Speak Outs
Speak Out
What is the importance of the Miranda warning?

September 17, 2013

You have the right to remain silent…


You’re likely familiar with this opening line of the Miranda warning. Law enforcement officers are required to tell criminal suspects their constitutional rights at the time of their arrest and before they are questioned.

Here’s the rest of the Miranda warning: Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.

Since 1966, when the Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona established guidelines for how detained suspects are informed of their constitutional rights, giving the Miranda warning has become standard practice for police. The warning includes parts of the Fifth Amendment (protection against self-incrimination) and the Sixth Amendment (a right to counsel).

The warning informs suspects who are being arrested and face questioning that they do not have to answer any questions from police, which sounds like a hindrance for police when trying to get someone to confess to a crime. But that is the point: It is up to the police to prove guilt, not for the defendant to prove innocence, and a confession is essentially all the state needs to proceed with a conviction. The Miranda warning informs the suspects that they do not need to confess, or talk at all for that matter. It is their constitutional right. For more about Miranda v. Arizona, watch the video The Right to Remain Silent: Miranda v. Arizona.

The Miranda warning recently has been in the news in a Kentucky school case and the Boston Marathon bombing case. In Kentucky, the state Supreme Court decided whether the Miranda warning should be given to a student who is questioned by an assistant principal with a school officer in the room.

A student identified as N.C. was questioned in the assistant principal’s office about an empty prescription bottle labeled with his name that was found in a restroom. An armed deputy sheriff who served as the school resource officer was present. The student admitted that he brought the pain medication to school because he’d had his wisdom teeth removed and that he gave two pills to another student. The assistant principal told N.C. that he would be disciplined for violating school rules. The deputy sheriff said he also had violated state drug laws. N.C. entered a conditional guilty plea to illegally dispensing a controlled substance and was sentenced to 45 days in jail.

The state Supreme Court ruled that N.C.’s incriminating statement must be suppressed, or thrown out. The court said in N.C. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky that its decision focused on whether N.C. was considered to be custody at the time. Because he was questioned in a closed room with an armed officer, the court said, he clearly was in custody.

“No reasonable student, even the vast majority of 17-year-olds, would have believed that he was at liberty to remain silent or to leave,” the court said. It also said N.C. was under the impression that he was facing school discipline and was never told he faced criminal charges. The court added that Miranda rights don’t have to be read when only school discipline is involved.

Writing for the majority in the 4-3 vote, Justice Mary Noble acknowledged that the case presented “a conflict between “the rights of a juvenile accused of a crime and the needs of school officials to maintain order ... and protect other children.”

Justice Bill Cunningham, who dissented, said he was concerned that school safety would be affected because principals would avoid using security officers. “In this day and age, we should not be impairing school safety by the enlargement of rights of the students,” Cunningham said. He also disagreed that a student should be considered in custody just because he is questioned by a principal with a school officer present. His dissent argued that students “are always in custody” when they are in public schools and that school resource officers are more like school staff than traditional law enforcement officers.

A concurring opinion (written when justices agree with the majority but for different reasons) pointed out that, under the public-safety exception, students can be questioned without being Mirandized to find a gun that may have been left on school property. Last spring, federal investigators did not immediately inform Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev of his Miranda rights under the public-safety exception. That means law enforcement can question suspects without advising them their Miranda rights if it is believed they have information about an imminent threat to public safety. According to the Associated Press, Tsarnaev was eventually read his rights and he stopped answering questions.

What do you think?

Should N.C. have been read his Miranda rights? Was he “in custody” when he was questioned? How would you balance school safety concerns with a student’s constitutional rights? Should juveniles be treated differently from adults in criminal cases? Do you agree with the majority or the dissenting opinions, and why? Join the discussion!
Join the Discussion
 
 
 
limited to 2000 characters including spaces  



Thank you for commenting.
Your comment is awaiting approval.
Click here to view all Speak Outs
Comments
12/21/2017
magnolia
melanie garcia
metzger / magnolia west
I agree, he should have his rights expressed to him if they are going to pursue state punishment. I feel like they don’t or wouldn't tell you because they are in a position of power and want to intimidate a student to give them the information they need to punish the student. Had he got caught on the streets they would've had to tell him his Miranda rights so why not do it in school as well.

11/1/2016
easton,Md
pistol
easton high
well i have a bridge project and I'm sort of confused about a question regarding if the police read you your miranda rights how does that ensure that all people are treated equal before the law

4/4/2016
Dallas/Texas
William
Mark/Booker T. Washington High School
In a way N.C. did seem to be "in custody", because there was an armed officer present in the room presiding over the questioning. Therefore, he should have had his Miranda Rights read to him, because in the end it resulted in him spending 45 days in jail for being in possession of drugs. I would balance school safety concerns with a student's constitutional rights by determining how extreme the student's actions were. As far as juveniles being treated equivalent to adults, I'm not sure because I think it depends on the type of case you are dealing with. In conclusion, I do believe he should have been read his Miranda rights.

3/16/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Zoe
Mr.Hanna, Stroudsburg JHS
N.C. should of been read his Miranda rights because if he was considered to be under "custody" then why did they not treat him like an actual criminal that committed a crime? A student's rights and the constitutional rights compare to a certain degree. What I mean by that is how the Constituion only will protect you for a certain things but after you turn a certain age, your considered an adult and should be treated like one and should have consequences for your actions. I think juveniles should be treated different because they still are learning and growing up and are not going to make the best decisions which is almost true for all juveniles, but I also believe criminally the consequences should be the same. I agree with the majority of the options.

9/16/2015
murrieta/ca
Robert
Mr. Jabro Creekside high school
Police should have too read the Miranda rights to people because if they don't, then people are being warned of the rights that are applicable. You don't even have too talk to a police officer unless from the moment they come up too you, they have a reason too detain you. You can tell them, I don't want too talk, I did nothing wrong, and I will not answer questions. Some officers get upset because they don't understand the 5th amendment, but you have more rights than you think you do and the fact that they would want too question if they should or shouldn't ask, then that point proves alone that they don't want too help you and by speaking too them, nothing good can really come from it. Cops need too uphold the constitution, not create loop-holes in it.

5/27/2015
murrieta / ca
omaree
mr.jabro / creekside high school
it gives the suspect to fight for his/her innocents or tell the police her/she committed the crime they are being arrested for

4/15/2015
issaquah WA
riley flynn
beaver lake middle school/ ms jones
I think the miranda rights is un acceptable

12/12/2014
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Charles Lewis
J.E. Hill School
As a law abiding citizen the Miranda Rights is given AFTER the suspect is in police custody. When the Miranda Rights is being read, the suspect(s) cannot say anything. Nonetheless, once the Miranda Rights is read by the arresting officer, If the suspect says anything, what he/she says can and will be used against him/her in Court.

11/14/2014
Belleville/NY
Marisa
Colby/Belleville Henderson
The Miranda Warning is highly important. If the police fail to read the suspect his or her Miranda Rights the prosecutor can't use for most purposes anything the suspect says as evidence against the suspect at trial. The Miranda Warning requires that officers let you know of certain facts after your arrest, before questioning you. A rule was made that when police have you in custody, they have to remind you of your Constitutional rights before questioning you or they can't use the things you say against you in court. It's just an easy way to decide if a statement was voluntary. That's why Miranda is important, and that's why Miranda can, and does, still get criminal cases dismissed when the defendant makes incriminating statements to the police.

6/12/2014
Stroudsburg PA
Jacquelyn Engel
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I think that the Miranda Warning is important because it allows people to know that they can have help. I know that if someone in my family or friend got into trouble I would want to help them. I would send them help, I would send them a it is lawyer. Also, it is important for them not to say anything that they would regret so it isnt used against them. I think that it is important that the Miranda Warning should be always used so that those who are arrested, know exactly what they can do.

6/12/2014
Stroudsburg PA
Jacquelyn Engel
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I think that the Miranda Warning is important because it allows people to know that they can have help. I know that if someone in my family or friend got into tru

4/15/2014
ethiopia
debebe
dmu
oh it is very necessay for all human being. because in nature human being needs freedom forever!!!

4/8/2014
Jemez Valley New Mexico
Miranda
Jemez Valley High
I think that they are a good idea because what if you would be getting arrested and you say something wrong and they use it against you in court. Then you get sent to jail because of that one thing you said. What would your parents or guardians think?! You defiantly would be grounded.

1/10/2014
St Louis
Amy
MO
School searches can occur without warrant, which means no Miranda. Miranda is for those in custody. New Jersey v TLO. as long as the evidence of activity is against school policy.

12/16/2013
Sidney, Montana
Jozi
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
N.C. should have been read his rights. The fact that he was in custody during a legal situation proves that he needed to be read his rights. The Fifth Amendment protects against self incrimination so the evidence they received from him should be suppressed. Although, juveniles should be held at the same constitutional level as any other Americans. They should not be given smaller or larger sentences because they are younger.

