AJ 008 Juvenile Procedures
Weeks Chapter 1
| aj8_chapter_1.ppt |
—The Evolution of Juvenile Justice Chapter 1
—Introduction —CA juvenile justice system evolved from English common law heritage —Other Codes had laws relating to juveniles —2270 B.C. Babylonian Code of Hammurabi —Byzantine Codes of Justinian —Old Testament —Introduction —These early laws regulated what might be considered criminal conduct: •Theft •Burglary —Early Law – Regulations —Social conduct was also regulated —Relationships with adults —Obedience —Education —Hard work —Respect for elders —A good moral life —Early Law – Regulations —Punishments were severe —Designed to correct the child for his or her own good —Some included death —Others were abusive —No protection from abuse —Juvenile rights have evolved today to include many adult rights sometimes they have more rights —Age of Responsibility —Juvenile system was erected on three conceptual pillars —The first is the age of responsibility or minimum age of responsibility — At what age is a juvenile considered eligible for entry into the juvenile justice system or responsible for his or her conduct? —Answer: —It all depends upon: —1) What the offense is —2) In what state the juvenile commits the offense
—Age of Responsibility —States vary on their legal definition of adulthood for purposes of criminal prosecution —It is usually between the ages of 16-18 years —Age of Responsibility —23 states have no lower age of responsibility —In 1999, an 11-year old Michigan boy became the youngest person to be prosecuted in criminal court —In 2000, a 13-year old Philadelphia, PA girl was prosecuted as an adult for a murder she allegedly committed when she was 11-years old —Age of Responsibility —Many states have a minimum age under which an individual is considered too young to enter the juvenile system —6 - NC —7 – MD, MA, NY —8 – AZ, CA —10 – AR, CO, KS, LA, MN, MS, PA, SD, TX, VT, WI
—Age of Responsibility —All states have laws regarding the fitness of a juvenile to be transferred to adult court, in other words: ◦If the juvenile may be found unfit to remain within the juvenile system and then be transferred to adult court to stand trial —Between 1992-1997, 47 states made it easier to transfer juveniles to adult court
—Age of Responsibility —1995 – CA lowered the age from 16 to 14 for certain offenses —2000 – Prop 21 was passed and addressed the Gang Violence and Juvenile Prevention Crime Act of 1998 —This Act substantially changed the nature of juvenile procedures for minors 14 years or older —Dealt with certain felonies – 602b WIC (See later chapters) — —The English Experience —Under English common law: —Children ages 7 and under were not responsible or accountable for their acts —Entered the system as dependent or neglected children — —The English Experience —Children ages 14 and older were held accountable like adults —Included corporal or capital punishment —Included penal colony sanctions
—The English Experience —Children ages 8-13 were brought before the Court for the sole purpose of determining responsibility —Was the youth capable of forming intent? —Did he or she know right from wrong —Could they appreciate the consequences of his or her act? —Those found responsible were treated as adults —The English Experience —Two concepts joined the issue of age of responsibility —Parens patriae —Loco parentis —
The English Experience —Parens patriae —Latin phrase —“King is the father of the country” —Implies the responsibility of the State —King is responsible for the welfare of his subjects —Particularly those who cannot care for themselves —The English Experience —Application of this concept emerged in the 12th century —King’s Chancery Court was created in London —Court heard petitions for aid and relief for those in need —The English Experience —Primarily for those children who had no one to support them —These were dependent and neglected children —Those under 14 could become apprentices under a master in some trade —Or were sent to homes to work as servants — —The English Experience —Regardless of where they were sent they were expected to be: —Industrious —Obedient —Some ran away —Others disobeyed
—The English Experience —The State helped one category of juveniles: —The dependent —Created a second category, the “status” offender —Included the: —Runaway —Incorrigible —The English Experience —A special court was created: —King’s Chamberlain Court —Second philosophy of loco parentis came into play —Latin term —This implies the authority of the King “To stand in place of the parent” —The English Experience —King (state) could step in and become the legal parent —State had the responsibility and authority to define the problem and the solution —The English Experience —Chamberlain’s Court became the forerunner of our present (modern day) juvenile court —Established under the: ◦Protective umbrella of parens patriae ◦Authority of loco parentis —
—The English Experience —Hearings were private and confidential —Due process was never considered an issue —Purpose was to settle the unruly child down —Teach him some habits of industry for his or her own good —The English Experience —These courts increased during the late 1500s and early 1600s due to a series of “Poor Laws” enacted —Increasing numbers of children were roaming the streets of London —Many became beggars —Many were in gangs or involved in stealing —Parents would not or could not control them —The English Experience —“Poor Laws” expanded King’s authority to intervene in the family —This authority helped in deciding which juveniles needed removal and placement in apprenticeships or to work in private homes —The English Experience —Age of jurisdiction for the incorrigible or wayward child was extended to 18 —Those with a 2nd or 3rd offense: —Hanged —Transported to Penal Colony —Jailed in congregate cells in London’s Newgate Prison —The English Experience —During the early 1800s —Hundreds of young boys and girls were thrown together in prison with adult prisoners —Focus began to change on separating juveniles from adults 1850 the Borstel (reform school) System was developed and commonly used in England
—The English Experience —Many children were placed in stocks and whipped by their parents for misconduct —Many “stout and healthy” juveniles were committed to the Marine Society —Founded in 1756 by Jonas Hanway and Sir John Fielding —In 1758 – Sir John Fielding also founded the House of Refuge for Orphan Girls — — — — —The English Experience —1788 – a private institution was founded by Robert Young to house: ◦Dependent and neglected children ◦Status offenders —Purpose was to “educate and instruct them in some useful trade or occupation” —
—The English Experience —Reform efforts grew in the 1800s —Focused on the separation of juveniles from adult offenders in facilities —They could receive: ◦Education ◦Training ◦Treatment —The American Experience —We accepted three common law principles 1.Parens patriae 2.Loco parentis 3.The age of responsibility — —The American Experience —Youths under 8 were incapable of forming intent —Children 14+ were fully responsible —Children 8-13 were given responsibility hearings —If a jury found an accused juvenile guilty and capable of “discerning between good and evil” the minor would receive an adult sentence —The American Experience —The adult sentence included: •Corporal punishment •Capital punishment —The American Experience —Delinquency was not as widespread as in England —Fortunately, for those found guilty, most were found not responsible by juries sympathetic to children —The American Experience —So-called wayward children were removed from parents —Placed with master craftsmen or indentured servants until: •18 – Boys •21 – Girls —The American Experience —By the 1800s many of the larger cities were experiencing a delinquency problem —NY Commission was appointed to study the problem —Though many youth were released as not responsible, they continued their delinquent ways —The American Experience —The NY Commission reported: —Juveniles who were locked up learned more and better ways to commit crimes —Those left unpunished, were encouraged to re-offend —NY Commission’s Report recommended separate facilities for juveniles —The American Experience —1824 – 1st House of Refuge opened in New York —1826 – Boston —1828 – Philadelphia —Purposes of the houses of refuge were threefold: —The American Experience —1) Separate juveniles from the adult offender —2) Protect juveniles from evil influences —3) Educate, train, and treat the juvenile instead of punishing them —
The American Experience —Original intent of the reform was well meaning —Wording was lost in the application —“Softness” was lost – all cases —Most juveniles experienced: •Hard work •Severe discipline •Brutal corporal punishment —The American Experience —Whether the offense was for: •Stealing •Running away from placement •Leading an immoral life —The American Experience —1838 - Right to remove a child from the home was challenged in an Ohio case —Mary Ann Crouse was taken away from her parent’s custody and committed to a refuge for being a “wayward girl” —Father filed a Writ of Habeus Corpus —Claimed his daughter was deprived of her freedom without due process —The American Experience —Court ruled against the father —Upheld the right of the State to become the substitute parent —The juvenile hearing followed civil procedures —The Court was acting on behalf of the minor, not against her —The Court would provide all the protections needed for the child —The American Experience —By the mid-1800s the House of Refuge concept had been adopted by most states •Established as state reformatories —1870s and 1880s – economy faltered •States could not adequately fund these facilities —Industries were brought in on a contract basis •Factories – shoes, clothing, and shirt factories were established —The American Experience —Juveniles were contracted out as indentured servants —They were leased to: •Households •Shippers •Whalers —Apprenticed in trade
—The American Experience —In many cases an institution would send representatives out to take orders from: ◦Households ◦Stores ◦Farms —Juveniles were escorted out to the various jobs —The American Experience —The original “protective reform” concept was transferred into the philosophical custody of “hard work” —Many social reformers were concerned these schools replaced one form of punishment with another equally as bad and legally unfair —Reform Begins —Reformers pushed for other alternatives not as punitive —Among these was probation —John Augustus is considered the “Father of Probation” —Since 1841, he had used probation successfully in Boston —(See page 6 for his journal) —Reform Begins —Augustus’ efforts set the tone for reform for the next twenty years —1890 – Through the local court, the PA Children’s Society started to receive children in foster homes —NY Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children followed suit —MA welfare agencies did the same — —Reform Begins —1899 – Illinois 1st Juvenile Court Act passed – took almost 8 years to pass —Court model used today —Separate juvenile court was created •Civil in nature •Confidential •W/O the due process ( came later) • Juveniles did not have constitutional protections as the result of the early juvenile courts and appellate cases. •Preponderance of the evidence was sufficient for a finding of guilty — —Reform Begins —Parens patriae and loco parentis became statutory law —Petitions were filed on behalf of the minor —Separate detention and institutional facilities for juveniles —Probation staff was there to supervise the minor in his or her home —Reform Begins —1910 – 32 states had: •Juvenile courts •Juvenile systems •Probation services —1925 – all but 2 states had followed suit —The California System —CA behind in dealing with juvenile social problems —When it did evolve, it assumed the: •British Common Law model •Chicago Model —1870s – Juveniles up to age 21 accused of crimes were tried as adults •Criminal or status offenses •If convicted sent to adult facilities – prison —
The California System —Between 1850-1860 •300 boys were sent to San Quentin •Some as young as 12 •For their “own good” —Boys were committed to the San Francisco Industrial School —The California System —1876 appellate case —Confirmed the concepts of parens patriae and loco parentis —Ah Peen case – 16 year-old Chinese boy was found delinquent and committed to the SF Industrial School for: •“…leading an idle and dissolute life” —The California System —Case was appealed under the issue of minor deprived his freedom without due process —Court disagreed: •Constitutional issues not relevant in this case involving a minor •The action did not amount to criminal prosecution •“…purpose of this case was not about punishment, but reformation and training…” —The California System —The Court further stated: •“…having been abandoned by his parents, the State as parens patriae has succeeded to his control and stands in loco parentis” •The restraint…is in its nature and purpose the same…as parents, guardians and others…
” —The California System —The CA precedent was set •Juvenile proceedings were civil in nature —Any actions taken on behalf of a minor were legal —A Reform School System Develops —San Francisco Industrial School (SFIS) was established in 1859 by the Legislature ◦48 boys and girls ◦Ages 13-18 —A Reform School System Develops —State Reform School of Marysville was opened in 1860 —Closed in 1868 – due to low numbers •28 boys committed there were transferred to the San Francisco Industrial School •State agreed to pay $15/mo for each juvenile —1868 – Girls in the San Francisco Industrial School were transferred to the Magdalene Asylum in San Francisco ◦ —A Reform School System Develops —1875 – The ship Jamestown was transferred from the Navy to SF harbor —Acted as a supplement for the SFIS for boys as a place of commitment —Boys were given training ◦Seamanship and navigation ◦After 6 months they became eligible for employment on merchant marine ships — —A Reform School System Develops —Jamestown program only lasted 4 years —Ship was given back to the Navy due to mismanagement —Complaints that the ship was really a training ship for young criminals —A Reform School System Develops —Need for placement facilities for juveniles continued —1890 – state established a state reform school system —1891 – Whittier State Reformatory opened for: •Boys and girls •300 youths —1892 – SFIS closed —A Reform School System Develops —1895 –
Preston School of Industry opened —Older boys —1907 – all youths under 18 transferred from San Quentin to reform schools —1913 – Girls and boys separated •Girls were transferred to the Ventura School —Juvenile Court and Probation Services —20th century brought a call for reform – an alternative for juveniles to the adult court system —1903 – separate juvenile court and probation system started ◦Tacked on to the Penal Code at the last moment —Adult age set at 16; changed to 18 (1909) —Juvenile Court and Probation Services —Probation officer role was authoritarian in nature under the control of the superior court system —(1903-4) Local judges staffed and administered probation services —1905 – Law required judges to set up probation committees to help select probation officers — —Juvenile Court & Probation Services —Law also required: •County detention facilities be established •Written probation court reports •Procedures be established for commitment to state reform schools (Whittier and Preston) —Jurisdiction of juvenile matters was given to the superior court of the county —Juvenile Court & Probation Services —Some confusion still existed over the exact court procedures required for dependant and delinquent cases —Conflict existed between reform groups and local judges —Compromise resulted in the Juvenile Court Law of 1915 which detailed procedures until 1961 —Juvenile Court & Probation Services —Until 1929 – juvenile probation officers established in all but three counties —Disparities existed from county to county on how juveniles were treated —Reform efforts came and went for many years — — —Juvenile Court & Probation Services —1957 – Karl Holton of the CYA convinced Governor Knight to appoint a juvenile justice commission to study the problems (reform the juvenile system) —After much politics, in 1961 Governor Brown signed into law revolutionary CA juvenile procedures — — —A Revolution in Juvenile Court Law —The 1961 law signed by Governor Brown was the first time in CA that standardized juvenile procedures were codified (WIC) for: —Police —Courts —Corrections (Probation) — —A Revolution in Juvenile Court Law —Descriptions of behavior by which the police and courts could exercise jurisdiction were narrowed
—Distinctions were made between 601s (status offenders) and 602s (real delinquents) — 601 WIC: Under the Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC), a 601 is defined as a status offender.
