# data[].attributes.body
Important Fact #1
Important Fact #2
Important Fact #3

# data[].attributes.body
Ex. The court found that _____ did not violate ____'s 5th Amendment right to be read their Miranda rights since they were not in custody.
(1-2 Sentence Max)

# data[].attributes.body
What rules from this case can be applied to future cases?
(note: these will vary in length)

# data[].attributes.body
Why did the court make the decision they did? (see the "Opinion" section of the case summary).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Are Miranda Rights? Miranda Rights Explained

# data[].attributes.headline
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

# data[].attributes.subject
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

# data[].attributes.body
- Police suspected 13 year old of break-ins at several houses.
- While at school, J.D.B. was pulled out of class by the school's resource officer into the office where two staff members and a police officer were waiting.
- J.D.B. was questioned for 30 to 40 mins about the break-ins that were happening by a second officer.
-- At first, J.D.B. denied he had anything to do with it, but the officer confronts him with a stolen camera and J.D.B. broke; he asked if returning the stolen items would allow him to get free of trouble and subsequently admitted to the break ins.
- The officer then decided to let the young boy know that he had a right to refuse answering questions and was free to leave, yet decided to not only give up the location of where he kept the stolen item, but also right a statement of admission.

# data[].attributes.body
Since the interview only lasted for 10 minutes, N.A.S. was not subjected to a custodial interrogation. This ultimately means that neither the SRO and police officer were not required to read him his Miranda rights. There were also members of N.A.S.' family in the interview with him, which is another reason why his Miranda rights did not have to be read to him.

# data[].attributes.body
The courts found that because C.H. was in custody he should have been read his Miranda rights so therefore his Fifth Amendment rights were violated by the officers.

# data[].attributes.body
Even with the consideration of J.B.D.'s age, he was not in custody and therefore, was not required to be Mirandized.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Was not told by officers that he could leave the interview anytime he wanted to.
2.Was arrested by officers after the interview ended.
3. Was in police custody at the time of the interview.

# data[].attributes.body
Prior to police officer questioning, a suspect must be warned of his right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney. These requirements only take place if a person is in custody and is being interrogated.

# data[].attributes.body
Because J.B.D. was not in custody while being interrogated, it is believed that there is no reason for him to be read his rights. They believe that, even after considering his age, that he would have an idea that he was free to leave whenever.

# data[].attributes.body
After reading some information on the case, it did get appealed and brought to the Supreme Court, where they ruled in favor of JBD.
He was in fact a special educations student and of the age of 13, in which I believe is not the age or mindset where somewhere will believe they're free to go- I truly think it was completely wrong of not only his school system, but his police as well. They didn't even attempt to call his parents.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Due Process of Law: Crash Course Government and Politics #28