In re J.M.
619 A2d 497 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When determining if a police encounter constitutes a Fourth Amendment seizure, the 'reasonable person' test is an objective standard that does not change based on the age of the individual. However, a juvenile's age is a relevant factor to be considered under the totality of the circumstances when assessing the voluntariness of their consent to a search.
Facts:
- J.M., a fourteen-year-old with no prior involvement in the criminal justice system, was traveling alone on an interstate bus from New York.
- Around 2:00 a.m., the bus made a scheduled rest stop in Washington, D.C.
- Members of a police drug interdiction team boarded the bus to question passengers.
- One officer, Detective Zattau, approached J.M. and asked for permission to search his luggage, which J.M. granted; no contraband was found.
- Detective Zattau then asked J.M. if he was carrying drugs or weapons and if he would mind submitting to a 'pat-down' search of his person.
- In response, J.M. did not speak but turned his body and raised his arms.
- The detective conducted the pat-down and discovered cocaine strapped to J.M.'s body.
Procedural Posture:
- J.M. was charged in a juvenile delinquency proceeding.
- At the trial court level, J.M. filed a motion to suppress the drug evidence, arguing it was the product of an unlawful seizure and involuntary consent.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress, finding that J.M. was not seized and that he had voluntarily consented to the search.
- J.M. appealed the trial court's ruling to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
- A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals initially heard the case, but that decision was vacated, and the case was reheard by the court en banc.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fourth Amendment's 'reasonable person' test for determining if a seizure has occurred require consideration of a person's youth, or is a uniform adult standard applied to all individuals regardless of age?
Opinions:
Majority - Farrell, J. (inferred from dissenting opinions)
No, the Fourth Amendment's 'reasonable person' test for a seizure is an objective standard that does not consider the specific age of the individual. The test focuses on the coercive effect of police conduct, asking whether a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officer's requests or terminate the encounter. To incorporate a suspect's individual characteristics like age into the seizure inquiry would inject a subjective element into an objective test, making it difficult for police to determine in advance whether their conduct is constitutional. However, for the separate inquiry into whether consent to a search was voluntarily given, the totality of the circumstances must be considered, and the suspect's age and maturity are relevant factors. Because the trial court did not make explicit findings on the effect of J.M.'s age on the voluntariness of his consent, the case is remanded for that determination.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Sullivan, J.
No, I concur with the majority's conclusion that the objective reasonable person standard applies to the seizure analysis regardless of age. I dissent, however, from the decision to remand the case. The record is devoid of any evidence that J.M.'s age, immaturity, or lack of understanding prevented him from giving valid consent. J.M. failed to produce any proof of his inability to consent, and his actions demonstrated a level of maturity and awareness. The trial court's finding of voluntary consent is supported by the record and should be affirmed.
Dissenting - Rogers, C.J.
Yes, the 'reasonable person' test should account for the suspect's age. The majority's application of a uniform adult standard to a child is misconceived and treats children as 'little adults.' The 'totality of the circumstances' inquiry for a seizure must include objectively observable characteristics of the person, such as their youth. A reasonable child, with the inherent vulnerabilities and inexperience of youth, would feel less free to leave in a police encounter than an adult, and failing to consider this denies children their constitutional protections.
Dissenting - Mack, Sr. J.
Yes, as a matter of law, J.M. was seized when cornered by police on the bus. The analysis must also consider the fact that J.M. was a fourteen-year-old black youth, as no reasonable innocent black male with knowledge of American history would feel free to walk away from a drug interdiction team. J.M.'s act of raising his arms was not free and voluntary consent but mere submission to a claim of lawful authority in a coercive environment. The case should be reversed.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a bifurcated approach to Fourth Amendment analyses involving juveniles. It maintains a uniform, objective standard for the initial 'seizure' question, providing police with a clearer rule, but complicates the subsequent 'consent' inquiry by mandating consideration of the juvenile's age. This creates a precedent where police conduct might not constitute a seizure under the adult standard, but any resulting consent could be invalidated based on the child's specific characteristics. The dissents argue this approach is artificial and that objective factors like age and race should be integrated into the seizure analysis itself for a more realistic assessment of whether a person truly felt free to leave.
Unlock the full brief for In re J.M.