In re NC, 27 N.W. 319 (Mich. App. 2023)

The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s suppression of NC’s statements, finding that the interview conducted of NC in the principal’s office by the Chief of Police was custodial and required Miranda warnings.

The court stated in relevant part: “These facts sufficiently support that Nelson subjected NC to a custodial interrogation. Specifically, the location of the interview, NC’s young age, the manner in which the interview was initiated and conducted, the school’s lockdown, and the failure to inform NC that he was free to leave or free to refuse to answer Nelson’s questions support that NC was in police custody. See JDB, 564 US at 271-272, 277; Barritt, 325 Mich App at 562-563. A school environment can be deemed coercive given that a student’s freedom of movement is restricted, see DAH, 277 NC App 23, 28-29, and “the effect of the schoolhouse setting cannot be disentangled from the identity of the person questioned,” JDB, 564 US at 276. The school’s lockdown status here only increased the inherent coerciveness of the interview. See In re LG, 82 NE3d at 56; NC, 396 SW3d at 862. Further, that respondent was interrogated by an officer in the principal’s office “points toward custody” because “[o]f course, no student feels free to just walk out of the principal’s office[.]” BA, 100 NE3d at 232.

NC was questioned by law enforcement in an environment and under circumstances suggesting he was not free to leave, and he was never told that he could leave at any time. As the trial court acknowledged, some facts weigh against a finding of custody. But we find no clear error in the trial court’s finding that under the totality of the circumstances, Miranda warnings were required. The trial court properly suppressed NC’s statements to Nelson.”