In re J.S., 2016 Ohio 255

Juvenile J.S. (age 13–14) was charged with two counts of aggravated arson after an April 22, 2015 fire at an abandoned warehouse. The State sought a serious youthful offender disposition.
Police investigator Ben Graff and two fire investigators went to J.S.’s home based on information from another juvenile suspect; they asked J.S. to call his father and waited for him to arrive.
After the father arrived, Graff and the fire investigators questioned J.S. in the living room (an open area of the house) for about 20–30 minutes; several of J.S.’s relatives were present and people came and went.
Graff did not give Miranda warnings before questioning because he believed the interview was noncustodial; J.S. ultimately admitted starting the fire and later was arrested at the house and transported to juvenile detention.
Trial court granted J.S.’s motion to suppress, concluding the interview was custodial and Miranda warnings were required; the State appealed.

Issue	State's Argument	J.S.'s Argument	Held
Whether the interview at J.S.’s home was "custodial" for Miranda purposes	Not custodial: questioning occurred at juvenile’s home, in an open living room, father present, short duration, no threats, no physical restraints	Custodial: officers told J.S. "we need to talk to you," visible badge/firearm, three large men questioned a smaller juvenile, father not present entire time, officer would have stopped him from leaving	Interview was not custodial; Miranda warnings were not required
Whether statements were involuntary and thus excludable even if Miranda not required	Statements voluntary: no coercion, no threats or inducements, relatives present, short interview, juvenile had prior law-enforcement contact	Statements involuntary: juvenile’s youth and size plus officer conduct overcome will	Statements were voluntary and admissible

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (custodial interrogation requires procedural safeguards against self-incrimination)
Burnside v. State, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (standard of review for suppression: factual findings deferred, legal conclusions de novo)
Hoffner v. Alaska Dispatch News, 102 Ohio St.3d 358 (2004) (two-step custody inquiry; objective test whether reasonable person would feel free to leave)
J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011) (juvenile age may be considered in custodial analysis)
California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121 (1983) (interrogation not custodial when no formal arrest or restraint comparable to formal arrest)
State v. Gumm, 73 Ohio St.3d 413 (1995) (totality of circumstances governs custody determination)