JDB (5-4): A child's age is relevant to the custody inquiry. This decision is a radical departure from Miranda law as we know it. Just wait to see how the analysis here migrates to other factors such as intelligence and mental capacity.

Davis (7-2): The exclusionary rule does not apply to searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent. This decision is plain 'ole common sense.

[This message was edited by John A. Stride on 06-16-11 at .]

For JDB, click here.

An excellent dissent explains why this is a terrible decision, injecting subjective standards into an objective test. Just count the number of cases litigating age over the next few years to prove the point made by the dissent.

Note that Sotomayor wrote the opinion. So much for her experience as a prosecutor.

Yep, this new interpretation could very well clog up the lower courts with litigation as the defense explores how far it can go with the ruling.

Side-by-side it is hard to believe that the same court wrote both opinions, but there goes Kennedy again carrying the swing vote.

This case would not have gone to the SCOTUS if the officer, before questioning the juvenile, would simply provide the following informtion:

Do you understand that you are not under arrest?

Do you understand that you are free to leave at any time and go back to class?

Would you mind answering some questions?

I like that idea, JB. I think those would be very helpful.