12/5/2013
Frisco, Texas
Patrick
Mrs. Adams Lonestar
Yes N.C. should have been read his miranda rights to let him know he was in custody over a small issue like this. He would have also been in danger in seeing jail time so i believe he should have been notified. I also believe juveniles should be treated differently than adults in criminal cases.

12/5/2013
Frisco/Texas
Valeria Anna
Adams/CTE Center
N.C. should have been read his Miranda Rights. Maybe he wasn't arrested but he most likely wouldn't have been allowed to leave the assistant principle's office at any time, nor would he probably know that he had the right to remain silent and, he was questioned in a closed room with an armed officer. I understand that the school has to take other students' safety into consideration but it wasn't as off N.C. had been handling illegal drugs, it was a pain medication. Juveniles should be treated differently from adults, whoever wants access to the child or juvenile usually will need authority from his/ her parents. Students are not in custody in school but they are obliged to respect and obey the school policies. I agree with the majority, if a student has done something wrong in the school the first persons to be notified should be his parents (guardians/ tutors). They would most likely take a delicate matter into their own hands but also the school, with the guardians' consent should be able to enforce their rules/ policies.

12/5/2013
frisco, TX
fortune
adams/cte center
The importance of the Miranda warning is that, many people who are held in custody are not aware of their 5th amendment rights. This allows people to know that even if they are not free to leave they are protected from self incrimination and in some states, such as Texas, they can terminate the interview at their will.

12/2/2013
Frisco/Texas
Terrence
Adams/CTE Center
There are a lots of the amendment put into the freedom of speech, right to attorney. So the Miranda should be read to so they know that it will be use in court. Then there will have someone to defend for them before the court.

12/2/2013
Frisco Tx
Mason
Adams/ CTE center
In the case N.C. v. commonwealth of kentucky, a 17 year old was sentenced to 45 days in jail after admitting to distributing two pain pills to students, without being read his miranda rights, while an armed peace officer was in the presence. If an offer was present in the room that N.C. was being questioned in, he should have had his Miranda rights read to him. As the principals dissent said students "are always in custody" when they are present in a public school. If this is found true then according to law, N.C. should be read his rights! If the principals main concern was to protect the common welfare of the student body, then disciplinary actions should not have been his top priority, but rather just finding the distributed drugs. The room that N.C. was being questioned in is the equivalent to an interrogation room at a police station. An armed officer is present while the suspect is being questioned. The difference is, that suspect was read their Miranda rights, and N.C. has not been read his. Since N.C was not aware that he could be facing jail time for breaking state law, and thought he was only facing school consequences he should not be sentenced to 45 days in jail do to the fact that he was not aware that he had the right to not answer any questions that would allow him to incriminate himself.

12/2/2013
Frisco
Wyatt
Adams/CTE Center
I don't think that N.C had to be read his rights. He was in school which already makes it different, but it was the AP that was asking the questions not the SOR. I also don't believe he was techinically in custody either.

12/2/2013
Frisco/TX
James
Adams/CTE Center
N.C., as a student, was considered in custody and was questioned by an assistant principal in the presence of a law officer. By law, students are considered in custody anytime they enter an educational building and are under eighteen years of age. N.C. was 17 and therefore was considered in custody and questioned for a state as well as a school offense, he should have been read his Miranda rights. School safety rights are very important to the protection of students, but also, when Constitutional laws are involved, they deserve due involvement in cases such as this. Juveniles should be treated differential than adults because their rights differ. It would be unfair to judge two unequal things equally and so it is with juvenile versus adult court cases. I agree with the majority opinion that the state disciplinary action was at odds with the school disciplinary action due to the fact that one required open speech and the other allowed for silence. In this case, the two parts should have been done separately or the student should shave been read Miranda rights for both.

12/2/2013
Frisco, TX
Tamera
Adams-CTE
N.C should have been read his Miranda rights because he was "in custody" when being questioned. Under Miranda rights during a situation when a person is in custody their rights have to be read to them. Students' constitutional rights can be balanced by school officials checking first with the armed school officer to see if the students' suspected offense is against any state laws. Juveniles should be treated differently than adults in criminal cases because they're just kids and they make mistakes. People always say that childhood is made for making mistakes, no that doesn't mean kids have the right to kill or commit big crimes without punishment, but they need leniency. I disagree with the dissenting opinions because school safety won't be compromised because security officers can still be used, principals and administration need to be sure and check with them first if what the students being questioned on can land them in court or jail according to the state law.

12/2/2013
frisco/Texas
Masonp
Adams/CTE Center
Rights of one man do not over power the rights of many. In this case where he acted in a case of terrorism he no longer has his rights provided by are constitution. The man should not unless asked for his rights should not matter because of the case he is involved in. This was not a case of just a murder this put the US on high alert. This effected the people of the united states not only the voice of one but many. The students give up there rights when the go to school because of the environment is safe and protected. The school has the right to question anything on there property that is going on or could be going on.

12/2/2013
Frisco/Texas
Nisa
Adams/ CTE Center
I think N.C. should have been read his Miranda rights because he was in fact in custody. The student was unable to leave which means his Miranda rights should have been read to him. School safety concerns are very important however so are every individuals' constitutional rights. Reading the Miranda rights to the student in my opinion, does not interfere with the school safety. I think juveniles should be treated slightly differently from adults in criminal cases because a few factors come in to play. Juveniles are less mature and are not as intelligent as the average adult therefore in all fairness they should be treated differently. Personally, I agree with the majority opinion and think the student has the right to be read his Miranda because he was in fact, in custody!

12/2/2013
Frisco/Texas
Heather
Adams/CTE Center
In this scenario I don't think he should've have been read his rights because he was speaking to school officials more so than an officer. He was not in custody because he was not arrested and he was not being detained, it was more of an interview or series of questions. To some degree students should still have rights but school safety should still come first especially in light of recent events and events in the past two decades. Juveniles should be treated differently from adults in criminal cases because in some instances the juvenile may not even know what they're doing wrong, such as offering a friend a pill.

12/2/2013
Frisco, TX
Scott
Adams/CTE Center
It was fine that N.C.'s rights were not read. He thought he was facing school discipline. The officer did tell him that he violated the state drug law, but he still confessed. While there was an officer present during his questioning by the assistant principal, the officer was simply acting under the authority of the assistant principal not for any law enforcement agency at first. Because the school was questioning him and not the police, he was not in custody. Juveniles should not be treated differently than adults, excepting the public school scenario, which does not apply to adults. I agree with the dissent because if principals and other school officials cannot question students quickly, then there is a possible risk to the entire school.

12/2/2013
Frisco, TX
Danna
Adams/CTE Center
The Miranda warning puts the fifth and sixth amendments into laymen's terms, making it easier to comprehend. It ensures that everyone is aware of the rights they have in these amendments, making any statements given after reading the Miranda warning legal. Because the statements are given legally, they can be used in court, ensuring that criminals are punished appropriately. It is helpful to both the accused and the law enforcement.

12/2/2013
Frisco/TX
Deontae
Adams/CTE Center
The importance of the Miranda rights/warning. Is to inform civilian when exactly the can and can not speak. When put into Custody your Miranda must people given. If it is not given then all confession and evidence must be thrown out. So they are important because it could be what makes are breaks a case.

12/2/2013
Frisco, Texas
Chase K
Adams/CTE Center
The Miranda warning is necessary to avoid violations of the law by law enforcement and unintended self incrimination by American citizens. It gives the people of this country, guilty or not guilty, a clear and concise warning of what rights they possess when being arrested. This is absolutely needed in a time when so many in this nation don't understand or care to know their rights. Secondly, the Miranda warning provides a standard procedure that protects law enforcement from being accused of wrongdoing during a criminal arrest/investigation. Once the officers have read the Miranda warning, they are able to ask all necessary questions in order to do their job without fear of negative consequences later. The Miranda warning benefits both regular citizens and law enforcement further protection and understanding between the two.

12/2/2013
Frisco/Texas
Theresa
Adams/CTE Center
In the case of N.C. v Commonwealth of Kentucky N.C. was in fact in custody, even if he hadn't done anything wrong. If it is a rule that he had not been read his Miranda rights because he was in school then there is no getting around that. This could also have to do with the safety for other students so school officials can get away with not reading him his rights. But because he is 17 years old and in high school he should have the same rights as an adult.

12/2/2013
Frisco/TX
Chase D.
Adams/CTE Center
In this case N.C. was not in custody at the time he was questioned. The assistant principal was the one leading the investigation and therefore is a school officer not an officer of the law. The officer was just heard something that he said to the principal. This should be no different than if the officer heard him say this in the hallway. Juveniles should be treated differently in criminal cases because I know first hand they are very immature. I would agree with the majority of the opinions because distributing medicine should be treated as a serious offense.

12/2/2013
Frisco,TX
Jessica
CTE center
To give a miranda warning is very important because it lets the defendant know that they don't have to answer any questions and that they can have an attorney to help them. By issuing miranda warnings, it can prevent the suspect from confessing.