• A juvenile whose behavior might be against the law, but is not really delinquent or criminal as we know it 602 WIC: Under the Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC), a 602 is defined as a juvenile delinquent
—A juvenile whose behavior is against the law and is criminal if committed by an adult
—A Revolution in Juvenile Court Law —600s (dependant/neglected cases) were redefined; they later became 300s in 1976 —They could no longer be mixed or housed with 601s and 602s in juvenile hall —A Revolution in Juvenile Court Law —Court procedures were made more realistic —New standards for probation and parole – roles and responsibilities were defined —Intake powers and procedures were standardized between counties —Procedures were included to reduce court commitments of status offenders to the CYA —
—Introduction —CA juvenile justice system evolved from English common law heritage —Other Codes had laws relating to juveniles —2270 B.C. Babylonian Code of Hammurabi —Byzantine Codes of Justinian —Old Testament —Introduction —These early laws regulated what might be considered criminal conduct: •Theft •Burglary —Early Law – Regulations —Social conduct was also regulated —Relationships with adults —Obedience —Education —Hard work —Respect for elders —A good moral life —Early Law – Regulations —Punishments were severe —Designed to correct the child for his or her own good —Some included death —Others were abusive —No protection from abuse —Juvenile rights have evolved today to include many adult rights sometimes they have more rights —Age of Responsibility —Juvenile system was erected on three conceptual pillars —The first is the age of responsibility or minimum age of responsibility — At what age is a juvenile considered eligible for entry into the juvenile justice system or responsible for his or her conduct? —Answer: —It all depends upon: —1) What the offense is —2) In what state the juvenile commits the offense
—Age of Responsibility —States vary on their legal definition of adulthood for purposes of criminal prosecution —It is usually between the ages of 16-18 years —Age of Responsibility —23 states have no lower age of responsibility —In 1999, an 11-year old Michigan boy became the youngest person to be prosecuted in criminal court —In 2000, a 13-year old Philadelphia, PA girl was prosecuted as an adult for a murder she allegedly committed when she was 11-years old —Age of Responsibility —Many states have a minimum age under which an individual is considered too young to enter the juvenile system —6 - NC —7 – MD, MA, NY —8 – AZ, CA —10 – AR, CO, KS, LA, MN, MS, PA, SD, TX, VT, WI
—Age of Responsibility —All states have laws regarding the fitness of a juvenile to be transferred to adult court, in other words: ◦If the juvenile may be found unfit to remain within the juvenile system and then be transferred to adult court to stand trial —Between 1992-1997, 47 states made it easier to transfer juveniles to adult court
—Age of Responsibility —1995 – CA lowered the age from 16 to 14 for certain offenses —2000 – Prop 21 was passed and addressed the Gang Violence and Juvenile Prevention Crime Act of 1998 —This Act substantially changed the nature of juvenile procedures for minors 14 years or older —Dealt with certain felonies – 602b WIC (See later chapters) — —The English Experience —Under English common law: —Children ages 7 and under were not responsible or accountable for their acts —Entered the system as dependent or neglected children — —The English Experience —Children ages 14 and older were held accountable like adults —Included corporal or capital punishment —Included penal colony sanctions
—The English Experience —Children ages 8-13 were brought before the Court for the sole purpose of determining responsibility —Was the youth capable of forming intent? —Did he or she know right from wrong —Could they appreciate the consequences of his or her act? —Those found responsible were treated as adults —The English Experience —Two concepts joined the issue of age of responsibility —Parens patriae —Loco parentis —
The English Experience —Parens patriae —Latin phrase —“King is the father of the country” —Implies the responsibility of the State —King is responsible for the welfare of his subjects —Particularly those who cannot care for themselves —The English Experience —Application of this concept emerged in the 12th century —King’s Chancery Court was created in London —Court heard petitions for aid and relief for those in need —The English Experience —Primarily for those children who had no one to support them —These were dependent and neglected children —Those under 14 could become apprentices under a master in some trade —Or were sent to homes to work as servants — —The English Experience —Regardless of where they were sent they were expected to be: —Industrious —Obedient —Some ran away —Others disobeyed
—The English Experience —The State helped one category of juveniles: —The dependent —Created a second category, the “status” offender —Included the: —Runaway —Incorrigible —The English Experience —A special court was created: —King’s Chamberlain Court —Second philosophy of loco parentis came into play —Latin term —This implies the authority of the King “To stand in place of the parent” —The English Experience —King (state) could step in and become the legal parent —State had the responsibility and authority to define the problem and the solution —The English Experience —Chamberlain’s Court became the forerunner of our present (modern day) juvenile court —Established under the: ◦Protective umbrella of parens patriae ◦Authority of loco parentis —
—The English Experience —Hearings were private and confidential —Due process was never considered an issue —Purpose was to settle the unruly child down —Teach him some habits of industry for his or her own good —The English Experience —These courts increased during the late 1500s and early 1600s due to a series of “Poor Laws” enacted —Increasing numbers of children were roaming the streets of London —Many became beggars —Many were in gangs or involved in stealing —Parents would not or could not control them —The English Experience —“Poor Laws” expanded King’s authority to intervene in the family —This authority helped in deciding which juveniles needed removal and placement in apprenticeships or to work in private homes —The English Experience —Age of jurisdiction for the incorrigible or wayward child was extended to 18 —Those with a 2nd or 3rd offense: —Hanged —Transported to Penal Colony —Jailed in congregate cells in London’s Newgate Prison —The English Experience —During the early 1800s —Hundreds of young boys and girls were thrown together in prison with adult prisoners —Focus began to change on separating juveniles from adults 1850 the Borstel (reform school) System was developed and commonly used in England
—The English Experience —Many children were placed in stocks and whipped by their parents for misconduct —Many “stout and healthy” juveniles were committed to the Marine Society —Founded in 1756 by Jonas Hanway and Sir John Fielding —In 1758 – Sir John Fielding also founded the House of Refuge for Orphan Girls — — — — —The English Experience —1788 – a private institution was founded by Robert Young to house: ◦Dependent and neglected children ◦Status offenders —Purpose was to “educate and instruct them in some useful trade or occupation” —
—The English Experience —Reform efforts grew in the 1800s —Focused on the separation of juveniles from adult offenders in facilities —They could receive: ◦Education ◦Training ◦Treatment —The American Experience —We accepted three common law principles 1.Parens patriae 2.Loco parentis 3.The age of responsibility — —The American Experience —Youths under 8 were incapable of forming intent —Children 14+ were fully responsible —Children 8-13 were given responsibility hearings —If a jury found an accused juvenile guilty and capable of “discerning between good and evil” the minor would receive an adult sentence —The American Experience —The adult sentence included: •Corporal punishment •Capital punishment —The American Experience —Delinquency was not as widespread as in England —Fortunately, for those found guilty, most were found not responsible by juries sympathetic to children —The American Experience —So-called wayward children were removed from parents —Placed with master craftsmen or indentured servants until: •18 – Boys •21 – Girls —The American Experience —By the 1800s many of the larger cities were experiencing a delinquency problem —NY Commission was appointed to study the problem —Though many youth were released as not responsible, they continued their delinquent ways —The American Experience —The NY Commission reported: —Juveniles who were locked up learned more and better ways to commit crimes —Those left unpunished, were encouraged to re-offend —NY Commission’s Report recommended separate facilities for juveniles —The American Experience —1824 – 1st House of Refuge opened in New York —1826 – Boston —1828 – Philadelphia —Purposes of the houses of refuge were threefold: —The American Experience —1) Separate juveniles from the adult offender —2) Protect juveniles from evil influences —3) Educate, train, and treat the juvenile instead of punishing them —
The American Experience —Original intent of the reform was well meaning —Wording was lost in the application —“Softness” was lost – all cases —Most juveniles experienced: •Hard work •Severe discipline •Brutal corporal punishment —The American Experience —Whether the offense was for: •Stealing •Running away from placement •Leading an immoral life —The American Experience —1838 - Right to remove a child from the home was challenged in an Ohio case —Mary Ann Crouse was taken away from her parent’s custody and committed to a refuge for being a “wayward girl” —Father filed a Writ of Habeus Corpus —Claimed his daughter was deprived of her freedom without due process —The American Experience —Court ruled against the father —Upheld the right of the State to become the substitute parent —The juvenile hearing followed civil procedures —The Court was acting on behalf of the minor, not against her —The Court would provide all the protections needed for the child —The American Experience —By the mid-1800s the House of Refuge concept had been adopted by most states •Established as state reformatories —1870s and 1880s – economy faltered •States could not adequately fund these facilities —Industries were brought in on a contract basis •Factories – shoes, clothing, and shirt factories were established —The American Experience —Juveniles were contracted out as indentured servants —They were leased to: •Households •Shippers •Whalers —Apprenticed in trade
—The American Experience —In many cases an institution would send representatives out to take orders from: ◦Households ◦Stores ◦Farms —Juveniles were escorted out to the various jobs —The American Experience —The original “protective reform” concept was transferred into the philosophical custody of “hard work” —Many social reformers were concerned these schools replaced one form of punishment with another equally as bad and legally unfair —Reform Begins —Reformers pushed for other alternatives not as punitive —Among these was probation —John Augustus is considered the “Father of Probation” —Since 1841, he had used probation successfully in Boston —(See page 6 for his journal) —Reform Begins —Augustus’ efforts set the tone for reform for the next twenty years —1890 – Through the local court, the PA Children’s Society started to receive children in foster homes —NY Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children followed suit —MA welfare agencies did the same — —Reform Begins —1899 – Illinois 1st Juvenile Court Act passed – took almost 8 years to pass —Court model used today —Separate juvenile court was created •Civil in nature •Confidential •W/O the due process ( came later) • Juveniles did not have constitutional protections as the result of the early juvenile courts and appellate cases. •Preponderance of the evidence was sufficient for a finding of guilty — —Reform Begins —Parens patriae and loco parentis became statutory law —Petitions were filed on behalf of the minor —Separate detention and institutional facilities for juveniles —Probation staff was there to supervise the minor in his or her home —Reform Begins —1910 – 32 states had: •Juvenile courts •Juvenile systems •Probation services —1925 – all but 2 states had followed suit —The California System —CA behind in dealing with juvenile social problems —When it did evolve, it assumed the: •British Common Law model •Chicago Model —1870s – Juveniles up to age 21 accused of crimes were tried as adults •Criminal or status offenses •If convicted sent to adult facilities – prison —
The California System —Between 1850-1860 •300 boys were sent to San Quentin •Some as young as 12 •For their “own good” —Boys were committed to the San Francisco Industrial School —The California System —1876 appellate case —Confirmed the concepts of parens patriae and loco parentis —Ah Peen case – 16 year-old Chinese boy was found delinquent and committed to the SF Industrial School for: •“…leading an idle and dissolute life” —The California System —Case was appealed under the issue of minor deprived his freedom without due process —Court disagreed: •Constitutional issues not relevant in this case involving a minor •The action did not amount to criminal prosecution •“…purpose of this case was not about punishment, but reformation and training…” —The California System —The Court further stated: •“…having been abandoned by his parents, the State as parens patriae has succeeded to his control and stands in loco parentis” •The restraint…is in its nature and purpose the same…as parents, guardians and others…
” —The California System —The CA precedent was set •Juvenile proceedings were civil in nature —Any actions taken on behalf of a minor were legal —A Reform School System Develops —San Francisco Industrial School (SFIS) was established in 1859 by the Legislature ◦48 boys and girls ◦Ages 13-18 —A Reform School System Develops —State Reform School of Marysville was opened in 1860 —Closed in 1868 – due to low numbers •28 boys committed there were transferred to the San Francisco Industrial School •State agreed to pay $15/mo for each juvenile —1868 – Girls in the San Francisco Industrial School were transferred to the Magdalene Asylum in San Francisco ◦ —A Reform School System Develops —1875 – The ship Jamestown was transferred from the Navy to SF harbor —Acted as a supplement for the SFIS for boys as a place of commitment —Boys were given training ◦Seamanship and navigation ◦After 6 months they became eligible for employment on merchant marine ships — —A Reform School System Develops —Jamestown program only lasted 4 years —Ship was given back to the Navy due to mismanagement —Complaints that the ship was really a training ship for young criminals —A Reform School System Develops —Need for placement facilities for juveniles continued —1890 – state established a state reform school system —1891 – Whittier State Reformatory opened for: •Boys and girls •300 youths —1892 – SFIS closed —A Reform School System Develops —1895 –
