People v. N.A.S.

124 While I agree that the trial court ultimately, erred by suppressing N.AS.'s statements to the School Resource Officer (S.R.O.), I respectfully reject the majority's conclusion that N.A.S. was not in "custody" under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and J.D.B. *293v. North Carolina, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2394, 180 LEd.2d 310 (2011). Because N.A.S. validly waived his Miranda rights and spoke voluntarily, I nonetheless concur in the court's judgment. I write separately to explain why.

I. Facts

T 25 The principal interrupted 18-year-old N.AS.'s seventh-grade…