12/2/2013
Frisco/ Texas
Martin
Adams/ CTE Center
I believe the Miranda warning plays an important role in allowing the suspect to defend himself fairly. Although people commonly know "You have the right to remain silent," people rarely know the entire Miranda warning. With the arresting officer giving the suspect the Miranda warning, the suspect isn't just able to defend himself, but law enforcement is capable of using any information they get while still treating the suspect fairly. In all the Miranda warning is important due being that it notifies everybody of their fifth and sixth amendment right.

12/2/2013
Frisco/Texas
Colleen
Adams/CTE Center
We are given the Miranda warning to create a fairness in the court of law. The Miranda warning states our rights that we have, and may put into action while being questioned by law officials, preparing for our trial. This warning also protects the right against Self-Incrimination. The the case of N.C. V Commonwealth, the 17-year old should have been read his rights, because he was not free to leave, meaning he WAS in custody, and was questioned. I would balance school safety concerns with a student's constitutional rights simply by following what we do outside of school. I believe that juveniles should be treated differently from adults in criminal cases because they have had less life experience to learn from their mistakes. I agree that N.C should NOT have been questioned until Miranda was read.

12/2/2013
Frisco, TX
Aakash
Adams/ CTE Center
The Miranda warning is issued to a person after they are arrested by a police officer or a federal agent. The Miranda warning is very Important because the person who was arrested is now aware of their rights. This issue was first brought up in Miranda v. Arizona where a man was questioned without having his rights read to him first. In my opinion it is very important to know your Miranda rights.

12/2/2013
Frisco, TX
Banelly
Adams/CTE Center
I believe N.C. should have been read his Miranda rights, because at the time of his questioning he was in an enclosed room and could be considered being "in custody". Although schools should enforce rules to maintain safety, I believe it should not interfere with their constitutional rights. Juveniles should be treated differentley from adults in criminal cases as they are not mature enough to fully comprehend their actions. I agree that N.C. should not be charged as his confession is not valid due to the fact he was not read his Miranda rights.

12/2/2013
Frisco, Texas
Malik
Adams/CTE
The importance of the miranda warning is to warn someone when they are in custody and before they are being questioned. Some don't know of all their rights so giving them the miranda warning will give them a heads up before any questioning. For instance, some may not know they have the right to remain silent and when they are questioned they then incriminate themselves by confessing to a crime. So the importance of the miranda warning is for people to know their rights and for them not to self incriminate during questioning. Just like in many cases before the miranda warning was established, like Miranda v Arizona, N.C v Commonwealth, and many more, officers would question those and get confessions without them knowing of their rights. Then when the Miranda warning was put into affect, officers and detectives had to do a more thorough investigation and those in custody knew their rights while being questioned.

12/2/2013
Frisco/Texas
Tucker
Adams/CTE Center
The Miranda warnings importance is to protect citizens and suspects from self incrimination from the Police and to inform them of what rights they have when they're arrested. In the case N.C. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, N.C. Should've been read his Miranda warning because he was in a closed room with a armed officer which means he was in custody and should be read Miranda before questioning.

12/2/2013
Frisco, TX
Lawrence
Adams/CTE Center
The Miranda warning is importance because it lets the person in custody know what their rights are. It lets the suspect know what they are protected from (5th amendment: protection against self-incrimination) and that they have the right to counsel (6th amendment). It gives the suspect the right to not answer the questions that the police are dealing out which somewhat hinders the police authority. But it is up to the police to determine whether or not the suspect is guilty. The miranda rights just state what the suspects' rights are and what they can do during questioning.

12/2/2013
Frisco/Texas
Mi'Kala
Adams/CTE Center
The importance of Miranda warning is to make sure individuals know that they have constitutonal rights not to even speak when accused of a crime or questioned. This prevents people from self-incriminating themselves which means if they were to commit a crime, they don't have to confess. Like in the article it states that, "It is up to the police to prove guilt, not the defendant to prove innocence..."

11/22/2013
Frisco/Texas
Alyssa
Adams/CTE Center
In the case N.C. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, the 17 year old student, N.C. was considered to be in custody and questioned, making it a requirement for the officer to read his Miranda rights. Although N.C. was disciplined by the school, he also was sentenced to 45 days in jail for violating state drug laws. Because the state had also disciplined him, the Miranda rights were necessary. Once attendance is sent in for first period, no high schooler is free to walk out the doors. In order to leave school, a parent, guardian or adult (on ones emergency contact list) must check them out. Unless a student is 18 years old, in that case they are able to check themselves out. Because N.C. was 17 years old at the time, he was considered to be "in custody" at the time. Every student has their constitutional rights and I feel that although there are limitations in order to keep the school safe, N.C. should have been read his rights. Juveniles tend to not be as experienced in the criminal aspects and because of the age difference and lack of intelligence as well as maturity, age should be put in to perspective. I agree that N.C. was in custody and should not have been questioned until after being told of his Miranda rights.

11/22/2013
McKinney/Texas
Easton
Adams/CTE
I believe that N.C. should have been read his Miranda rights, my reasoning being that he was not only being questioned, but he could be reasonably perceived as "in custody", as he was most likely not able to leave the room or refuse to respond to further questioning. While I believe that schools should attempt to maintain a safe environment, under very few circumstances should this take precedence over a juvenile's constitutional rights. The only situation in which this need for a safe environment should overtake one's constitutional rights is when someone's life is potentially at stake. Furthermore, juveniles should be treated differently in some situations. This is because with juveniles, a slew of factors come into play such as school discipline vs. judicial punishment, etc. I personally agree with the majority, N.C. should not be charged, as he was not aware he was facing criminal charges and was, as previously stated, in custody.

11/22/2013
Frisco/Texas
Leah
Adams/CTE Center
Yes, N.C. should have been read his rights. While N.C. was being questioned, he was unable to leave and there was an armed officer. Therefore, he was in custody. His case passed the determining test of when the Miranda rights need to be read. Students constitutional rights should not be infringed on, unless there is an immediate threat to the students and teachers at the school. Yes, i believe that juveniles should be treated differently, but not let off the hook because they are kids. I agree with the majority opinion.

11/22/2013
Frisco/Tx
James
Adams/CTE Center
Yes, they should have read him his rights. a persons constitutional rights should not limited because of a schools pain medication policy. while being questioned he probably was not allowed to leave, so that would make him "in custody", and when a person is in custody they have to be read there Miranda rights before any questioning. to balance out the schools concerns and the students rights, they should let students bring pain medication to school, but give it to the nurse to administer the distribution. i personally do not think juveniles should be treated differently than adults in criminal cases. just because they are younger than adults does not mean they don't get to face the consequences for their actions. i agree with the courts decision because N.C. was, by definition, in custody.

11/22/2013
Frisco/Texas
Jaala
Adams/CTE Center
N.C. deserved to have his rights read to him since he was in custody and was being interrogated. Justice Bill Cunningham said that students are always in custody when they are i public school, however that is not entirely true. A student can just walk off campus at any given time. There will, of course, be many school-based consequences and charges of truancy will be placed, yet students are not "in custody". Although the distribution of controlled substances is illegal and it is understandable that he received criminal charges respectively, the principal and officer should have made him aware of the charges he was facing.

11/22/2013
Frisco TX
Jose
Adams/CTE Center
Reading someone their Miranda rights is required when they are in custody and being questioned by police or law enforcement. Since N.C. posed no threat to public safety and was not free to leave due to closed doors and a armed deputy sheriff who was present at the time of questioning any person would believe that they are in custody. The officer should have read N.C. his Miranda rights as soon as he established that N.C. posed no immediate threat and before he and the principle questioned him behind closed doors.The only reason the deputy shouldn't have read Miranda would have been if N.C. posed an immediate threat to safety or showed reason to believe he did.Balancing safety in schools and students rights is complicated but if the same student was taken off the streets and questioned behind closed doors and couldn't leave the room then that student would be in custody and read Miranda rights. Even though some rights are given up at school Miranda rights should not be given up as it is their to protect all citizens including students.

11/22/2013
Frisco/TX
Amit
Adams/CTE Center
N.C. should have been read his Miranda rights because he was charged with a criminal offense. N.C. was definitely "in custody" even though he was 'free to leave', he would have faced severe disciplinary actions by the school's administration. He was questioned in a closed room with an armed officer, that would make anyone think that he/she cannot leave. The school could've maintained order by just suspending him for school policy violations, but because they made it into a criminal issue, the situation should've been set up as a criminal investigation. N.C. admitted to possessing the pain medication and distributing it to his friend. This is apparently a school and state offense. In criminal cases, juveniles shouldn't be treated differently as they are still "criminals", and should still be read their Miranda rights. In this case, I would have to disagree with the majority. The situation was initially handled as a school policy violation, but turned into a criminal offense. The school, if they wanted to use the confession in a criminal court should have read N.C. his Miranda rights.