Preston School of Industry opened —Older boys —1907 – all youths under 18 transferred from San Quentin to reform schools —1913 – Girls and boys separated •Girls were transferred to the Ventura School —Juvenile Court and Probation Services —20th century brought a call for reform – an alternative for juveniles to the adult court system —1903 – separate juvenile court and probation system started ◦Tacked on to the Penal Code at the last moment —Adult age set at 16; changed to 18 (1909) —Juvenile Court and Probation Services —Probation officer role was authoritarian in nature under the control of the superior court system —(1903-4) Local judges staffed and administered probation services —1905 – Law required judges to set up probation committees to help select probation officers — —Juvenile Court & Probation Services —Law also required: •County detention facilities be established •Written probation court reports •Procedures be established for commitment to state reform schools (Whittier and Preston) —Jurisdiction of juvenile matters was given to the superior court of the county —Juvenile Court & Probation Services —Some confusion still existed over the exact court procedures required for dependant and delinquent cases —Conflict existed between reform groups and local judges —Compromise resulted in the Juvenile Court Law of 1915 which detailed procedures until 1961 —Juvenile Court & Probation Services —Until 1929 – juvenile probation officers established in all but three counties —Disparities existed from county to county on how juveniles were treated —Reform efforts came and went for many years — — —Juvenile Court & Probation Services —1957 – Karl Holton of the CYA convinced Governor Knight to appoint a juvenile justice commission to study the problems (reform the juvenile system) —After much politics, in 1961 Governor Brown signed into law revolutionary CA juvenile procedures — — —A Revolution in Juvenile Court Law —The 1961 law signed by Governor Brown was the first time in CA that standardized juvenile procedures were codified (WIC) for: —Police —Courts —Corrections (Probation) — —A Revolution in Juvenile Court Law —Descriptions of behavior by which the police and courts could exercise jurisdiction were narrowed
—Distinctions were made between 601s (status offenders) and 602s (real delinquents) — 601 WIC: Under the Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC), a 601 is defined as a status offender.
• A juvenile whose behavior might be against the law, but is not really delinquent or criminal as we know it 602 WIC: Under the Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC), a 602 is defined as a juvenile delinquent
—A juvenile whose behavior is against the law and is criminal if committed by an adult
—A Revolution in Juvenile Court Law —600s (dependant/neglected cases) were redefined; they later became 300s in 1976 —They could no longer be mixed or housed with 601s and 602s in juvenile hall —A Revolution in Juvenile Court Law —Court procedures were made more realistic —New standards for probation and parole – roles and responsibilities were defined —Intake powers and procedures were standardized between counties —Procedures were included to reduce court commitments of status offenders to the CYA —
Chapter 2-
•
The Status Offender;
• Pre-1976
• Introduction
• Incorrigibility has always been an issue for adults
• Currently, in CA, minors under 18 are prohibited from:
• Disobeying their parents or teachers
• Running away from home
• Committing truancy
• Violating curfews
• Introduction
• These acts are considered status offenses
• A status offense is:
• Any act prohibited by law for juveniles that is non-criminal
• Legal definition found in:
• CA 601 WIC (Welfare and Institutions Code)
• Regulates most juvenile procedures
• The Status Offender, 1961-1976
• 1961 – 601 WIC definition enacted
• Any person under 21 who persistently or habitually refuses to:
• Obey reasonable and proper orders of parents, guardians, custodians, school authorities
• Or is habitually truant
• The Status Offender, 1961-1976
• Or is in danger of leading an idle life, dissolute, lewd, or immoral life:
• Is considered to be under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, therefore a:
• Ward of the state
• Status offense age – up to 21
• The Status Offender, 1961-1976
• Police were routinely called to take into “custody” an incorrigible or truant minor
• Parents often called the police
• Child was beyond their control
• Minor was taken to juvenile hall - term for CA juvenile facilities
• Runaways were actively pursued by the police and suffered the same fate
• The Status Offender, 1961-1976
• Minors were often taken into custody for:
• “… being in danger of leading an idle, dissolute, lewd, or immoral life”
• By request of the parents or a police motion
• Usually included sexual behavior, drinking, fighting or loitering – wrong place at wrong time
• The Status Offender, 1961-1976
• Loitering – “Catch-all” offense for police and probation
• See text for statutory rape example
• Minor was booked through Intake – an on-duty probation officer
• Screens cases
• Minor was held accountable for actions
• The Status Offender, 1961-1976
• Parents were never blamed
• No matter how incompetent, abusive or unreasonable
• If parents, probation department, and child agreed no agency action was needed, the child was released – case dismissed
• The Status Offender, 1961-1976
• If intake or parents thought some action (informal) was necessary
• Minor was placed on six months informal probation
• Final decision regarding the case was delayed for six months
• The Status Offender, 1961-1976
• If intake or parents thought some formal action was necessary
• Intake filed a petition
• Included the allegation (charge)
• Procedure was a legal request for the court to intervene (parens patriae)
• Take control (loco parentis) and provide the necessary guidance
• The Status Offender, 1961-1976
• If the minor was not wanted at home or
• Minor would not go home
• Minor was detained in juvenile hall
• A secured locked facility
• Brought to court within 48 hours
• Judge explained the petition process
• Court date was set to determine if further detention was necessary
• The Status Offender, 1961-1976
• If detained, the minor was placed into juvenile hall by age or maturity – not by offense
• Status offenders were mixed with delinquents
• Runaways treated equally as murderers
• Probation conditions were established upon release
• How the System Created Delinquents
• Status offenders could be returned home on probation or
• Placed in a foster home or
• Committed to a county ranch or school
• They could not be committed to CYA unless he or she violated probation
• Case was then filed under 602 code
• How the System Created Delinquents
• Actions escalated from status offense to law violator offense
• Minor was usually given several chances to “straighten out” before being sent to CYA
• How the System Created Delinquents
• Hundreds of juveniles were committed to CYA for conduct that never exceeded that of being incorrigible, runaway, or “… being in danger of leading an idle, dissolute, lewd, or immoral life”
• CA had many institutions to deal with the large number of juveniles
• How the System Created Delinquents
• Los Guilicos (near Santa Rosa) held the younger girls
• Ventura was the “finishing school” for the real delinquents
• A Legal Challenge to the System
• Legal challenge (Federal) to the constitutionality of 601 phrase
• “…in danger of leading an idle, dissolute, lewd, or immoral life”
• San Francisco case
• Gonzales v. Maillard (1971)
• Girl was attacked by gang members
• She identified three of the offenders
• A Legal Challenge to the System
• Police arrested ten from the gang (cited)
• Charges were later dropped
• Class action suit filed on behalf of one of the gang members – sought relief:
• Arrest was unconstitutional
• Injunction from enforcement
• Damages from police
• A Legal Challenge to the System
• Expunging of records
• Federal Court ruled the law was similar to adult cases, void-for-vagueness doctrine applied
• Law was so vague you could not prepare a defense not knowing exactly what the law said…
• A Legal Challenge to the System
• Court also enjoined a permanent ban on enforcement
• By then CA had changed the law
• Removed ‘’’in danger…” section
• This decision marked the end of an era
• Conduct of being wayward or sinful could no longer be considered – Could not be locked up for the above actions
• A Legal Challenge to the System
• Police officers or probation could no longer consider this conduct as an offense
• No longer a “catch-all” to control juvenile conduct
• Case was held to be retroactive – juveniles fitting the criteria had to be released
• Many boys camps had to close, including the Los Guilicos School for Girls
• The Traditional Approach Continued
• Police were routinely called to take into “custody” runaways, incorrigibles or truant minors
• Process still considered formal in nature
• Minors were taken to juvenile hall
• Juveniles were considered to be “Pre-delinquent” or having “Pre-delinquent tendencies”
• The Traditional Approach Continued
• Intervention was used to save them before these “tendencies” turned into real delinquent acts
• 1961-1976 – Colonial Period in juvenile probation (author’s opinion)
• Most every juvenile referred was welcomed with open arms by probation – most were placed on some form of probation
• The Traditional Approach Continued
• Caseloads increased
• So did employment opportunities
• Many worked in juvenile hall as they put themselves through college
• Caseloads were a mixture of status offenders and delinquents
• 601s and 602s
• The Traditional Approach Continued
• As caseloads increased with status offenders (601s) so did the caseloads of delinquents (602s)
• A change was on the horizon from the national level
• Due to the feeding frenzy of status offenders into the system
• The Seeds of Revolution
• 1968 – Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act passed
• Recommended minors charged with non-criminal acts be handled outside the formal court system
• This was only a recommendation to the states
• Not a mandatory sanction
• The Seeds of Revolution
• Medical Model was applied to the juvenile justice system until the mid-1960s
• Prevailing view was, delinquents had emotional problems
• They required psychiatric treatment
• Acting out was symptomatic of their problems
• The Seeds of Revolution
• Medical Model was dominant philosophy
• Started to lose favor – had not been proven useful when dealing with delinquents
• Labeling theory evolved:
• Police and probation officers perceptions
• If a juvenile is labeled delinquent long enough, he or she will accept and internalize the negative view (self image]– they become delinquent
• The Seeds of Revolution
• Labeling 601s as pre-delinquent actually promoted delinquency
• New ethos developed in viewing status offenders:
• Sooner they came into the system, the deeper they went into it
• The longer they stayed, the worse they became
• The Seeds of Revolution
• Pioneering work – Warren Thornton
• Chief Probation Officer – Sacramento
• Probation officers were on duty 24 hours
• 601s were immediately diverted out of the system
• 601s and families underwent intensive family therapy together
• The Seeds of Revolution
• Family Therapy was the new view
• Acting out behavior was not symptomatic of emotional problems
• It was due to a dysfunctional family and family pain
• Other probation departments followed suit with family therapy diversion programs
• The Seeds of Revolution
• The juvenile was no longer considered the focus for change
• Focus shifted to changing the set of relationships with which the juvenile was involved with
• Family patterns of communication and behavior
• The Seeds of Revolution
• 1974 – Congress passed a law to get status offenders out of the system
• Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act
• Contained four custody requirements
• States had to comply with JJDPA in order to receive federal aid
• The Seeds of Revolution
• “Status offender” section was de-institutionalized:
• No longer charged as a criminal act
• Being detained in a secure facility was prohibited
• Many states complied with stronger legislation – Status offenders completely removed from the juvenile justice system
• Juvenile Facilities
• The correct term in CA is the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
• Pre-1976
• Introduction
• Incorrigibility has always been an issue for adults
• Currently, in CA, minors under 18 are prohibited from:
• Disobeying their parents or teachers
• Running away from home
• Committing truancy
• Violating curfews
• Introduction
• These acts are considered status offenses
• A status offense is:
• Any act prohibited by law for juveniles that is non-criminal
• Legal definition found in:
• CA 601 WIC (Welfare and Institutions Code)
• Regulates most juvenile procedures
• The Status Offender, 1961-1976
• 1961 – 601 WIC definition enacted
• Any person under 21 who persistently or habitually refuses to:
• Obey reasonable and proper orders of parents, guardians, custodians, school authorities
• Or is habitually truant
• The Status Offender, 1961-1976
• Or is in danger of leading an idle life, dissolute, lewd, or immoral life:
• Is considered to be under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, therefore a:
• Ward of the state
• Status offense age – up to 21
• The Status Offender, 1961-1976
• Police were routinely called to take into “custody” an incorrigible or truant minor
• Parents often called the police
• Child was beyond their control
• Minor was taken to juvenile hall - term for CA juvenile facilities
• Runaways were actively pursued by the police and suffered the same fate
• The Status Offender, 1961-1976
• Minors were often taken into custody for:
• “… being in danger of leading an idle, dissolute, lewd, or immoral life”
• By request of the parents or a police motion
• Usually included sexual behavior, drinking, fighting or loitering – wrong place at wrong time
• The Status Offender, 1961-1976
• Loitering – “Catch-all” offense for police and probation
• See text for statutory rape example
• Minor was booked through Intake – an on-duty probation officer
• Screens cases
• Minor was held accountable for actions
• The Status Offender, 1961-1976
• Parents were never blamed
• No matter how incompetent, abusive or unreasonable
• If parents, probation department, and child agreed no agency action was needed, the child was released – case dismissed
• The Status Offender, 1961-1976
• If intake or parents thought some action (informal) was necessary
• Minor was placed on six months informal probation
• Final decision regarding the case was delayed for six months
• The Status Offender, 1961-1976
• If intake or parents thought some formal action was necessary
• Intake filed a petition
• Included the allegation (charge)
• Procedure was a legal request for the court to intervene (parens patriae)
• Take control (loco parentis) and provide the necessary guidance
• The Status Offender, 1961-1976
• If the minor was not wanted at home or
• Minor would not go home
• Minor was detained in juvenile hall
• A secured locked facility
• Brought to court within 48 hours
• Judge explained the petition process
• Court date was set to determine if further detention was necessary
• The Status Offender, 1961-1976
• If detained, the minor was placed into juvenile hall by age or maturity – not by offense
• Status offenders were mixed with delinquents
• Runaways treated equally as murderers
• Probation conditions were established upon release
• How the System Created Delinquents
• Status offenders could be returned home on probation or
• Placed in a foster home or
• Committed to a county ranch or school
• They could not be committed to CYA unless he or she violated probation
• Case was then filed under 602 code
• How the System Created Delinquents
• Actions escalated from status offense to law violator offense
• Minor was usually given several chances to “straighten out” before being sent to CYA
• How the System Created Delinquents
• Hundreds of juveniles were committed to CYA for conduct that never exceeded that of being incorrigible, runaway, or “… being in danger of leading an idle, dissolute, lewd, or immoral life”
• CA had many institutions to deal with the large number of juveniles
• How the System Created Delinquents
• Los Guilicos (near Santa Rosa) held the younger girls
• Ventura was the “finishing school” for the real delinquents
• A Legal Challenge to the System
• Legal challenge (Federal) to the constitutionality of 601 phrase
• “…in danger of leading an idle, dissolute, lewd, or immoral life”
• San Francisco case
• Gonzales v. Maillard (1971)
• Girl was attacked by gang members
• She identified three of the offenders
• A Legal Challenge to the System
• Police arrested ten from the gang (cited)
• Charges were later dropped
• Class action suit filed on behalf of one of the gang members – sought relief:
• Arrest was unconstitutional
• Injunction from enforcement
• Damages from police
• A Legal Challenge to the System
• Expunging of records
• Federal Court ruled the law was similar to adult cases, void-for-vagueness doctrine applied
• Law was so vague you could not prepare a defense not knowing exactly what the law said…
• A Legal Challenge to the System
• Court also enjoined a permanent ban on enforcement
• By then CA had changed the law
• Removed ‘’’in danger…” section
• This decision marked the end of an era
• Conduct of being wayward or sinful could no longer be considered – Could not be locked up for the above actions
• A Legal Challenge to the System
• Police officers or probation could no longer consider this conduct as an offense
• No longer a “catch-all” to control juvenile conduct
• Case was held to be retroactive – juveniles fitting the criteria had to be released
• Many boys camps had to close, including the Los Guilicos School for Girls
• The Traditional Approach Continued
• Police were routinely called to take into “custody” runaways, incorrigibles or truant minors
• Process still considered formal in nature
• Minors were taken to juvenile hall
• Juveniles were considered to be “Pre-delinquent” or having “Pre-delinquent tendencies”
• The Traditional Approach Continued
• Intervention was used to save them before these “tendencies” turned into real delinquent acts
• 1961-1976 – Colonial Period in juvenile probation (author’s opinion)
• Most every juvenile referred was welcomed with open arms by probation – most were placed on some form of probation
• The Traditional Approach Continued
• Caseloads increased
• So did employment opportunities
• Many worked in juvenile hall as they put themselves through college
• Caseloads were a mixture of status offenders and delinquents
• 601s and 602s
• The Traditional Approach Continued
• As caseloads increased with status offenders (601s) so did the caseloads of delinquents (602s)
• A change was on the horizon from the national level
• Due to the feeding frenzy of status offenders into the system
• The Seeds of Revolution
• 1968 – Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act passed
• Recommended minors charged with non-criminal acts be handled outside the formal court system
• This was only a recommendation to the states
• Not a mandatory sanction
• The Seeds of Revolution
• Medical Model was applied to the juvenile justice system until the mid-1960s
• Prevailing view was, delinquents had emotional problems
• They required psychiatric treatment
• Acting out was symptomatic of their problems
• The Seeds of Revolution
• Medical Model was dominant philosophy
• Started to lose favor – had not been proven useful when dealing with delinquents
• Labeling theory evolved:
• Police and probation officers perceptions
• If a juvenile is labeled delinquent long enough, he or she will accept and internalize the negative view (self image]– they become delinquent
• The Seeds of Revolution
• Labeling 601s as pre-delinquent actually promoted delinquency
• New ethos developed in viewing status offenders:
• Sooner they came into the system, the deeper they went into it
• The longer they stayed, the worse they became
• The Seeds of Revolution
• Pioneering work – Warren Thornton
• Chief Probation Officer – Sacramento
• Probation officers were on duty 24 hours
• 601s were immediately diverted out of the system
• 601s and families underwent intensive family therapy together
• The Seeds of Revolution
• Family Therapy was the new view
• Acting out behavior was not symptomatic of emotional problems
• It was due to a dysfunctional family and family pain
• Other probation departments followed suit with family therapy diversion programs
• The Seeds of Revolution
• The juvenile was no longer considered the focus for change
• Focus shifted to changing the set of relationships with which the juvenile was involved with
• Family patterns of communication and behavior
• The Seeds of Revolution
• 1974 – Congress passed a law to get status offenders out of the system
• Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act
• Contained four custody requirements
• States had to comply with JJDPA in order to receive federal aid
• The Seeds of Revolution
• “Status offender” section was de-institutionalized:
• No longer charged as a criminal act
• Being detained in a secure facility was prohibited
• Many states complied with stronger legislation – Status offenders completely removed from the juvenile justice system
• Juvenile Facilities
• The correct term in CA is the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
Chapter 3-
n Current Status Offender Procedures
n Chapter 3
n Introduction
n 601 Behavior includes:
n That beyond control or being a:
n Runaway or actions related to:
n Truancy or violations involving
n Curfew statutes
n The Revolution of 1976
n 1976 – Dixon Bill took effect
n It was a response to reform efforts and 1974 federal legislation
n Four major procedural changes
n One was regarding status offenders
n Deinstitutionalized status offenders
n The Revolution of 1976
n Removed curfew violations from 602
n Inserted it under 601
n This effort decriminalized curfew violations
n Prohibited the escalation of 601s to 602s solely for failure to obey a court order
n CYA – only for Penal Code violation
n The Revolution of 1976
n Prohibited the detention of 601s in secure facilities – juvenile hall, camps, schools or ranches
n Prohibited the mixing of 601s with 602s
n 601s to be housed in shelters or crisis centers
n State did not provide sufficient funding in this area – abandoned the child/parent
n The Current Section 601(a)
n Any person under 18
n Persistently or habitually refuses to
n Obey reasonable and proper orders or directions of parents, guardians, or custodians or
n Violates an established curfew based solely on age
n The Current Section 601(b)
n Any person who has four or more truancies within one school year
n Insufficient public and private resources to correct habitual truancy
n The Current Section 601(b)
n Persistently or habitually refuses to obey reasonable and proper orders or directions of school authorities or probation officers regarding school attendance
n The Current Section 601(d)
n Any peace officer or school administrator may issue a notice to a minor to appear within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court
n Petition may be filed - incorrigible, runaway, truant – still offenses
n Court may declare minor a 601 ward
n The Current Section 601(d)
n On probation – ordered not to commit any status offenses
n If a juvenile violates the court order, no sanctions
n Cannot be locked up in a secure facility
n May not be detained in a secure facility May be placed in an unsecured facility voluntarily
n The Current Section 601(d)
n CA became a nationwide haven for runaways
n Counties have quit the “hostel” business for runaways
n Now taken to local shelters
n Juveniles may walk away at their discretion
n The Impact of the Dixon Bill
n Before 1976 police involvement with status offenders was frequent and formal
n Today, it is on a different scale
n Some say nonexistent
n Dynamics have changed in society
n The Impact of the Dixon Bill
n Many juveniles are running the streets without a place to live
n They become runaways and throwaways
n These teens resort to drug sales, prostitution, and theft to survive
n These individuals are deemed to be at-risk youths
n Community Resources for 601s
n At-risk youth term is now used to represent status offenders
n Takes away the stigma of misconduct
n Limited state and federal funds available for community resources and status offenders – most funds are at the county level
n Community Resources for 601s
n In many counties, non-profits offer counseling services and/or temporary shelters for runaways
n (SAY) – Social Advocates for Youth
n Sliding scale approach for families
n Police often take the juvenile to these facilities – juvenile free to leave
n Recent Modifications in
601 Procedures
n Ability of juvenile to wander freely around the state created new problems
n WIC was amended in 1986
n Allowed probation authorities to detain:
n Up to 12 hours – warrant check if there is reason to believe wants or warrants might exist
n Recent Modifications in
601 Procedures
n Up to 24 hours – if returning the minor to his or her parents
n If the parents reside within the state
n If they want the minor home
n The minor wants to return
n Recent Modifications in
601 Procedures
n Up to 72 hours – to reunite the minor with out-of-state parents
n If they want the minor home
n The minor wants to reunite
n Recent Modifications in
601 Procedures
n Note:
n Minor is free to leave if the parents do not want to reunite
n No contact with 602s
n May not be detained in any law enforcement facility
n Missing Persons Procedures
n Section 14210 PC
n Effective January 1, 1991
n Officers are required (duty) to immediately assist any persons:
n Attempting to make a report of a
n Missing person or
n Runaway
n Missing Persons Procedures
n Section 14213 PC – Missing person defined
n Any child (minor under 18)
n Missing voluntarily or involuntarily
n Under circumstances not conforming to his or her ordinary habits or behavior and
n Who may be in need of assistance
n Missing Persons Procedures
n Includes any minor who may be at-risk
n Is a victim of a crime or foul play
n Is mentally retarded
n Is a victim of parental abduction
n Has a pattern of running away or disappearing
n Missing Persons Procedures
n Section 14205(a) PC
n Defines procedures law enforcement must follow with regard to missing persons
n All police and sheriff’s departments
n Shall accept any report
n Of a missing person
n Including runaways
n Missing Persons Procedures
n Without delay
n Give it priority to the handling of these reports
n Over the handling of reports related to crimes involving property
n Missing Persons Procedures
n In cases involving missing persons reports
n Law enforcement shall make an assessment of reasonable steps to be taken to locate the person
n If under 12 and there is
n Evidence of being at-risk
n A BOLO is to be broadcast without delay
Ø An investigative aid through police communications in runaway cases
n Missing Persons Procedures
n Section 14205(b) PC
n If the person missing is under 12 or
n Evidence of being at-risk
n Law enforcement shall submit the report to the CA AG’s Office within four hours
n Through the CA Telecommunications System – NCIC (National Crime Information Center)
n Missing Persons Procedures
n Section 14206 PC
n Form used by law enforcement shall include:
n Statement authorizing release of
n Dental/skeletal X-rays
n Recent photograph if under 18
n Missing Persons Procedures
n If missing after 30 days
n Law enforcement or a family member shall take the form to:
n The respective dentist
n Doctor
n Medical facility
n To obtain X-rays
n Missing Persons Procedures
n If no family member can be found
n A law enforcement officer under written declaration
n May obtain the X-rays
n As long as it is necessary to conduct the investigation
n This is sufficient authority to release
n Missing Persons Procedures
n If the missing person is under age 18 and
n Determined to be at-risk by law enforcement or is
n Under age 12 and has been missing at least 14 days
n The completed form/declaration shall be immediately taken to the appropriate medical personnel
n Missing Persons Procedures
n Once X-rays obtained
n Law enforcement must meet with the county coroner or medical examiner
n Must submit the missing person’s report and X-rays to the AG’s Office
n Information is then coded into the state’s Violent Crime Information Center and National Crime Information Center NCIC
n Missing Persons Procedures
n When a missing person is located
n The locating agency shall immediately notify the AG’s Office
n If under 12, the report shall be made within 24 hours
n AG’s office shall then notify NCIC
n These efforts represent a coordinated state-wide effort in missing persons cases
n 601 Truancy Procedures
n 2000 – Section 601 modified
n Added subsections to:
n Curb truancy
n Related delinquency
n Nationwide problem of delinquency
n Curfews
n Loitering ordinances
n 601 Truancy Procedures
n If a minor is declared a habitual truant
n By a school attendance review board and
n Has been referred to Probation
n 601 may be filed
n Upon finding of truancy the minor
n May be declared a ward of the state
n 601 Truancy Procedures
n A minor may be removed from his or her parents
n During school hours
n May be detained in a secure school setting
n 601 Truancy Procedures
n Reality: “Empty” code section
n Few counties willing to spend the money
n Student is usually expelled
n Referred to a continuation school
n Parents may be prosecuted criminally for violating State Education Code 48293
n Futile effort?
n 601 Truancy Procedures
n Sections 601.1 – 601.5
n Details the process of counties establishing
n At-Risk Youth Early Prevention Programs
n Youth Referral Centers
n Interface with families, court, & probation
n 601 Truancy Procedures
n Centers provide:
n Family assessments/counseling
n Lack of cooperation by a juvenile may lead to a 601 petition being filed
n Ward of the state
n May be ordered to attend school as a condition of probation
n 601 Truancy Procedures
n If juvenile violates condition
n Contempt of Court
n Order him to secured facility – school
n In re Michael G., 1998
n Housed separately from 602s
n Costly endeavor
n Few counties willing to spend the money
n 601 Truancy Procedures
n One effective police procedure in dealing with truants
n Sections 48200-48232
n Children between 6-18
n Required to be in school
n During school hours
n 601 Truancy Procedures
n Sections 48200-48232
n Police officer may cite issue a notice to appear in court or arrest/custody
n During school hours
n Any minor
n Subject to compulsory full-time education
n Found away from home or
n Absent from school without a valid excuse
n 601 Truancy Procedures
n In re James Edward D., 1987
n Court upheld case
n Where a person looks to be of school age
n May be detained
n Social benefits outweigh personal freedoms
n Police Searches of Truants
n Issue of truancy stops clarified in 2000 District Court of Appeals case
n In re Humberto
n Involved Los Angeles Police Department
n Three LAPD officers observed Humberto walking down the street
n 9:15 a.m.
n Police Searches of Truants
n Weekday
n Several miles from Hollywood High
n Police detained him
n Time of day
n Backpack
n Youthful appearance
n Proximity to school
n Police Searches of Truants
n Officer verified he was truant
n Cite and return to school
n Before cuffing him and putting him in the back of the patrol car
n They searched his backpack
n Police found a dagger
n Status offense of truancy to PC violation
n Police Searches of Truants
n 12020 PC – possession of a dirk or dagger
n Petition filed in juvenile court
n Humberto’s attorney filed a motion to suppress – unlawful search
n Juvenile Court agreed
n Police Searches of Truants
n State appealed to 2nd DCA
n Case reversed – search incident to arrest
n Same as adult
n Possibility of a weapon being retrieved or evidence being destroyed
n 601 Curfew/Loitering Procedures
n Many counties or cities have enacted curfews or curfew/loitering ordinances
n Most have been upheld as constitutional
n Another extension of loitering laws recently enacted is through: the criminal injunctions against gangs.
n The Case of In re Daniel D., 1995
n Bakersfield, CA case
n Minor taken into custody for violating a city loitering ordinance
n Minor was searched – a .38 caliber handgun was found
n He was adjudicated as a delinquent
n The Case of In re Daniel D., 1995
n Case was appealed to the 5th District Court of Appeals
n Issue of appeal?
n Loitering ordinance was deemed to be too broad in written form
n The Case of In re Daniel D., 1995
n Argument:
n Ordinance was too broad and discriminatory
n Void-for-vagueness doctrine
n No notice of behavior prohibited
n No guidelines to govern by police
n The Case of In re Daniel D., 1995
n DCA ruled against Daniel
n Minor appealed to the State Supreme Court
n 1996 – Court reversed itself – said their previous hearing was in error
n The Case of In re Daniel D., 1995
n CA cities with curfews:
n Bellflower, CA
n Long Beach, CA
n County of Santa Clara
n Many have the minor wait in the lobby for parents
n Current Status Offender Procedures
n Chapter 3
n Introduction
n 601 Behavior includes:
n That beyond control or being a:
n Runaway or actions related to:
n Truancy or violations involving
n Curfew statutes
n The Revolution of 1976
n 1976 – Dixon Bill took effect
n It was a response to reform efforts and 1974 federal legislation
n Four major procedural changes
n One was regarding status offenders
n Deinstitutionalized status offenders
n The Revolution of 1976
n Removed curfew violations from 602
n Inserted it under 601
n This effort decriminalized curfew violations
n Prohibited the escalation of 601s to 602s solely for failure to obey a court order
n CYA – only for Penal Code violation
n The Revolution of 1976
n Prohibited the detention of 601s in secure facilities – juvenile hall, camps, schools or ranches
n Prohibited the mixing of 601s with 602s
n 601s to be housed in shelters or crisis centers
n State did not provide sufficient funding in this area – abandoned the child/parent
n The Current Section 601(a)
n Any person under 18
n Persistently or habitually refuses to
n Obey reasonable and proper orders or directions of parents, guardians, or custodians or
n Violates an established curfew based solely on age
n The Current Section 601(b)
n Any person who has four or more truancies within one school year
n Insufficient public and private resources to correct habitual truancy
n The Current Section 601(b)
n Persistently or habitually refuses to obey reasonable and proper orders or directions of school authorities or probation officers regarding school attendance
n The Current Section 601(d)
n Any peace officer or school administrator may issue a notice to a minor to appear within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court
n Petition may be filed - incorrigible, runaway, truant – still offenses
n Court may declare minor a 601 ward
n The Current Section 601(d)
n On probation – ordered not to commit any status offenses
n If a juvenile violates the court order, no sanctions
n Cannot be locked up in a secure facility
n May not be detained in a secure facility May be placed in an unsecured facility voluntarily
n The Current Section 601(d)
n CA became a nationwide haven for runaways
n Counties have quit the “hostel” business for runaways
n Now taken to local shelters
n Juveniles may walk away at their discretion
n The Impact of the Dixon Bill
n Before 1976 police involvement with status offenders was frequent and formal
n Today, it is on a different scale
n Some say nonexistent
n Dynamics have changed in society
n The Impact of the Dixon Bill
n Many juveniles are running the streets without a place to live
n They become runaways and throwaways
n These teens resort to drug sales, prostitution, and theft to survive
n These individuals are deemed to be at-risk youths
n Community Resources for 601s
n At-risk youth term is now used to represent status offenders
n Takes away the stigma of misconduct
n Limited state and federal funds available for community resources and status offenders – most funds are at the county level
n Community Resources for 601s
n In many counties, non-profits offer counseling services and/or temporary shelters for runaways
n (SAY) – Social Advocates for Youth
n Sliding scale approach for families
n Police often take the juvenile to these facilities – juvenile free to leave
n Recent Modifications in
601 Procedures
n Ability of juvenile to wander freely around the state created new problems
n WIC was amended in 1986
n Allowed probation authorities to detain:
n Up to 12 hours – warrant check if there is reason to believe wants or warrants might exist
n Recent Modifications in
601 Procedures
n Up to 24 hours – if returning the minor to his or her parents
n If the parents reside within the state
n If they want the minor home
n The minor wants to return
n Recent Modifications in
601 Procedures
n Up to 72 hours – to reunite the minor with out-of-state parents
n If they want the minor home
n The minor wants to reunite
n Recent Modifications in
601 Procedures
n Note:
n Minor is free to leave if the parents do not want to reunite
n No contact with 602s
n May not be detained in any law enforcement facility
n Missing Persons Procedures
n Section 14210 PC
n Effective January 1, 1991
n Officers are required (duty) to immediately assist any persons:
n Attempting to make a report of a
n Missing person or
n Runaway
n Missing Persons Procedures
n Section 14213 PC – Missing person defined
n Any child (minor under 18)
n Missing voluntarily or involuntarily
n Under circumstances not conforming to his or her ordinary habits or behavior and
n Who may be in need of assistance
n Missing Persons Procedures
n Includes any minor who may be at-risk
n Is a victim of a crime or foul play
n Is mentally retarded
n Is a victim of parental abduction
n Has a pattern of running away or disappearing
n Missing Persons Procedures
n Section 14205(a) PC
n Defines procedures law enforcement must follow with regard to missing persons
n All police and sheriff’s departments
n Shall accept any report
n Of a missing person
n Including runaways
n Missing Persons Procedures
n Without delay
n Give it priority to the handling of these reports
n Over the handling of reports related to crimes involving property
n Missing Persons Procedures
n In cases involving missing persons reports
n Law enforcement shall make an assessment of reasonable steps to be taken to locate the person
n If under 12 and there is
n Evidence of being at-risk
n A BOLO is to be broadcast without delay
Ø An investigative aid through police communications in runaway cases
n Missing Persons Procedures
n Section 14205(b) PC
n If the person missing is under 12 or
n Evidence of being at-risk
n Law enforcement shall submit the report to the CA AG’s Office within four hours
n Through the CA Telecommunications System – NCIC (National Crime Information Center)
n Missing Persons Procedures
n Section 14206 PC
n Form used by law enforcement shall include:
n Statement authorizing release of
n Dental/skeletal X-rays
n Recent photograph if under 18
n Missing Persons Procedures
n If missing after 30 days
n Law enforcement or a family member shall take the form to:
n The respective dentist
n Doctor
n Medical facility
n To obtain X-rays
n Missing Persons Procedures
n If no family member can be found
n A law enforcement officer under written declaration
n May obtain the X-rays
n As long as it is necessary to conduct the investigation
n This is sufficient authority to release
n Missing Persons Procedures
n If the missing person is under age 18 and
n Determined to be at-risk by law enforcement or is
n Under age 12 and has been missing at least 14 days
n The completed form/declaration shall be immediately taken to the appropriate medical personnel
n Missing Persons Procedures
n Once X-rays obtained
n Law enforcement must meet with the county coroner or medical examiner
n Must submit the missing person’s report and X-rays to the AG’s Office
n Information is then coded into the state’s Violent Crime Information Center and National Crime Information Center NCIC
n Missing Persons Procedures
n When a missing person is located
n The locating agency shall immediately notify the AG’s Office
n If under 12, the report shall be made within 24 hours
n AG’s office shall then notify NCIC
n These efforts represent a coordinated state-wide effort in missing persons cases
n 601 Truancy Procedures
n 2000 – Section 601 modified
n Added subsections to:
n Curb truancy
n Related delinquency
n Nationwide problem of delinquency
n Curfews
n Loitering ordinances
n 601 Truancy Procedures
n If a minor is declared a habitual truant
n By a school attendance review board and
n Has been referred to Probation
n 601 may be filed
n Upon finding of truancy the minor
n May be declared a ward of the state
n 601 Truancy Procedures
n A minor may be removed from his or her parents
n During school hours
n May be detained in a secure school setting
n 601 Truancy Procedures
n Reality: “Empty” code section
n Few counties willing to spend the money
n Student is usually expelled
n Referred to a continuation school
n Parents may be prosecuted criminally for violating State Education Code 48293
n Futile effort?
