Motion to suppress; Whether a juvenile in a school or a principal’s office is in custody for purposes of the Miranda v Arizona warnings; People v Mayes; JDB v North Carolina; In the Matter of DAH (NC App); Holguin v Harrison (ND CA); MH v State (FL App); BA v State (IN); In re LG (OH App); NC v Commonwealth (KY); In re Welfare of MAK (MN App)

Noting that no binding Michigan case law had substantively addressed the situation at issue, the court held that the trial court properly suppressed respondent-NC’s statements made to police in the school principal’s office, finding the interview custodial and Miranda warnings were required. As there was no binding Michigan case law on the role of “questioning a juvenile in a school or a principal’s office” in the Miranda custody analysis, the court considered cases from other jurisdictions. Finding those cases persuasive, the court held “that while the fact that police questioning occurred at school or in a principal’s office alone is not dispositive of custody, it is still a highly relevant factor to consider in a Miranda custody analysis involving juveniles at school. Indeed, the movements of a juvenile at school are generally restricted in ways not ordinarily applicable to adults. Thus, that a juvenile was interviewed by law enforcement at school or in a principal’s office, along with the circumstances surrounding the questioning, are relevant considerations in a custody analysis.” In this case, “the trial court found that the totality of the circumstances supported that” the police chief (N) who questioned him “subjected NC to a custodial interrogation, and” the court was “not firmly and definitely convinced this determination was mistaken.” The facts sufficiently supported that N “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 [N’s] questions support that NC was in police custody.” The court noted that NC was 13 at the time of the questioning. He was removed from his classroom by “the principal, who was accompanied by [N], an armed police officer in full uniform.” The trial court acknowledged that “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.” Affirmed.