11/22/2013
Frisco/Texas
Brendan
Adams/CTE Center
N.C. should have been read his Miranda rights. He was quite obviously in custody and being questioned. N.C. would not have been allowed to leave that room had he tried, which, when combined with the presence of a police officer, makes the situation meet the requirements for someone being in custody. If N.C. was in custody and was being questioned, even by a school administrator, he needed to be read his rights. Of course, school safety should take precedence over constitutional rights in the short term. However, this hardly qualifies as a threat to school safety. The only person being threatened is the student who was given pain medication, and that does not qualify as a safety concern of a magnitude that would require illegal interrogation of a student. Juveniles should not be treated differently from adults in criminal cases. They have all of the same defenses as an adult, and whether or not those defenses work should not be determined on a criminal's age. There are some cases where a juvenile would not know any better in regards to criminal acts, but almost all of those cases apply only to children to young to be prosecuted anyway. I agree with the majority decision in N.C.'s case. N.C. was interrogated without being Mirandized, therefore his statement must be suppressed. He obviously had no idea what was going on, and although he knew what he had done was "against the rules", he had no idea it was illegal. If his rights had been read to him, he would have at least been able to realize the magnitude of the offense he had committed. N.C. was illegally interrogated, and no technicalities apply that can change that fact.

11/22/2013
Frisco, Texas
Ashley
Adams/CTE center
In my opinion, I thought that N.C. should have been read his MIranda rights because not only was he facing school punishment but also criminal charges, also the fact that he's a minor. I'm not saying I agree with his actions, I'm just saying that he should be aware of what he's up against. Technically, since N.C. wasn't in custody during questioning, he didn't need to be given his Miranda rights. Since the crime happened on school grounds, the punishment should be more severe than when committed outside of school because this can disturb the school's learning environment. Even though the punishment should be more severe, the punishment for juveniles should not be the same as adults. This is because juveniles and adults both have a different level of maturity.

11/22/2013
Frisco/TX
Divya
Adams/CTE Center
N.C. most definitely should've been read his Miranda Rights since he technically was actually in custody regardless of the fact that N.C. was in a public school. When in a public school, students still have their constitutional rights, and due tot he fact that the officer was present, shows that he was "in custody" since the officer was also stating that N.C. violated the state law. Since the officer was present to the situation, and N.C. was not permitted to leave during questioning, N.C. should've been allowed to have been read his rights. If the questioning happened without the police officer, then there is no need to read the rights since it's only regarding school disciplinary action and not state action, and this measure should be taken to balance school safety concerns with the constitutional right of a student. However, juveniles shouldn't be treated differently from adults because although they are younger, they still understand the concept of right from wrong, and they're aware of the consequences if the juvenile is to say, rob someone, they are fully aware of the actions they are taking unless they were mentally unstable or psychologically disturbed. I disagree with the dissent opinion because although we are in public schools, we are most definitely NOT under custody since we do have our rights and the statement about safety vs rights is, the dissenting opinion fails to acknowledge that without students being aware of their rights, we're raising a generation of people thinking that just because they're gaining an education, they have to give up their rights which is completely opposite of the actual purpose of giving citizens rights.

11/22/2013
Frisco/Texas
Joy
Adams/CTE Center
I think that yes, N.C. should have been read his Miranda rights. He was technically "in custody" at the time, because he was not free to leave and there was a school officer present during the questioning. I think that if there's an immediate threat of injury or death or any kind of drastic harm that could possibly be done to another student (or students), students should be able to be questioned without being Mirandized because the immediate threat, possibly a person's life on the line, is more important than this constitutional right. It depends, but I feel that in a majority of cases, juveniles should be treated differently from adults. I agree with the majority opinion, because N.C. clearly thought he was in custody and if he was being questioned while in custody, he should have been read his rights. His confession/statement should be thrown out.

11/22/2013
Frisco, TX
Anna
Adams/CTE Center
N.C., most certainly, should have been read his rights. It is clear that when you are sent to a room with an armed officer, you are in custody, because you are not free to leave at any time. Although he did give out his medicine illegally, the entire campus was not at risk, and if he was in custody, being asked questions, he should have been read his Miranda rights. I agree that the Miranda rights are not necessary for any type of school punishment, but for N.C.'s case, or any situation similar, Miranda rights should have been read. Finally, since he was a juvenile, he should not have been tricked into giving his confession, the same way adults are not allowed.

11/22/2013
Frisco/TX
Duncan
Adams/CTE Center
N.C. should have been read his Miranda rights before he was questioned for he fit the description of someone in custody. As a reasonable student, it would not have been just to assume that he would believe he had the right to remain silent or leave, given the armed police officer present in the room. I agree with the majority opinions because they fairly accomodate the rights and best interests of the students by making them aware of their rights so that they aren't manipulated as N.C. was into facing criminal charges. It is the burden of the police to prove the student guilty, not the student himself.

11/22/2013
Frisco,TX
Elizabeth
Adams/CTE Center
I believe that there is no way to justify that N.C. was not read his Miranda Rights. The Constitution states that the rights must be read when in custody, and N.C. was most definitely in custody. Custody is defined as not being able to leave when being in an encounter with the police, and N.C. was not able to leave the school office. I think that that students should be read their rights whenever they're facing legal trouble in addition to disciplinary consequences at school. Juveniles should be treated somewhat differently, but not because they're younger. Adults should understand that not all of a teenagers mind is developed yet, impairing their ability to make decisions and think rationally. I agree with the majority and think that N.C. should have been read his rights.

11/22/2013
McKinney / Texas
Jered
Adams / CTE Center
I believe that N.C. should have been read his Miranda rights, as he faced criminal charges. I feel that N.C. was in custody as the deputy was present during the questioning, and N.C. was not openly allowed to leave. I would balance school safety concerns with the constitutional rights of the students by having that the student in question must be read their Miranda rights should they face any criminal charges. If a student is not facing any criminal charges then, and only then, should the reading of the Miranda rights not be necessary. Although I am well aware that many juveniles may not be as well informed as adults, I do not believe that a juvenile should be able to plead ignorance should they break the law. Therefore I feel that juveniles and adults should be treated the same in criminal cases, as they have developed enough to make their own decisions and know the difference between "right" and "wrong".

11/22/2013
Frisco/ Texas
Brandon
Adams/CTE Center
N.C. should not have been read his Miranda rights. He was "in custody," as a reasonable person would think that they could not leave. He was questioned and in custody, but there is the public-safety exception. The school assistant principal felt that there was an imminent threat to the public safety. Prescription drugs can be highly dangerous and addicting. The student had his constitutional rights, but there are always exceptions to those rights. Public safety concerns are one of those exceptions. Schools can question and search on school property because they have a right to protect all of their students. The assistant principal questioned the student, and the officer was just there. He did not question the student and was merely observing. The student can be held responsible, criminally, for what he confessed to the assistant principal. In this case, juveniles should be treated differently from adults in criminal cases. Most teenagers are unable to make choices the way adults do. I do not agree with the majority in the decision. The student, N.C., should not have been read his Miranda Rights. There was a threat to the public safety, and the assistant principal had the right to question him on school property regardless of the fact that an officer was there.

11/22/2013
Frisco/TX
Ingrid
Adams/CTE
The law states that Miranda rights should be read when in custody and when being interrogated. Since N.C. in a closed off room with a faculty member and an officer that should be consider " In custody". Although reading his Miranda Rights could have scared him into not confessing , that shouldn't be reason as to why he wasn't Mirandized. Wether a student is in school or not he or she still has the same rights as everyone else. N.C. did not have a weapon so there shouldn't be a public safety exception as well ,when being in custody and questioned everyone should have the right to be Mirandized wether at school or anywhere else , unless it truly is a public- safety exception. Although, N.C. is a juvenile he should not be treated differently than adults. Now that does not mean he should go to jail or prison if he's under the age , but the whole point of punishment is so people will consider not to do something again or the same punishment will happen again maybe even worse. If you lighten up on someone the common knowledge would think " oh it's okay if I do it again , there just going to let me go". Letting juveniles believe that will just make it worse when their adults and have more abilities.

11/22/2013
Frisco Texas
Karsten
Adams CTE Center
Miranda Rights play a very large role within our criminal system today. Without them, criminals are deprived of their due process rights listed in the constitution, the supreme law of the land. Miranda must be read prior to questioning a suspect in a crime. Although there is exceptions, including for public safety, this protects the accused due process rights and complies firmly with the constitution. Without the reading of miranda, suspects may not use their rights listed in the constitution. Miranda plays a key role in reaffirming the use of the due process rights listed in the constitution. In N.C. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, N.C. should have been read his miranda rights. The questioning took place while an officer was present and any self incrimination could lead to legal trouble as well as a violation of school policy. N.C. was also in custody as an armed officer was present and he was being questioned. Reading Miranda to students when not under the presumption of threat to public safety isn't a big issue and miranda should only be read when the questioning involves some sort of criminal act. Juveniles should still have the same due process rights as adults because they should also have the same rights listed in the constitution. I agree with the majority opinion as the questioning took place in front of an officer, while the suspect was in custody, and the questioning had a legal affect as well as breaking school policy.

11/22/2013
Frisco/Texas
Ari
Adams/CTE Center
In this case, U think that N.C. should have been read his rights. I, being a student, know that when a principal and security guard are talking to you, you aren't really able to leave/ aren't told that we can leave. So technically, N.C was in custody for the inability to leave. But, one might ask about the safety of the other students. But, N.C. isn't harming himself, nor is he putting other kids in danger by force. For example, N.C. didn't pull a knife or a gun out on anybody. It is a actually the other kids that put themselves in danger if they ask to have drugs. Even when the other student was given drugs, he was not forced to take them and could have thrown them out at any time. I do not agree with the dissenting opinions because kids at the moment are safe, it is mostly kids themselves that put themselves in danger with accepting drugs and more. Basically, the importance of the Miranda warning is that it protects the people's rights of not having to self incriminate, and gives the people the liberty to have a fair trial, where the people can be represented by an attorney. The Miranda warnings help provide the people with the 5th and 6th amendments by letting the people know that they have them in the first place.

11/22/2013
Frisco/TX
Neel
Adams/CTE Center
Although N.C. was questioned with an officer of the law in the room, he doesn't have to be Mirandized unless the questioning is going to be used as evidence that accompanies a criminal charge. By definition, N.C. was in custody during the time of his questioning because he was not free to leave. Questioning by school administrators does not interfere with students' Constitutional rights unless there are going to be legal implications on the basis of the questioning. Although the dissenting opinion about upholding "public safety" may be valid, the distribution of pain medication does not pose a significant enough threat to public safety that a student's constitutional rights be nullified.

11/22/2013
frisco/texas
travis
adams/cte center
he did not have to have miranda read to him because the assistant principal and he admitted to handing out the drugs to the other student while the deputy was in the room so he should be able to incriminate him because the officer never questioned so it should not have been suspended . the school safety balancing with the constitutional rights the school should have the right to punish him but he distributed drugs to another student so they both equally should have the option the punish him because of it. the dissenting opinions are great points but the case should not have been dropped the way that it did.

11/22/2013
Frisco/TX
Taylor
Adams/CTE Center
N.C. should have been read his Miranda rights as soon as he entered the room where he was being questioned. He was clearly in custody, because there was an armed deputy sheriff present inside the room. I can understand the need to employ the public-safety exception, but honestly, this wasn't a matter of public safety. The public-safety exception is absolutely necessary in matters of public safety. If a group of people is endangered by the witholding of information by an individual, than the rights and protection of the group trumps the protection and rights of the individual. I believe that juveniles should be treated the same as adults in criminal cases. Juveniles should be treated equally because, as a 17 year old, you know what you are doing when you commit a crime, so you should be treated accordingly. I agree with the majority and the evidence they presented when they said that "no reasonable student... would have believed that he was at liberty to remain silent or leave." N.C. believed he was in custody, and he was being questioned, so therefor he needed to be read his Miranda warnings.

11/22/2013
frisco/texas
Jasmine
Adams/ CTE Center
N.C should have been read his Miranda, even though he was already on school property if he was put in custody then he should be read his rights. The Students constitutional right's should be the same in school and out of school, but my opinion was if it was pain medicine and if they could've tested that it was, then he shouldn't be put in jail for his wrong mistake. It depends on the juveniles case if it meets the adult criminal case then it shouldn't be different but if a kid smoked or stole candy or anything small then no there case shouldn't be treated as the same as a adult case. I agree with the student side because the student should't have been questioned without a parent present and he was read his miranda but having medication for his tooth shouldn't serve 45 days in juvenile.

11/22/2013
Frisco/Tx
Sarah
Adams/CTE Center
As N.C. was in school and not allowed to leave the room in which he was being questioned, the student was definitely in custody and should have had his Miranda Rights read to him. There are not many ways to balance school safety concerns and a students constitutional rights anymore than they already are. It is a very thin line that is easily crossed on matters like this, as you want to ensure the safety of all students while still not suppressing their rights. This can also be said for treating juveniles as adults in criminal cases. When juveniles commit certain crimes, like petty theft or distribution of OTC medications, they should be treated as what they are, kids. When other, heavier crimes are committed, however, they should be treated as adults and tried as such.

11/22/2013
Frisco/TX
Kelly
Adams
The importance of the Miranda warning is to protect suspect and criminals from self incrimination. Without the Miranda warning law enforcement would take advantage of the things suspects say. In this case, i believe that the student should have been read his Miranda rights because he was in the presence of a police officer, and in the end he was sentenced. To me, this doesn't seem lawful to question a student inside the school which is claimed to be "in custody" by Justice Bill Cunningham, without reading him his rights. If the schools intention was to arrest him as soon as he admits, they needed to read him his rights in my opinion. I don't think it would be that difficult to balance school safety concerns and constitutional rights. When you are in school, certain things should be prevented to an extent such as freedom of speech (ex. talking provocatively), but when it comes to questioning students and accusing them of certain crimes, i believe that a student needs to be treated fairly and by his/her constitutional rights. Juveniles should be treated differently in cases simply because they are not legal adults. Juveniles need certain guidance and cannot take full responsibility for themselves.

11/22/2013
FriscoTX
Jonathan
Adams/CTE Centre
N.C shouldn't have read Miranda rights because he wasn't in custody when he was questioned.Juveniles shot;d treat adults differently from other young ages because they are not fully grown and don't feel the same way adults fee.Adults in criminal cases have different cases from the younger teens because a lot of teens don't live alone, and most of their cases are not as bad as adult cases.

11/22/2013
Frisco/TX
Victoria
Adams/CTE Center
If N.C was being questioned under reasonable suspicion, I believe he should have been read his rights because as a minor, he should not be forced to have to answer any questions. N.C was in custody when he was questioned because there was a school official and police officer present. Juveniles should not be treated differently from adults in criminal cases because if they have committed such a crime, they must be responsible enough to pay for it. His constitutional rights should not be witheld because of the fact that he had something as simple as aspirin. But, the Miranda warning should be read to any student going into any questioning because they still have the right to be proven innocent in a small situation like this (but if the crime was threatening to the whole school, this would be a different story).

11/22/2013
Frisco/Texas
Mikaela
Adams/CTE Center
In a way N.C. did seem to be "in custody", because there was an armed officer present in the room presiding over the questioning. Therefore, he should have had his Miranda Rights read to him, because in the end it resulted in him spending 45 days in jail for being in possession of drugs. I would balance school safety concerns with a student's constitutional rights by determining how extreme the student's actions were. As far as juveniles being treated equivalent to adults, I'm not sure because I think it depends on the type of case you are dealing with. In conclusion, I do believe he should have been read his Miranda rights.

11/22/2013
Frisco,Texas
Bailey
Adams/CTE
The case N.C v. Commonwealth stated that N.C was under the conclusion that he was in the office for school disciple not for criminal charges. With this statement i would like to say that the student that is being question should have the right that he is being questioned for criminal charges and be read his Miranda warning because it falls under the preface of criminal jurisdiction authority not of the schools authority.

11/22/2013
Frisco/TX
Ronith
Adams/CTE Center
NC should have been read his Miranda Rights because he was technically held under custody when he was being questioned in a locked room and that there was a law enforcement official as well. Under the custody impression, when an individual is placed under restraint or is not free to leave than they are technically placed under custody. This remains construed with NC and if he had known so than he should have been read his Miranda Rights if he was going to be imposed criminal charges. School safety concerns should be balanced by imposing the laws of Miranda outside when a criminal is arrested or confined and can't leave questioning and that he is read his Miranda Rights, also to school stances if a person is questioned or confined in the same similar way. Juveniles shouldn't be treated any differently from adults because a crime is a crime and age differences should not have to play a role in the type of punishment being given.

11/22/2013
frisco/texas
Valencia
Adams/CTEcenter
Yes, i feel as if the N.C should have been read his Miranda rights, because yes, every student is in custody, but they took him to a separate room, and questioned him not intending just to give him school punishment, but also criminal punishment. which should have been required to read the Miranda. I also feel as Juveniles should be treated the same as an adult in a criminal case, because they are old enough to do a criminal crime, they should be old enough to accept the punishment, but then again that is just my opinion.

11/22/2013
Frisco/Texas
Noah
Adams/CTE Center
In my opinion, N.C should have been read his Miranda rights because he was indeed in custody. The fact that he was questioned while being held in a room with a school administrator and an armed officer. Yes, he did break school policy and state law but that does not disregard the fact that he was not read his Miranda rights when he clearly should have been. Enforcing the law and keeping the school safe is a priority, but is doesn't make N.C's constitutional rights any less active. Yes, I agree with the 4-3 vote in favor of the student because his constitutional rights were violated due to the fact that he was kept in custody and there was intent to take legal action against him without his knowledge when he was questioned.

