seasoned juvenile delinquent,” but had no prior experience with law enforcement.

Judge Easterbrook dissented, noting that no U.S. Supreme Court decision had clearly established that the suspect’s age affects the need to give Miranda warnings.

Related Links

U.S. Supreme Court

Related Article

Age, experience irrelevant to custody

In the wake of the decision in the case at bar, one thing is clear: the Seventh Circuit’s discussion of A.M.’s prior experience with law enforcement is no longer valid precedent. Neither the dissent nor the concurrence took issue with that proposition.

However, the fact that A.M. was only 11 is another matter. Only four justices held age wholly irrelevant to the custody determination; four justices found it very relevant; and one justice wrote, “There may be cases in which a suspect’s age will be relevant.”

As a practical matter, however, if the focus is placed upon the officer’s objective perspective, it appears that A.M. was incorrectly decided, and should be deemed effectively overruled.

Like Alvarado, A.M. was not considered a suspect, but an evasive witness; there was no probable cause to arrest either. From the objective viewpoint of the officer, it would be unreasonable to require him to give Miranda warnings, stating, “You are under arrest., etc.,” when the person is not under arrest, and there are no grounds for arrest, merely because the person happens to be so young.

– David Ziemer

Click here for Main Story.

David Ziemer can be reached by email.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests