June 1 (Bloomberg) -- Police aren't required to consider a juvenile suspect's age in deciding whether to give the so-called Miranda warning about the right to remain silent, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled.

The justices ruled 5-4 against a California man convicted of second-degree murder in a fatal shooting in 1995, when he was 17. The defendant argued that his statements to police shouldn't have been used in court because an officer didn't give him the Miranda warning.

The Supreme Court four years ago reaffirmed its 1966 Miranda ruling that suspects in custody must be warned of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney, and that their statements can be used against them. Statements made by suspects who haven't received the warning generally can't be used in court. At issue in today's case was when a juvenile is considered to be ``in custody'' and thus entitled to more protection from feeling compelled to answer questions from police.

``Our court has not stated that a suspect's age or experience is relevant to the Miranda custody analysis,'' Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court.

Still, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, one of those voting in the majority, also wrote separately to say that other cases may come out differently.

``There may be cases in which a suspect's age will be relevant to the Miranda custody inquiry,'' O'Connor said. She said one reason she voted against defendant Michael Alvarado was because he was almost 18 when he was questioned.

Questioned at Police Station

Alvarado was questioned by police about a month after the September 1995 shooting death of a man during an attempt to steal a truck in a shopping mall parking lot in Santa Fe Springs, California. His parents took him to the police station, though they were refused permission to be present during the two-hour interview.

The officer who questioned Alvarado didn't give the Miranda warning or tell him he was free to leave. Alvarado identified another person as the shooter and gave details about his own role in hiding the gun afterward, prosecutors said. After the two-hour interview, he was allowed to return home.

Alvarado was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 15 years to life in prison after a judge decided prosecutors could use his statements in court.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a new trial. The court said that because of Alvarado's age, lack of experience in dealing with police and the refusal to let his parents attend the interview, he should have been considered ``in custody'' with the requirement of a Miranda warning before he was questioned.

`Fair-Minded Jurists'

The Supreme Court disagreed.

``It can be said that fair-minded jurists could disagree over whether Alvarado was in custody,'' Kennedy wrote, though he said the state court's decision that Alvarado wasn't in custody was reasonable.

The Supreme Court's previous decisions on the Miranda custody issue ``have not mentioned the suspect's age, much less mandated its consideration,'' Kennedy said.

His opinion was joined by O'Connor, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Justices Stephen G. Breyer, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

``Why pretend that a child is an adult or that a blind man can see?'' Breyer wrote for the four.

``Common sense and an understanding of the law's basic purpose in this area'' are enough to make clear that Alvarado's age was relevant to the question of whether he believed he was free to leave, Breyer said.

The case is Yarborough v. Alvarado, 02-1684.

To contact the reporter on this story: Laurie Asseo in Washington at lasseo1@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: June 1, 2004 11:47 EDT