11/22/2013
Frisco/TX
Austin
Adams/CTE Center
N.C. Absolutely should have been read his rights, he was in custody seeing as though if he were to just try to walk out of the closet he would've been stopped by the officer. If the problem or situation is a legal problem then the student should be read his rights otherwise it is self-incrimination. Juveniles should be treated differently than adults in criminal cases but not in the aspect that it would cripple them furthermore but be easier on them than adults. I do because not only was N.C. in custody but giving out two pain pills to another student is not necessarily a threat to other students.

11/22/2013
Frisco/TX
Ashlee
Adams/CTECenter
I feel that the N.C. was in custody during the questioning, in no was would he have been able to leave to room or get up without suffering serious school consequences. Also he was waging criminal charges so therefore at that moment he was technically in custody. I believe that as students when we step on campus we sometimes give up our miranda rights, but in N.C.'s case the miranda rights are needed since he is being taken to court.

11/22/2013
Frisco/Texas
Kelly
Adams/CTE Center
The Miranda Warning is important because it helps those who are being detained and/or put into custody understand fully what their rights are although they are under arrest and have broken the law. The right to remain silent is important because it helps individuals avoid saying anything that could be incriminating towards themselves and could essentially help them lose their case. Knowing that they should watch what they say helps them make a better case at their trial because nothing that they've said can be used against them. The right to have an attorney appointed to them when they can't afford to employ them is important because those at trial don't have to make their own cases because they are allowed to have an attorney for free to help them win their case, even if they've actually broken the law. The Miranda Warning is important overall because it helps those who are being arrested keep themselves out of more trouble because they can watch what they do to avoid more punishment or consequences that they don't deserve (falsely accused or innocent). Americans are lucky we have these rights even though most people don't truly deserve the break that they are given.

11/22/2013
Frisco Texas
Karsten
Adams CTE Center
Miranda has a very large significance within the world of law. Without it, criminals would not be treated properly and given their due process rights listed in the constitution. The miranda warning is essential to upholding the 5th amendment in the constitution.

10/4/2013
Irving/TX
Annabel Trujillo
Bradley/Nimitz
Although reading someone his Miranda rights may make charging someone with an offense harder, there is no doubt that N.C. should have been read his Miranda rights. As a student, his constitutional rights should not be limited for the sake of upholding the school's safety against pain medication. In addition, since N.C. was in fact being questioned in a closed room with an armed officer, it should be accurately noted that he was technically in custody. Just because a school officer is considered to be "more like staff", it doesn't mean that he is there as anything other than someone who enforces the law. However, since the Miranda warning ensures that the offender knows that he has a chance to prove himself innocent, it would not be wise to read him his rights if the entire school's safety is being threatened.

10/4/2013
Irving/Texas
David W.
Bradley/Nimitz HS
Considering what N.C. said was brought to court and criminal charges were pressed, he technically was "in custody" - being held in a room for questioning with an armed officer present. N.C. should have been read his rights, so that proper legal process could be brought about in the conviction of N.C. Juveniles shouldn't be treated different than adults in terms of the constitution because those rights are granted to every citizen. In terms of school safety, the school should treat crimes that are necessary for legal punishment like a cop would treat any adult offender by reading Miranda rights and . This would not only have the students more wary of committing crimes, it would also go through the proper standards for convicting someone. I agree with the Supreme Court that the miranda rights aren't necessary for school punishment, but for N.C.'s case and any other similar case, Miranda rights should be read to the people intended to be taken to court.

10/4/2013
Irving/Texas
Teven
Bradley/Nimitz
N.C. should have been read his rights if the Principle and School Officer had intended to go court about what happened. Due to the manner in which he was questioned (in a closed room with no one to assist or otherwise help him), he would be considered to have been in custody. Juveniles should not be treated differently than adults when it comes to constitutional rights, as they are granted to every American citizen. In this case, I agree with the majority vote of the Kentucky Supreme Court.

10/4/2013
Irving/Texas
Teven
Bradley/Nimitz
N.C. should have been read his rights if the Principle and School Officer had intended to go court about what happened. Due to the manner in which he was questioned (in a closed room with no one to assist or otherwise help him), he would be considered to have been in custody. Juveniles should not be treated differently than adults when it comes to constitutional rights, as they are granted to every American citizen. In this case, I agree with the majority vote of the Kentucky Supreme Court.

10/3/2013
Irving/Tx
Brian Jones
Bradley/Nimitz
N.C. was not inn official custody because he was not read his Miranda rights. Any and all police officers must read an individual their rights when they are being put into custody. A student at school is no different. I believe reading a student their Miranda rights if they are being arrested in school does not compromise school safety but actually helps strengthen it. A child with proper understanding of his or her rights may be able to protect themselves better using their constitutional rights.

10/2/2013
Irving/Texas
Lyndsey
Bradley/Nimitz
I don’t think N.C. should have been read his Miranda Rights. He wasn’t in custody he was in his school still and was only talking with the assistant principal. I think that the officer did not need to be the in room while the assistant principal was talking to him though. There is a difference between school safety and a student’s constitutional rights. When the student was still talking with the principle it was concerning the student’s safety in school. I don’t think juveniles should be treated differently. I feel if they caused the same crime as an adult then they should be treated the same. Just because someone is younger doesn’t mean they should be treated differently.

10/2/2013
Irving, Texas
Jacob F
Bradley/Nimitz
Although it was in a school setting, N.C should have been read their Miranda rights. The officer informed N.C that they were violating state laws, in which N.C would have to go to the court and plea either guilty or innocent. The second sentence of the Miranda rights include "will be held against you in the court of law." Whenever court is brought up in a situation, it is inexcusable for the accused person to lack the readings of their Miranda rights.

10/1/2013
Irving/Tx
Pedro
Bradley/Nimitz
I think that N.C. should have been read his Miranda rights and that he was in custody because he was in a closed room with a school officer who was an armed deputy sheriff. I think that schools should respect constitutional rights as long as the situation isn't an imminent threat to public safety. Juveniles should be treated differently from adults in criminal cases depending on the crime committed. If the juvenile commits murder or armed robbery, than yeah I think he should be tried as an adult.

9/30/2013
Irving/TX
Edward H.
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe N. C. was being prosecuted at the time with an officer, so I believe because an officer was present he should have been read his rights. But, N.C was not put into custody, so he technically didn't have to read the rights. I do not believe juveniles should be treated the same as adults; even though they are a juvenile, they do not have enough common sense to do or know what is rights. Adults have been introduced to the real word and should've already been adapted to the life. As for juveniles have not. I agree that the faculty should be able to question students about weapons or unusual behavior, but only if they feel threatened.

9/30/2013
Irving/Texas
Emily
Bradley/Nimitz
N.C should have been read his Miranda Rights. He should have had his rights read to him so he could seriously think that his next movement could affect his trail. In the movie 21 Jump street the cops had to know their Miranda Rights by heart in order to have their first arrest. I think the Miranda Rights are one of the Few things the police have to say to you especially if you don't know your rights so you can really think about whats going on.

9/27/2013
Irving/Texas
Joseph C.
Bradley/Nimitz
I think N.C. should have obviously been read his Miranda rights because there was an officer present while questioning him, and if N.C. was gonna be charged with anything he should have been read his Miranda rights. Also, he was a juvenile, and in my opinion he should be treated as one. I think they should do whats right to protect other children, but still treat him as a juvenile.

9/27/2013
Watertown/Ma
Kaylee
Rimas/Watertown High School
N.C. may not have known his rights so his rights should have been read to him. Depending on the case, juveniles should be treated differently than adults in the sense that they might not know the consequences of their actions.

9/27/2013
Watertown/ MA`
Sam t
Mr.Rimas/Watertown High School
i believe N.C should have been read his rights. He needs time to think about his next move and he could have acted differently in the case that he was read his rights.

9/27/2013
Watertown, MA
Francesca
Rimas
Yes N.C. should have been read his rights. As a student, there is a chance he did not even know his rights and may have acted differently if he had. Everyone is given the right to know what their options are.

9/27/2013
Watertown MA
Dennis
Mr. Rimas
yes, N.C should have been read his rights. Without the knowledge of not having to speak without an attorney present, he wouldnt have spoken at all. Juveniles should treat under age kids as adults because they are taught as to what is right or wrong in life and yet they chose to do the bad things in life. I agree with Bill Cunningham, for that only school issues involving a student should be dealt with by the school. As for the Boston Bombing, Dzhokhar should have been read his rights, no matter the issue at hand.

9/27/2013
Watertown
Ana
Rimas
In my opinion, N.C. should have been read his rights. One cannot just chose when or when not to tell a subject his Miranda rights, because of some inconveniences. All must know what their rights are, no matter if they are adult or underage. If he was kept in a closed room, with an armed officer, and asked questions, it is believed that he was held in custody. If he was able to be sentenced to jail for 45 days, he should have been read his Miranda rights, in order for him to know that under the Constitution he is allowed to not answer, and be able to have a lawyer present with him at the time being. In the Boston Bombing situation, they police should have also told Dzhokhar Tsarnaev his Miranda rights right away, no matter whether, once again, it was convenient or not.

9/27/2013
Watertown/Ma
Cody
Rimas/ Watertown High School
Yes, N.C. should have been read his rights. If he was then sentenced to 45 days in jail, there is no question that he should have had the choice to have a lawyer present. Also if he was in custody then he could've plead the fifth and not incriminated himself. There was no immediate danger like the Boston Bombing situation so he should have been instantly told of his rights.

9/26/2013
Irving/Tx
Marissa
Bradley/Nimitz
N.C. should have been read his Miranda rights becuase had he known that he was not required to say anything without a lawyer present, he may have chosen not to say anything. Although technically he was not in custody his rights still should have been read to him due to the fact that a police was there and that the police had the authority to put him into jail. It simply wasn't fair to N.C. I do feel that juveniles should be treated differently from adults in criminal cases becuase most young people don't neccessarily know any better therefore they shouldn't be treated like adult criminals. I agree with Bill Cunningham when he says that he disagrees that students should automatically consider themselves in custody when they are in public schools, because a school is not a police station, it is a place for education. Any broken rules by school should be delt by the school.

9/25/2013
Boston/Massachusetts
Anthony
Mr.Rimas/Watertown High School
To know your rights...

9/25/2013
irving
christian salaverria
Bradley/Nimitz
Yes i believe they should have read the Miranda rights because this would not be such a controversial issue. With students right they should be more aware with what they do and how they do it so things like this don't happen again. No they should not treat Juveniles and adults equally until the age of 18 and no i don't agree because they did not look at the facts reasonably.

9/24/2013
Irving/Tx
Jordan Brewer
Bradley/Nimitz
We all know the Miranda rights, but when we get sent to the principal's office should we get them read then. No! because then we would never have to answer any questions, and could get up and walk away. Most of the time we aren’t going to arrested for what ever we did, so what's the point? With being actually arrested in should his a whole other ball game though. Now we have the controversy that everyone should be equal, so does that mean adults and teens should be treated differently in court. Personally I think that teens make childish mistakes so they should be treated a little different because adults should “know better.”

9/24/2013
Irving/Tx
Jordan Brewer
Bradley/Nimitz
We all know the Miranda rights, but when we get sent to the principal's office should we get them read then. No! because then we would never have to answer any questions, and could get up and walk away. Most of the time we aren’t going to arrested for what ever we did, so what's the point? With being actually arrested in should his a whole other ball game though. Now we have the controversy that everyone should be equal, so does that mean adults and teens should be treated differently in court. Personally I think that teens make childish mistakes so they should be treated a little different because adults should “know better.”

9/24/2013
Irving/Texas
Leanna
Bradley/Nimitz
I think that N.C. should have been read his Miranda rights because he was taken in and had jail time. I believe that he was in custody because he was being questioned, even though it wasn't in a police station. If the issue that the student is being questioned for is more than just a school issue, then I believe that the Miranda rights should be read to the student. I believe that juveniles should be treated like adults in criminal cases because they did commit a crime.

9/23/2013
Irving/Tx
Hannah W.
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that N.C. should have been read his Miranda Rights because he was taking in and they should not have questioned him without them being read to him. Wouldn’t you think that if you were “in custody” you would be taken to the police station to be questioned. But N.C. was at his school when he was questioned. I do think that juveniles should be treated the same as adult criminals, because if they do the same thing as an adult but get less punishment because of their age,then why even punish them. We should always have the Miranda Rights read to us because we have certain rights and we shouldn’t have them taken away from us.

9/22/2013
Irving/Texas
Jose A
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that N.C. should’ve been read his Maranda rights because it wasn’t only school discipline that was being enforced. If he had known that his Maranda rights could have been read to him, then maybe criminal charges wouldn’t have been an issue. No way was N.C. in custody when he was being questioned by the principal and the sheriff. If he were actually in custody then he should’ve been read his Mirnada rights. I feel like juveniles should be treated similarly to adults in criminal cases, but not to the full extent. This is just to give them a ‘taste’ of how they would be treated if they commit the same crime when they’re adults. Keep in mind, these ‘juveniles’ are still minors, not adults. Although I think that the school did wrong in not reading N.C. his Miranda rights, I agree with the Majority decisions because if a students brings a firearm or weapon to school then they should be dealt with as soon as possible.

9/22/2013
Irving/TX
Kristiyan
Bradley/Nimitz HS
The Miranda rights should have definitely been read to N.C. because he was about to face criminal charges which have the ability to change his life forever. However, N.C was not in custody which most people don't know doesn't require you to speak or give out any information. I believe that juveniles should treat under aged kids as adults, so that kids can learn and get the adult experience when they do something that is against the law. I agree with the majority because school staff should definitely have the right to question students about weapons and subjects of that sort if they suspect any unusual behavior from a particular student.

9/22/2013
Irving/TX
Sergio G.
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe N. C. was being prosecuted at the time with an officer, so I believe because an officer was present he should have been read his rights. Not only that but I believe even though he is in school he should still be read his rights if he has a chance of being prosecuted for a felony. Also if he is a minor I believe he should not be punished like an adult because in many cases students are forced to do many stuff because of the way they will be treated for their decisions. This is the reason why I believe students should be punished, but on a less severe level.

9/21/2013
Irving/TX
Yamilleth
Bradley/Nimitz
Yes the officers should have read the N.C his rights, because it is a part of the legal system. The officers should have told the students his rights before he had confessed, since they saw that the school questioning had pivoted towards a criminal charge. Yes he was under questioning, but since it was at the principle's office, instead of a police department, and the officer didn't read the student his rights, the student confession is still technically under the school's questioning. Even though it was a confession, the law says that everyone MUST have their Miranda rights read to them or else what they have confessed will not be accountable as evidence. If we still expect this student's confession to be used as evidence, then what can we expect in other trials, with other confessions, where police officers also don't read the citizens their rights? Will this just be another stepping stone to taking the citizen's rights away? The police didn't consider the parent's thought's on the ordeal, or let them know that the student needed a lawyer present in order for his confession to be accountable. It was the police officers responsibility to read the student his rights. They failed to do that, and now the consequence is that they lost out on a huge piece of evidence that they could have used in court. Yes juveniles should be treated differently as adults. We always expect adolescents to act like adults, and yet most adults still treat young adults as kids, and honestly allot of them still have the mentality of a kid. It is unfair to just punish juveniles, when they are still experiencing and learning things in their life, and then punish them for making one stupid decision, when they could still have the time to learn and grow from that bad decision. Plus it would probably cause more harm than good, if adolescents who have minor offenses to be thrown in jail, where they can learn/partake in negative situations

9/20/2013
Irving/TX
Daniel I.
Bradley/Nimitz
Reading the Miranda Right to N.C. was not needed because the rights only have to be read if a suspect is in custody which the suspect was not. Even though he was not in custody, the Miranda rights should have been told to him if they wanted to use what he said against him in a court of law. The School should still worry about the rights of students because of it being a government building. Juveniles shouldn't be tried so harshly until they are no longer juveniles at the age of 18.

9/20/2013
Irving/TX
Matt M.
Bradley/Nimitz
If N.C. was in a position in which he/she could have been taken up on federal or state disciplinary charges, then N.C. should have been read the Miranda rights. To blatantly try and get someone to confess to a crime in an environment in which the one being questioned does not know whether their “words will be used against them” is unconstitutional. The officer in the room should have to tell any suspect to a crime that the crime they are being convicted of is a state or federal offense and consequently read them their Miranda rights. And if the suspect refuses to speak, so be it. That is a right that nobody can repeal. If the school wants to investigate on their own means, they should do so without the help of law enforcement unless they clearly let the convicted know they are potentially in an indictment situation. Justice Bill Cunningham stated “School resource officers are more like school staff than traditional law enforcement officers”. So why do these so-called “resource officers” have the ability to arrest and question suspected students without having to abide by normal law enforcement rules? Regular law enforcement officers have to read the Miranda rights to suspects. School staff does not have the ability to arrest and question students. So why are these resource officers falling in between the lines? It is not fair and it is not clear. A label needs to be put on the resource officers as either staff or law enforcement. if a part of the staff, then no criminal offense should be brought up. If a police officer, then they must read suspects their Miranda rights and let it be known the consequences they could face. As far as Juveniles go, anyone under the age of 18 is considered a juvenile and should be handled accordingly. Anyone 18 and older should be tried as an adult. Simple as that.

