Personal response:
In my personal opinion, the Majority ruling in Alvarado's court case is correct. It is correct since Alvarado was not officially in custody of the police. He was however unofficially in custody because he felt pressured to confess -to something he may or may have not have done- by the law officials present. Not only that but he was never read his Miranda rights.
This is similar to the Miranda v. Arizona because the perpetrator in that case was not in custody of police officials when the confession was given.
Enginuity's sample response:
I think that Michael Alvarado's conviction should have been overturned, not upheld by the Supreme Court. Even though he was not told he was under arrest or in custody, his belief that he was in custody was reasonable. This was especially true given his age. Therefore, he was entitled to his Miranda rights and should have been read his Miranda warning.