n 601 Truancy Procedures
n Sections 601.1 – 601.5
n Details the process of counties establishing
n At-Risk Youth Early Prevention Programs
n Youth Referral Centers
n Interface with families, court, & probation
n 601 Truancy Procedures
n Centers provide:
n Family assessments/counseling
n Lack of cooperation by a juvenile may lead to a 601 petition being filed
n Ward of the state
n May be ordered to attend school as a condition of probation
n 601 Truancy Procedures
n If juvenile violates condition
n Contempt of Court
n Order him to secured facility – school
n In re Michael G., 1998
n Housed separately from 602s
n Costly endeavor
n Few counties willing to spend the money
n 601 Truancy Procedures
n One effective police procedure in dealing with truants
n Sections 48200-48232
n Children between 6-18
n Required to be in school
n During school hours
n 601 Truancy Procedures
n Sections 48200-48232
n Police officer may cite issue a notice to appear in court or arrest/custody
n During school hours
n Any minor
n Subject to compulsory full-time education
n Found away from home or
n Absent from school without a valid excuse
n 601 Truancy Procedures
n In re James Edward D., 1987
n Court upheld case
n Where a person looks to be of school age
n May be detained
n Social benefits outweigh personal freedoms
n Police Searches of Truants
n Issue of truancy stops clarified in 2000 District Court of Appeals case
n In re Humberto
n Involved Los Angeles Police Department
n Three LAPD officers observed Humberto walking down the street
n 9:15 a.m.
n Police Searches of Truants
n Weekday
n Several miles from Hollywood High
n Police detained him
n Time of day
n Backpack
n Youthful appearance
n Proximity to school
n Police Searches of Truants
n Officer verified he was truant
n Cite and return to school
n Before cuffing him and putting him in the back of the patrol car
n They searched his backpack
n Police found a dagger
n Status offense of truancy to PC violation
n Police Searches of Truants
n 12020 PC – possession of a dirk or dagger
n Petition filed in juvenile court
n Humberto’s attorney filed a motion to suppress – unlawful search
n Juvenile Court agreed
n Police Searches of Truants
n State appealed to 2nd DCA
n Case reversed – search incident to arrest
n Same as adult
n Possibility of a weapon being retrieved or evidence being destroyed
n 601 Curfew/Loitering Procedures
n Many counties or cities have enacted curfews or curfew/loitering ordinances
n Most have been upheld as constitutional
n Another extension of loitering laws recently enacted is through: the criminal injunctions against gangs.
n The Case of In re Daniel D., 1995
n Bakersfield, CA case
n Minor taken into custody for violating a city loitering ordinance
n Minor was searched – a .38 caliber handgun was found
n He was adjudicated as a delinquent
n The Case of In re Daniel D., 1995
n Case was appealed to the 5th District Court of Appeals
n Issue of appeal?
n Loitering ordinance was deemed to be too broad in written form
n The Case of In re Daniel D., 1995
n Argument:
n Ordinance was too broad and discriminatory
n Void-for-vagueness doctrine
n No notice of behavior prohibited
n No guidelines to govern by police
n The Case of In re Daniel D., 1995
n DCA ruled against Daniel
n Minor appealed to the State Supreme Court
n 1996 – Court reversed itself – said their previous hearing was in error
n The Case of In re Daniel D., 1995
n CA cities with curfews:
n Bellflower, CA
n Long Beach, CA
n County of Santa Clara
n Many have the minor wait in the lobby for parents
Chapter 4 -
Introduction
n Police must follow certain procedures when dealing with youthful offenders
n Usually 1st contact
n Consensual encounter
n Lawful detention
n Arrest
n Custody phases
Special functions
n Vice
n SWAT
n Homicide
n Burglary and theft
n Sex crimes
n Juvenile
n Major Offenders
n Auto theft
Function Special to Juveniles
n Youth Service Division
n Gang Intelligence Unit
n Runaway Unit
n School Resource Unit
n Child Abuse Unit
n Juvenile Narcotics Unit
n Missing Persons Unit
n Juvenile Diversion Unit
n Not SWAT
The Beat COP
n Patrol officers have the most contact with juveniles
n In many cases, juveniles are handled from the first encounter stage to completion of the investigation
n Consequently, “street” cops must know juvenile law and the procedures required
3 levels of encounters
U.S. Supreme Court (1983) ruled:
n Three levels of contact
n Consensual encounter
n Detention
n Arrest
Introduction
n Police must follow certain procedures when dealing with youthful offenders
n Usually 1st contact
n Consensual encounter
n Lawful detention
n Arrest
n Custody phases
Special functions
n Vice
n SWAT
n Homicide
n Burglary and theft
n Sex crimes
n Juvenile
n Major Offenders
n Auto theft
Function Special to Juveniles
n Youth Service Division
n Gang Intelligence Unit
n Runaway Unit
n School Resource Unit
n Child Abuse Unit
n Juvenile Narcotics Unit
n Missing Persons Unit
n Juvenile Diversion Unit
n Not SWAT
The Beat COP
n Patrol officers have the most contact with juveniles
n In many cases, juveniles are handled from the first encounter stage to completion of the investigation
n Consequently, “street” cops must know juvenile law and the procedures required
3 levels of encounters
U.S. Supreme Court (1983) ruled:
n Three levels of contact
n Consensual encounter
n Detention
n Arrest
.
Chapter 5 • Introduction
• Three procedural areas encountered by law enforcement on a daily basis:
• Fifth Amendment
• Sixth Amendment
• Fourth Amendment
• Fifth and Sixth Amendment Protections
• Fifth and Sixth Amendment Protections
• Adults – right to remain silent
• Adults – right to have an attorney
• The Miranda Requirement
• Federal case law
• Miranda v. Arizona, 1966
• CA law police must follow when dealing with juveniles is found in WIC 625(b)
• Follows custodial interrogation of an adult by police
• The Miranda Requirement
• Miranda has two specific conditions:
• Suspect taken into custody or deprived of freedom in a significant way
• Suspect is subject to questioning about a crime by a police officer
• This is known as custodial interrogation
• The Miranda Requirement
• U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Miranda applies equally to juveniles
• In re Gault, 1976
• Requirements for Miranda are the same as adults
• Fare V. Michael C., 1979
• CA case
• In re Bonnie H., 1997
• The Miranda Requirement
• Recent U.S. Supreme Court case
• Yarborough v. Alvarado, 2004
• See case in book
• Independent state grounds: State may provide more protections than are required to satisfy the Constitution
• California Law
• 625 WIC – procedures an officer must immediately follow in advising a minor of his or her rights
• “In any case”
• Temporary custody
• 601 and 602 cases
• Or has violated order of the court
• Or has escaped from commitment
• California Law
• Best suggestion
• Advise the minor immediately
• After temporary custody completed
• Crime scene secured
• Victim attended to
• Witness interviews
• Other matters
• California Law
• CA law identical to Miranda
• No statutory directive about age to understand and knowingly waive his or her rights
• Case decisions key to interrogating juveniles
• California Law
• People v. Lara, 1967
• Court decision
• Minor has the capacity to understand his or her rights
• Can knowingly and intelligently waive them
• Regardless of the seriousness of the alleged offense
• California Law
• If a child asks to speak to his or her parents before responding to questions, it does not mean they have invoked his or her right to remain silent
• Police officers should clarify the minor’s request
• California Law
• If a child asks to speak to his or her parents for advice about the interrogation, he or she is invoking the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent
• If it is for some other reason, they have not invoked their right
• California Law
• Police have the burden of proving the legality of any waiver – Beyond a reasonable doubt
• California Law
• Fare v. Michael C, 1979
• Reiterated the concept of “totality of circumstances” (Miranda)
• Understanding and waiver
• Age
• Experience
• Education
• Background
• California Law
• Intelligence
• Capacity to understand the warning, the rights, and the consequences
• Parents do not have any rights, only the minor does
• 625 WIC Procedures Summarized
• 625
• Minor shall be advised of his or her rights in any case when taken into temporary custody regardless of disposition
• Warning must occur before questioning
• 625 WIC Procedures Summarized
• If a minor gives any indication by word or conduct that he or she does not want to respond to questioning, they have invoked their right
• Police do not have to advise a minor of the right to speak to a parent
• Police do not have to advise the parent/s of any rights
• 625 WIC Procedures Summarized
• If a minor asks to speak to a parent, the officer may clarify the purpose or intent
• If it has to do with the interrogation or to stop the interrogation, the minor has invoked their rights
• 625 WIC Procedures Summarized
• A parent does not have any right to be advised that a minor is a suspect or that he or she is to be questioned
• The parent does not have the right to be present during questioning
• Totality of the circumstances applies
• Miranda in Federal Juvenile Cases
• Section 5033 of Title 18 of the United States Code (applies to federal officers)
• Taken into custody
• Immediately advise the child of his legal rights
• Comprehensible language (juvenile)
• Miranda in Federal Juvenile Cases
• Notify Attorney General and parents, guardian, or custodian of their rights and alleged offense
• Interested Adult Laws
• Some states have provided more restrictive rights or protections
• Interested Adult Laws
• Advisement and/or consent of any waiver of Fifth and Sixth Amendment by some adult having concern in the minor’s welfare
• Interested Adult Laws
• OH – Consultation with interested adult
• IN – Requires waiver by interested adult or attorney
• CT – Confession made first without father, repeated with father, after waiver signed by both, confession tainted
• Interested Adult Laws
• MA – under 14, interested adult must be consulted with; 14+ have opportunity to consult with interested adult
• GA – parent must be notified and minor allowed to consult
• NH – Totality of the circumstances – 15 factors; GA has 9 factors
• Interested Adult Laws
• ND – attorney must be appointed if no parent or guardian – no absolute right to waive rights
• OR – Miranda, parents may invoke rights; if on probation as a ward of the court, the court may waive the minor’s rights
• Interested Adult Laws
• NV – Has the most protections
• Advise of rights to juvenile and a parent
• Both must waive rights
• If a waived (criminal) offense, minor must be advised of the fact anything said may be used against him or her at trial
• Fourth Amendment Protection
• Introduction
• Fourth Amendment – freedom from unreasonable searches
• Basic constitutional right
• Regardless of age
• Situations that arise involving juveniles
• Introduction
• In-school searches of students and their effects
• Police searches of probationers
• Police searches of parolees
• The Exclusionary Rule
• Weeks v. U.S. 1914
• Created Exclusionary Rule
• If evidence illegally obtained, it is inadmissible in Federal court
• Mapp v. Ohio, 1961
• State (New Jersey) v. Lowry, 1967
• Extended 4th Amendment to juveniles
• School Searches
• Minors do not have absolute expectation of privacy in a school setting
• Administrative searches are permitted
• Juveniles
• Lockers
• Purses
• Backpacks
• School Searches
• Search must be based on reasonable suspicion
• Minor has broken a school rule or violated any law
• May be done only to maintain discipline and safety on school grounds
• Exception to a warrant requirement
• School Searches
• New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1985
• “…requiring a teacher to obtain a warrant before searching a child …would unduly interfere with the maintenance of swift and informal disciplinary procedures needed in the school…”
• School Searches
• “…probable cause” is not a requirement of a valid search. The legality of the search of a student should depend on the reasonableness of all the circumstances…”
• School Searches
• “…reasonable grounds for suspecting the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating the law or rules of the school…”
• School Searches
• “…objectives of the search shall not be excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex and the nature of the infraction…”
• School Searches
• Impact of T.L.O. decision:
• U.S. Supreme Court adopted the standard of reasonable suspicion for schools searches by school officials
• Court balanced the rights of minors with the special interest of the State
• Interest of the State outweighed an invasion of the minor’s rights
• School Searches
• Any illegal activity or contraband discovered in an administrative school search may be turned over to the police
• Arrest and delinquency proceedings may be initiated
• Police may not initiate the search
• May be called in after the search
• Police Searches of Probationers
• At one time police held conflicting views of their roles in handling juveniles on probation
• Police – Enforcement oriented
• Probation – emphasized rehabilitation
• Police chastisement versus probation’s being overly protective
• Times have changed
• Police Searches of Probationers
• Originated as an enforcement tool in probation narcotics cases in 1960’s
• Used a condition of probation and parole
• 3-Way:
1. Person
2. Residence
3. Vehicle
• A Review of Case Law on Probation Searches
• 1960s – search clause was thought to be an exclusive right of probation
• Police assumed it was their right to search, first at the request of probation in order to enforce court orders
• Then by the police to control the juveniles they encountered
• Challenged in court cases
• A Review of Case Law on Probation Searches
• People v. Bravo, 1987
• Set the ground rules for adult probation searches, many were applied to juvenile searches
• Searched his house on a tip
• State Supreme Court upheld search
• Probation is a privilege, by accepting probation, Bravo consented to the search clause
• A Review of Case Law on Probation Searches
• Bravo could have refused probation
• Court also ruled:
• Purpose of unexpected, unprotected search?
• It is to ascertain whether he is complying with the terms of probation
• A Review of Case Law on Probation Searches
• To determine not only whether he disobeys the law, but also whether he obeys the law
• Also must be for rehabilitative and reformative purposes of probation or other legitimate law enforcement purposes
• Not for harassment or arbitrary or capricious reasons
• A Review of Case Law on Probation Searches
• In re Marcellus L., 1991
• State has a special interest in supervising a minor
• Juvenile had agreed to search clause, waives reasonable expectation of privacy
• Order is against the minor without reference to the knowledge of it by police
• A Review of Case Law on Probation Searches
• In re Tyrell J., 1994
• Court set statewide precedent for all probation search cases
• Consider circumstances of crime
• Also the minor’s entire social history
• Juvenile probation is not an act of leniency as in adult cases
• A Review of Case Law on Probation Searches
• It is an ingredient of a final order for the minor’s reformation and rehabilitation
• Final order made in the minor’s best interests
• What may be an unreasonable order for an adult, may be reasonable for a juvenile
• A Review of Case Law on Probation Searches
• Conditions are devised and placed on a minor to ensure his or her reformation and rehabilitation
• Conditions are deemed necessary
• No choice given to the youthful offender
• A Review of Case Law on Probation Searches
• Court also noted:
• A minor may not refuse probation
• Has no absolute expectation of privacy
• Minor has no standing to object
• 2006 Case: In re Jaime P, peace officer must have prior knowledge of juvenile’s probation search clause
• Only grounds; harassment or for arbitrary or capricious reasons
• A Summary of Probation Search Procedures
• The right to search probationers can be an effective law enforcement strategy
• Constitutionally valid to require a consent search as long as it relates to either the current offense or needs of supervision
• A Summary of Probation Search Procedures
• A waiver against warrantless searches also waives any concept of reasonableness, it is a complete consent search
• Probationer has no standing to object to any search order
• Searches may not exceed the scope of the consent, as worded in the condition imposed
• A Summary of Probation Search Procedures
• Searches of a probationer may be conducted only for reasons related to the rehabilitative and reformative purposes of probation or for any other legitimate law enforcement purpose
• Searches may not be undertaken for harassment or for arbitrary or capricious reasons
• Parole Searches
• Few appellate decisions about juvenile parole searches
• Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v, Scott, 1998
• Exclusionary Rule doesn't apply in parole searches
• Removed all Fourth Amendment protections for parolees
• Parole Searches
• Opened door for states to enact laws allowing parole searches without requiring any cause
• CA exception: In re Michael T., 1993
• No knowledge of the search clause, search is invalid
• People v. Sanders, 2003
• Prior police knowledge of the status and search clause required
• Juvenile Gangs: Control and Suppression
• Introduction
• Gangs are usually associated with inner-city neighborhoods
• New York
• Chicago
• Los Angeles
• Prevalence of gangs in cities today is alarming
• 2002 OJJDP report
• Introduction
• 2300 cities (pop 2,500+)
• 550 Jurisdictions served by sheriffs – have gangs
• Gang related homicide in CA up 36 percent
• CA gangs in LA
• San Francisco
• Oakland
• Introduction
• Sacramento Valley
• San Joaquin Valley
• Almost every town
• City
• Village
• County
• Gang Formations and Activities
• Gangs often formed among the youth of economically and socially disadvantaged families
• Gangs often cluster along major transportation corridors – drug distribution
• Gangs fight over territory
• North versus South
• 35 year-old rivalry
• Gang Formations and Activities
• Suerenos
• Nortenos
• Bloods
• Crips
• Sinaloan Cowboys
• Asian Boys
• Almighty Latin Kings Nation
• Gang Formations and Activities
• Hybrid gangs
• Diverse in Race, ethnicity, and gender
• Blend with other non-traditional groups
• Coalitions
• At least 21,500 gangs
• 731,000+ members nationwide
• Gang Formations and Activities
• Gangs have expanded their repertoire of crimes
• Asian gangs – home invasion robberies
• Others – carjackings
• Juvenile gangs crash parties
• Gang Formations and Activities
• “Jumpin-in”
• Proving oneself
• Males - Robbery or shooting
• Females – sex
• Fighting other members
• Why Juveniles Join Gangs
• Number of reasons
• Protection and safety
• Strength in numbers
• Profit
• Motivation
• Fun
• Camaraderie
• Acceptance
• Why Juveniles Join Gangs
• Way of life
• Tradition
• Generational
• Meaning in lives
• Extends family
• Independence
• Power
• Friendship
• Why Juveniles Join Gangs
• Bonding
• Identity
• Rejection of mainstream society
• No alternative
• California’s Legal Definition of a Street Gang
• Passed to aid police
• Aka Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act (STEP)
• “…State of crisis causes by violent street gangs…
• “…threaten, terrorize, and commit multitude of crimes…”
• “…against peaceful citizens.”
• California’s Legal Definition of a Street Gang
• “…activities individually and collectively present a danger to public order and safety…”
• “…and are not constitutionally protected.”
• California’s Legal Definition of a Street Gang
• Organization
• Association
• Group
• Three or more persons
• Formal or informal
• Primary activities are the commission of one or more of 25 criminal acts
• California’s Legal Definition of a Street Gang
• Has a common name or identifying sign or symbol
• Members individually or collectively engage in or have engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity
• Punishment for Street Gang Offenses
• Not a separate crime
• Enhancement to the crime charged
• Adds institutional commitment
• 186.22(a) PC
• Any person
• Actively participates in criminal street gang with knowledge
• Punishment for Street Gang Offenses
• Members engage in
• Or have engaged in a
• Pattern of criminal gang activity
• Promotes
• Furthers
• Assists
• Felonious criminal conduct
• By members of that gang
• Punishment for Street Gang Offenses
• Shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not to exceed one year
• State prison
• CYA
• For 16 months
• 2 years
• 3 years
• Punishment for Street Gang Offenses
• Serious felony
• Committed on or within 1000 feet of
• Private school
• Public school
• During school hours
• Classes or school-related programs
• Enhancement by 2, 3, or 4 years
• Punishment for Street Gang Offenses
• 186.22(i) PC
• Not necessary to prove all or part of his or her time in a gang
• Does not have to be a member of the gang
• What is necessary to prove?
• Active participation in the criminal street gang is all that is required
• Street Gang Registration Requirements
• 2000 – Proposition 21 passed
• Minor adjudicated in juvenile court for any gang offense
• Must register
• With chief of police or sheriff
• Within 10 days of release or
• Within 10 days of arrival in the city/county
• Street Gang Registration Requirements
• 186.32 PC
• Appear at the appropriate law enforcement agency
• With parent or guardian
• Complete forms
• Submit to photographs and fingerprinting
• Street Gang Registration Requirements
• Change of address – notify law enforcement agency within 10 days
• New jurisdiction – re-register and notify old agency within 10 days
• Failure to register – misdemeanor
• Failure to register with new offense – enhancement of 16 mos, 2 years, or 3 years added to commitment time
• Police Gang Suppression
• Law enforcement agencies have officers assigned to:
• Gang control
• Suppression units
• County task forces
• Detectives/investigators
• Specialists on gangs
• Police Gang Suppression
• Primary element of street gang suppression:
• Identification of gangs
• Identification of gang members
• Tracking gang movements
• Tracking of gang activities
• Police Gang Suppression
• Gang member identifiers:
• Clothes
• Colors
• Tattoos
• Graffiti
• Police Gang Suppression
• Graffiti:
• Language of the street
• Identifies territories
• Identifies gang members
• Challenges to or from other gangs
• Police Gang Suppression
• Police officer suppression efforts include:
• Document gang members
• Deliver documentation letter from the district attorney to gang members making them eligible for offense enhancements and punishment
• Police Gang Suppression
• Minor admitted membership
• Identified by reliable informant
• Appears in gang photos/documents
• Identified by another gang member
• Identified by untested informant plus corroboration
• Taken into custody with known gang member during an offense
• Task or Strike Force Organizations
• Urban areas
• Juvenile activities not linked to a specific area
• Not limited to traditional delinquent offenses
• Violent offenses by juveniles up 30%
• Gang involvement accounts for most of this increase
• Task or Strike Force Organizations
• Use of guns
• Police agencies combining resources to form task forces
• Suppression of gang activities
• County-wide or region-wide
• Most recently nationwide – MS-13
• CA often uses probation and parole agents – not all states do
• Task or Strike Force Organizations
• Many gang members are on probation or parole
• Proposition 21 makes it easier to track gang members through gang registration requirements
Chapter 5 • Introduction
• Three procedural areas encountered by law enforcement on a daily basis:
• Fifth Amendment
• Sixth Amendment
• Fourth Amendment
• Fifth and Sixth Amendment Protections
• Fifth and Sixth Amendment Protections
• Adults – right to remain silent
• Adults – right to have an attorney
• The Miranda Requirement
• Federal case law
• Miranda v. Arizona, 1966
• CA law police must follow when dealing with juveniles is found in WIC 625(b)
• Follows custodial interrogation of an adult by police
• The Miranda Requirement
• Miranda has two specific conditions:
• Suspect taken into custody or deprived of freedom in a significant way
• Suspect is subject to questioning about a crime by a police officer
• This is known as custodial interrogation
• The Miranda Requirement
• U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Miranda applies equally to juveniles
• In re Gault, 1976
• Requirements for Miranda are the same as adults
• Fare V. Michael C., 1979
• CA case
• In re Bonnie H., 1997
• The Miranda Requirement
• Recent U.S. Supreme Court case
• Yarborough v. Alvarado, 2004
• See case in book
• Independent state grounds: State may provide more protections than are required to satisfy the Constitution
• California Law
• 625 WIC – procedures an officer must immediately follow in advising a minor of his or her rights
• “In any case”
• Temporary custody
• 601 and 602 cases
• Or has violated order of the court
• Or has escaped from commitment
• California Law
• Best suggestion
• Advise the minor immediately
• After temporary custody completed
• Crime scene secured
• Victim attended to
• Witness interviews
• Other matters
• California Law
• CA law identical to Miranda
• No statutory directive about age to understand and knowingly waive his or her rights
• Case decisions key to interrogating juveniles
• California Law
• People v. Lara, 1967
• Court decision
• Minor has the capacity to understand his or her rights
• Can knowingly and intelligently waive them
• Regardless of the seriousness of the alleged offense
• California Law
• If a child asks to speak to his or her parents before responding to questions, it does not mean they have invoked his or her right to remain silent
• Police officers should clarify the minor’s request
• California Law
• If a child asks to speak to his or her parents for advice about the interrogation, he or she is invoking the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent
• If it is for some other reason, they have not invoked their right
• California Law
• Police have the burden of proving the legality of any waiver – Beyond a reasonable doubt
• California Law
• Fare v. Michael C, 1979
• Reiterated the concept of “totality of circumstances” (Miranda)
• Understanding and waiver
• Age
• Experience
• Education
• Background
• California Law
• Intelligence
• Capacity to understand the warning, the rights, and the consequences
• Parents do not have any rights, only the minor does
• 625 WIC Procedures Summarized
• 625
• Minor shall be advised of his or her rights in any case when taken into temporary custody regardless of disposition
• Warning must occur before questioning
• 625 WIC Procedures Summarized
• If a minor gives any indication by word or conduct that he or she does not want to respond to questioning, they have invoked their right
• Police do not have to advise a minor of the right to speak to a parent
• Police do not have to advise the parent/s of any rights
• 625 WIC Procedures Summarized
• If a minor asks to speak to a parent, the officer may clarify the purpose or intent
• If it has to do with the interrogation or to stop the interrogation, the minor has invoked their rights
• 625 WIC Procedures Summarized
• A parent does not have any right to be advised that a minor is a suspect or that he or she is to be questioned
