Washington ( CNN ) -- Police should have considered a 13-year-old robbery suspect 's age when he was questioned without his parents present , a divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday , concluding a child in such a situation would not have reasonably felt free to walk away from the interrogation . The 5-4 decision dealt with whether the unnamed juvenile was entitled to be given a Miranda warning , telling him he need not answer questions . `` It is beyond dispute that children will often feel bound to submit to police questioning when an adult in the same circumstances would feel to free to leave , '' said Justice Sonia Sotomayor for the court . `` Seeing no reason for police officers or courts to blind themselves to that commonsense reality , we hold that a child 's age properly informs the Miranda custody analysis . '' The case was one of several this term dealing with the extent of constitutional rights for minors . `` J.D.B . '' was a 13-year-old special-needs public school student in 2005 . He was escorted from his seventh-grade class and taken to a conference room . There a Chapel Hill , North Carolina , police investigator -- along with an assistant principal , school resource officer and an intern -- asked the boy if he wanted to talk about some recent criminal activity in the area . The African-American boy agreed to talk . The door was closed but not locked . After first denying any involvement , J.D.B . admitted breaking into several neighborhood homes and stealing items , including a camera . After the confession , the police officer told the boy he did not have to answer further questions , but he continued talking and gave further incriminating statements . The adults testified the youngster never asked to cease the questioning or to leave the room . When the 30- to 45-minute session ended , the boy was allowed to leave and catch his bus for home . Officers later that day obtained a search warrant of his house and found the stolen goods . He was again questioned . At no time were the youth 's legal guardian or parents notified , and Miranda rights were never administered . Larceny and juvenile delinquency charges were filed , and courts subsequently allowed the confession to be admitted as evidence , concluding J.D.B . was not in custody and talked voluntarily . The appeal focused on the school interrogation , since the high court has previously ruled underage students are subject to some restrictions on their movements in that setting . The 1966 Supreme Court ruling in Miranda v. Arizona established clear guidelines to protect all criminal suspects from being compelled to give self-incriminating testimony . As seen on countless cop shows on TV , the warnings protect against police coercion , but also establish when a person is `` in custody . '' Such factors as location and the length and nature of the interrogation all would be factors . Weighing that , courts must make an objective determination of `` how a reasonable man in the suspect 's position would have understood his situation '' about agreeing to talk . But this case came down to how the `` reasonable man '' objective standard could be applied to a 13-year-old boy . The majority said age is another of many factors that must be considered . `` Officers and judges need no imaginative powers , knowledge of developmental psychology , training in cognitive science , or expertise in social and cultural anthropology to account for a child 's age , '' Sotomayor wrote . `` They simply need the common sense to know that a 7-year-old is not a 13-year-old and neither is an adult . '' Sotomayor and the justices ordered the state court to take another look at whether the boy was in custody , and to decide that question by taking into account the `` relevant circumstances '' of the interrogation that Sotomayor articulated . She was supported by Justices Anthony Kennedy , Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Stephen Breyer , and Elena Kagan . In dissent , Justice Samuel Alito accused the majority of injecting `` personal characteristics '' and a `` reality-based approach '' to Miranda that will lead to that legal standard continually shifting . `` If Miranda 's rigid , one-size-fits-all standards fail to account for the unique needs of juveniles , the response should be to rigorously apply the constitutional rule against coercion to ensure that the rights of minors are protected . There is no need to run Miranda off the rails , '' Alito wrote . `` Bit by bit , Miranda will lose the clarity and ease of application that has long been viewed as one of its chief justifications . '' He was backed by Chief Justice John Roberts and conservative colleagues Justice Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas . The case is J.D.B . v. North Carolina ( 09-11121 ) . .
A 13-year-old suspect was questioned by a police officer at school . The court says officials need to consider age when applying Miranda guidelines . Sotomayor : Officers simply need to use common sense . Alito , in dissent , says Miranda is being `` run off the rails ''