9/20/2013
Irving/TX
Aaron G.
Bradley/Nimitz
The importance of the Miranda Rights is to ensure that the victim in question has an understanding of what they're being charged with. It's a simple, yet subtley-effective method that goes without saying and is of great importance. However, with probable cause, I believe the Miranda Rights are not something to be required to take cause. Of course, this contrasts between situations, but if a person is of authority to read the rights, that same person should be of capablity to determine if it's necessary.

9/20/2013
Irving/Texas
Roberto.S
Bradley/Nimitz H S
The importance of the Miranda rights are to ensure that every citizen in the United States has the same,rights when it's involving the law in any circumstance from juvenile crimes, to fraud, murder, and etc. The Miranda rights are enforce to make sure that every citizen is innocent, until proven guilty. Also I feel that the deputy sheriff should have read the students Miranda rights even if the student confess to the time crime.

9/20/2013
Irving/Tx
Seth
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that N.C should have been read his Miranda rights because it no longer was just school discipline anymore it became a matter of him facing criminal charges. He was in custody when he was questioned so he should have been read his rights. Juveniles i believe should be treated differently because as young people kids make dumb decisions and are irresponsible at that age.

9/20/2013
Irving/TX
Brandon
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe N.C. should have been read his Miranda rights as soon as the discussion shifted from just school punishment to violation of state drug laws because he needed to be informed that he was at liberty to remain silent or leave. I do believe that N.C. was in custody even though a school officer, which Justice Bill Cunningham believes is more like school staff, was with him because he was being questioned for something far more serious than school discipline without N.C.’s knowledge. If a student is questioned for an issue that results in school discipline, then i believe that no Miranda rights are needed to be said. But if possible criminal consequence can be the result, then student must be read his Miranda rights. In conclusion, I believe that juveniles should be treated like adults because if they can commit the crime, the can serve the time.

9/20/2013
sid
nic
b faul
That officer should have known to read him his Miranda Rights because it still is a state law that he cant be illegally dipendsing which he did of two of his pills if that is how it went. I dont believe he is considered "in custody" because the sheriff was just a resource as they said and the student wasnt questioned by the sheriff he was questioned by the principal.

9/20/2013
Irving/Texas
Scotty C.
Bradley/Nimitz
In the case of D.C., I disagree with how the principle and law enforcement official handled the situation. The student obviously admitted to his mistake and was under the impression that he was just facing school punishment. If he had known he was facing criminal charges, he probably would have waited to get a lawyer to talk everything out. The student should have been read his Miranda rights.

9/20/2013
Irving/Texas
Scotty C.
Bradley/Nimitz
For you average crime, yes I believe that every individual should be read his or her Miranda rights. But in the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, I agree with how Federal investigators handled the situation. He bombed a city with terrorist intent, and no one knew how many more attacks might have came that day. Law enforcement needed any information they could get out of him to protect from a possible string of terror attacks. When it comes to saving countless lives and protecting this country, there should be no rights for the people trying to attack it, until the situation is fully under control.

9/20/2013
Irving/Texas
Monica M. M.
Bradley/Nimitz
I think that the court made a mistake on whether N.C. was in custody at the time. In N.C. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky the court finalized their decision based on the circumstances he was under. The boy had been in a closed room with an armed officer when being questioned by his principle. School discipline should have been involved because what if the situation was different, for example a cafeteria food fight. Would the guilty student who started it be read his miranda rights if an officer was present? Would the student be fined under a school policy that he broke? The schools have no set rules on bringing in the law unless it’s for sure that the school is in danger. It’s all dealing with school policies so why read him the miranda rights? Juveniles however are given the miranda for a reason. They caused a threat or danger to be in that situation. Though a juvenile if the person is 18 or older they should be tried as an adult. At that age we are allowed to vote. We have more responsibility to uphold meaning we’re aware of what is what.

9/20/2013
irving/ texas
Adrian
bradley/ nimitz
I feel and hope that i would never be told these words, but for the less fortunate i would think that in the case that you are facing criminal charges, it is your right to be read your rights. Many of the United States youth don't know their rights, rights that their ancestors fought and died for. They should be given the same privileges as any other person, the ability to exercise their god given constitutional rights.

9/20/2013
Irving/TX
Hailey
Bradley/Nimitz
I don’t think it would have been necessary to read the Miranda Rights to N.C. As it was stated in 1966 during Miranda vs. Arizona, the Miranda Rights only have to be read if the suspect is in custody. N.C. was not in custody, just because he was in a closed room doesn’t mean he was in custody. If he wanted to he could have left the room or refused to talk. I believe that N.C. knew what he did was wrong and was aware of the expectations his school had about bringing drugs to school and distributing them. I think that juveniles, at least at the age of 18, should be treated as adults. If they think they are old enough to make such big decisions they should be able to handle the consequences that follow. Kids want to grow up so quick nowadays and do adult things so it only seems right to treat them how they want, like an adult.

9/19/2013
Irving,TX
Elizabeth C
bradley/Nmitz
Although not reading the Miranda rights to any criminal suspect sounds out of order, in my opinion the N.C didn't have to read the Miranda rights. The agreement made over the Miranda V. Arizona says that all law enforcement must give Miranda rights when one is questioned custody. The student was at the time at school and was aware that what he was doing was illegal. I personally think that if law enforcers want to punish juveniles just like they do to adults then they should treat them the same. In the end the juveniles learn their lesson by getting a taste of the real world punishment. If the are old enough to commit the crime, they are old enough to suffer the consequences.

9/19/2013
Irving/Texas
Chadwick
Bradley/Nimitz
I do not believe N.C. should have been read his Miranda rights initially; however, once the state drug paraphernalia laws were brought into the discussion he should have been informed of his rights. I believe if only school discipline is being discussed Miranda rights aren't necessary, but when criminal offenses are introduced Miranda rights become necessary as the disciplinary actions following criminal offenses carry more weight and have more lifelong consequences than those from school. Having said this, I also believe if other students in the school are in immediate danger the student in question shouldn't be read their Miranda rights as the public-safety exception would apply. Given that most juveniles don't know their rights, I believe, if the situation warrants, juveniles should be treated slightly different and should have all of their right explained to them in a way they understand. I agree with Justice Bill Cunningham in the sense that students are always in custody in public schools and that just because a student is in a closed room with a resource officer present doesn't mean the student is in "custody". However, I also believe if the student, N.C., was most likely aware giving pain medication to another student was against school policy as well as distribution of prescription drugs is against the law. Therefore, the consequences of his actions should be in effect.

9/19/2013
Irving/Texas
Cyndel Solano
Bradley/Nimitz
He should've had the Miranda rights read to him because if the government wanted to use what he said he should be able to defend himself.Although he was not in “custody” it is only legally right to state the rights they have as citizens of the U.S. In school you should abide by the lawful norms because you are in a government funded building. If they are able to do the crime an act as an adult can do then they can take the same consequence that the adult will get for their actions.

9/19/2013
Irving/Tx
Miriam
Bradley/Nimitz
In the case of N.C., he should not have been read his miranda rights because the/she was not being detained or in custody. At the same time the officer should not have been there without informing the student of what was happening. Students should have been informed that the information he disclosed could have criminal repercussions. The miranda rights weren’t required but informing the student of the current situation was.

9/19/2013
Irving/Texas
Sarah M.
Bradley/Nimitz
I don’t think N.C should have been read the Miranda rights. According to the decision made during Miranda V. Arizona, law enforcement only has to give Miranda rights when the one being questioned is in custody. N.C was not in custody, he was in school. When a child is at school they know what the rules are and they know how to follow them. N.C knew he was in the wrong and he was given consequences for his actions. Drugs and drug paraphernalia are strictly prohibited unless under special circumstances. So, when it comes to bringing drugs to school there are no constitutional rights given to kids that allow them to bring drugs to school. Not only did N.C bring the drugs, he even gave some away to a friend, which is even worse. Depending on a kid’s age, they should be treated as an adult in criminal cases. At the age of 18 kids are considered an adult, and should be treated like one. Kids need to learn early on that they will be punished for violating the rules.

9/17/2013
Texas
Jacinto
Ms.Thorton
The Importance of the Miranda Warning is that it allows you to understand your rights what your informed and given as you are taken into custody for any foul mistakes that you did while enjoying the time your freedom was giving.

9/16/2013
Sidney/ Mt.
Connor Frank
Brad Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
I believe that they did not have to read N.C. his Miranda warning because technically finding a pill bottle with his name on it in the bathhroom should not raise enough suspicion that he was doing something illegal to where he would become arrested and need to have his Miranda Rights read to him. The officer that was there shouldn't have had to read N.C. his rights until after he admitted to giving someone else pills from the bottle, then that would give them enough proof of breaking the law. I believe that even though the student was not read his Miranda rights before he admitted to "distributing" drugs that what he said can still be used in his case. I also believe that juveniles should be treated differently than adults in criminal cases, because depending on the juvenile's age their brain will not be as fully developed and educated as an adults brain, therefore i believe that juveniles should be treated differently than adults when it comes to criminal cases.

Related News
Related Resources
Share