On June 15, 2021, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that Miranda warnings had to be given before a statement could be taken from 17-year-old Zakariyya Ahmad (Zak) because he would have believed he was in custody and not free to leave. State v. Ahmad, 2021 WL 2639798; ___ N.J. ____ (2021). This was no real surprise. So why am I writing about this case? Because, at the time Zak gave his statement, he was not under arrest, had not been charged with a crime, and was not even considered a suspect; he was a victim of a violent crime.

To appreciate what this author considers to be an incorrect ruling that goes beyond what was envisioned by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), a review of the chronology leading up to the statement and subsequent charges is necessary.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]