• The parent does not have the right to be present during questioning
• Totality of the circumstances applies
• Miranda in Federal Juvenile Cases
• Section 5033 of Title 18 of the United States Code (applies to federal officers)
• Taken into custody
• Immediately advise the child of his legal rights
• Comprehensible language (juvenile)
• Miranda in Federal Juvenile Cases
• Notify Attorney General and parents, guardian, or custodian of their rights and alleged offense
• Interested Adult Laws
• Some states have provided more restrictive rights or protections
• Interested Adult Laws
• Advisement and/or consent of any waiver of Fifth and Sixth Amendment by some adult having concern in the minor’s welfare
• Interested Adult Laws
• OH – Consultation with interested adult
• IN – Requires waiver by interested adult or attorney
• CT – Confession made first without father, repeated with father, after waiver signed by both, confession tainted
• Interested Adult Laws
• MA – under 14, interested adult must be consulted with; 14+ have opportunity to consult with interested adult
• GA – parent must be notified and minor allowed to consult
• NH – Totality of the circumstances – 15 factors; GA has 9 factors
• Interested Adult Laws
• ND – attorney must be appointed if no parent or guardian – no absolute right to waive rights
• OR – Miranda, parents may invoke rights; if on probation as a ward of the court, the court may waive the minor’s rights
• Interested Adult Laws
• NV – Has the most protections
• Advise of rights to juvenile and a parent
• Both must waive rights
• If a waived (criminal) offense, minor must be advised of the fact anything said may be used against him or her at trial
• Fourth Amendment Protection
• Introduction
• Fourth Amendment – freedom from unreasonable searches
• Basic constitutional right
• Regardless of age
• Situations that arise involving juveniles
• Introduction
• In-school searches of students and their effects
• Police searches of probationers
• Police searches of parolees
• The Exclusionary Rule
• Weeks v. U.S. 1914
• Created Exclusionary Rule
• If evidence illegally obtained, it is inadmissible in Federal court
• Mapp v. Ohio, 1961
• State (New Jersey) v. Lowry, 1967
• Extended 4th Amendment to juveniles
• School Searches
• Minors do not have absolute expectation of privacy in a school setting
• Administrative searches are permitted
• Juveniles
• Lockers
• Purses
• Backpacks
• School Searches
• Search must be based on reasonable suspicion
• Minor has broken a school rule or violated any law
• May be done only to maintain discipline and safety on school grounds
• Exception to a warrant requirement
• School Searches
• New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1985
• “…requiring a teacher to obtain a warrant before searching a child …would unduly interfere with the maintenance of swift and informal disciplinary procedures needed in the school…”
• School Searches
• “…probable cause” is not a requirement of a valid search. The legality of the search of a student should depend on the reasonableness of all the circumstances…”
• School Searches
• “…reasonable grounds for suspecting the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating the law or rules of the school…”
• School Searches
• “…objectives of the search shall not be excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex and the nature of the infraction…”
• School Searches
• Impact of T.L.O. decision:
• U.S. Supreme Court adopted the standard of reasonable suspicion for schools searches by school officials
• Court balanced the rights of minors with the special interest of the State
• Interest of the State outweighed an invasion of the minor’s rights
• School Searches
• Any illegal activity or contraband discovered in an administrative school search may be turned over to the police
• Arrest and delinquency proceedings may be initiated
• Police may not initiate the search
• May be called in after the search
• Police Searches of Probationers
• At one time police held conflicting views of their roles in handling juveniles on probation
• Police – Enforcement oriented
• Probation – emphasized rehabilitation
• Police chastisement versus probation’s being overly protective
• Times have changed
• Police Searches of Probationers
• Originated as an enforcement tool in probation narcotics cases in 1960’s
• Used a condition of probation and parole
• 3-Way:
1. Person
2. Residence
3. Vehicle
• A Review of Case Law on Probation Searches
• 1960s – search clause was thought to be an exclusive right of probation
• Police assumed it was their right to search, first at the request of probation in order to enforce court orders
• Then by the police to control the juveniles they encountered
• Challenged in court cases
• A Review of Case Law on Probation Searches
• People v. Bravo, 1987
• Set the ground rules for adult probation searches, many were applied to juvenile searches
• Searched his house on a tip
• State Supreme Court upheld search
• Probation is a privilege, by accepting probation, Bravo consented to the search clause
• A Review of Case Law on Probation Searches
• Bravo could have refused probation
• Court also ruled:
• Purpose of unexpected, unprotected search?
• It is to ascertain whether he is complying with the terms of probation
• A Review of Case Law on Probation Searches
• To determine not only whether he disobeys the law, but also whether he obeys the law
• Also must be for rehabilitative and reformative purposes of probation or other legitimate law enforcement purposes
• Not for harassment or arbitrary or capricious reasons
• A Review of Case Law on Probation Searches
• In re Marcellus L., 1991
• State has a special interest in supervising a minor
• Juvenile had agreed to search clause, waives reasonable expectation of privacy
• Order is against the minor without reference to the knowledge of it by police
• A Review of Case Law on Probation Searches
• In re Tyrell J., 1994
• Court set statewide precedent for all probation search cases
• Consider circumstances of crime
• Also the minor’s entire social history
• Juvenile probation is not an act of leniency as in adult cases
• A Review of Case Law on Probation Searches
• It is an ingredient of a final order for the minor’s reformation and rehabilitation
• Final order made in the minor’s best interests
• What may be an unreasonable order for an adult, may be reasonable for a juvenile
• A Review of Case Law on Probation Searches
• Conditions are devised and placed on a minor to ensure his or her reformation and rehabilitation
• Conditions are deemed necessary
• No choice given to the youthful offender
• A Review of Case Law on Probation Searches
• Court also noted:
• A minor may not refuse probation
• Has no absolute expectation of privacy
• Minor has no standing to object
• 2006 Case: In re Jaime P, peace officer must have prior knowledge of juvenile’s probation search clause
• Only grounds; harassment or for arbitrary or capricious reasons
• A Summary of Probation Search Procedures
• The right to search probationers can be an effective law enforcement strategy
• Constitutionally valid to require a consent search as long as it relates to either the current offense or needs of supervision
• A Summary of Probation Search Procedures
• A waiver against warrantless searches also waives any concept of reasonableness, it is a complete consent search
• Probationer has no standing to object to any search order
• Searches may not exceed the scope of the consent, as worded in the condition imposed
• A Summary of Probation Search Procedures
• Searches of a probationer may be conducted only for reasons related to the rehabilitative and reformative purposes of probation or for any other legitimate law enforcement purpose
• Searches may not be undertaken for harassment or for arbitrary or capricious reasons
• Parole Searches
• Few appellate decisions about juvenile parole searches
• Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v, Scott, 1998
• Exclusionary Rule doesn't apply in parole searches
• Removed all Fourth Amendment protections for parolees
• Parole Searches
• Opened door for states to enact laws allowing parole searches without requiring any cause
• CA exception: In re Michael T., 1993
• No knowledge of the search clause, search is invalid
• People v. Sanders, 2003
• Prior police knowledge of the status and search clause required
• Juvenile Gangs: Control and Suppression
• Introduction
• Gangs are usually associated with inner-city neighborhoods
• New York
• Chicago
• Los Angeles
• Prevalence of gangs in cities today is alarming
• 2002 OJJDP report
• Introduction
• 2300 cities (pop 2,500+)
• 550 Jurisdictions served by sheriffs – have gangs
• Gang related homicide in CA up 36 percent
• CA gangs in LA
• San Francisco
• Oakland
• Introduction
• Sacramento Valley
• San Joaquin Valley
• Almost every town
• City
• Village
• County
• Gang Formations and Activities
• Gangs often formed among the youth of economically and socially disadvantaged families
• Gangs often cluster along major transportation corridors – drug distribution
• Gangs fight over territory
• North versus South
• 35 year-old rivalry
• Gang Formations and Activities
• Suerenos
• Nortenos
• Bloods
• Crips
• Sinaloan Cowboys
• Asian Boys
• Almighty Latin Kings Nation
• Gang Formations and Activities
• Hybrid gangs
• Diverse in Race, ethnicity, and gender
• Blend with other non-traditional groups
• Coalitions
• At least 21,500 gangs
• 731,000+ members nationwide
• Gang Formations and Activities
• Gangs have expanded their repertoire of crimes
• Asian gangs – home invasion robberies
• Others – carjackings
• Juvenile gangs crash parties
• Gang Formations and Activities
• “Jumpin-in”
• Proving oneself
• Males - Robbery or shooting
• Females – sex
• Fighting other members
• Why Juveniles Join Gangs
• Number of reasons
• Protection and safety
• Strength in numbers
• Profit
• Motivation
• Fun
• Camaraderie
• Acceptance
• Why Juveniles Join Gangs
• Way of life
• Tradition
• Generational
• Meaning in lives
• Extends family
• Independence
• Power
• Friendship
• Why Juveniles Join Gangs
• Bonding
• Identity
• Rejection of mainstream society
• No alternative
• California’s Legal Definition of a Street Gang
• Passed to aid police
• Aka Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act (STEP)
• “…State of crisis causes by violent street gangs…
• “…threaten, terrorize, and commit multitude of crimes…”
• “…against peaceful citizens.”
• California’s Legal Definition of a Street Gang
• “…activities individually and collectively present a danger to public order and safety…”
• “…and are not constitutionally protected.”
• California’s Legal Definition of a Street Gang
• Organization
• Association
• Group
• Three or more persons
• Formal or informal
• Primary activities are the commission of one or more of 25 criminal acts
• California’s Legal Definition of a Street Gang
• Has a common name or identifying sign or symbol
• Members individually or collectively engage in or have engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity
• Punishment for Street Gang Offenses
• Not a separate crime
• Enhancement to the crime charged
• Adds institutional commitment
• 186.22(a) PC
• Any person
• Actively participates in criminal street gang with knowledge
• Punishment for Street Gang Offenses
• Members engage in
• Or have engaged in a
• Pattern of criminal gang activity
• Promotes
• Furthers
• Assists
• Felonious criminal conduct
• By members of that gang
• Punishment for Street Gang Offenses
• Shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not to exceed one year
• State prison
• CYA
• For 16 months
• 2 years
• 3 years
• Punishment for Street Gang Offenses
• Serious felony
• Committed on or within 1000 feet of
• Private school
• Public school
• During school hours
• Classes or school-related programs
• Enhancement by 2, 3, or 4 years
• Punishment for Street Gang Offenses
• 186.22(i) PC
• Not necessary to prove all or part of his or her time in a gang
• Does not have to be a member of the gang
• What is necessary to prove?
• Active participation in the criminal street gang is all that is required
• Street Gang Registration Requirements
• 2000 – Proposition 21 passed
• Minor adjudicated in juvenile court for any gang offense
• Must register
• With chief of police or sheriff
• Within 10 days of release or
• Within 10 days of arrival in the city/county
• Street Gang Registration Requirements
• 186.32 PC
• Appear at the appropriate law enforcement agency
• With parent or guardian
• Complete forms
• Submit to photographs and fingerprinting
• Street Gang Registration Requirements
• Change of address – notify law enforcement agency within 10 days
• New jurisdiction – re-register and notify old agency within 10 days
• Failure to register – misdemeanor
• Failure to register with new offense – enhancement of 16 mos, 2 years, or 3 years added to commitment time
• Police Gang Suppression
• Law enforcement agencies have officers assigned to:
• Gang control
• Suppression units
• County task forces
• Detectives/investigators
• Specialists on gangs
• Police Gang Suppression
• Primary element of street gang suppression:
• Identification of gangs
• Identification of gang members
• Tracking gang movements
• Tracking of gang activities
• Police Gang Suppression
• Gang member identifiers:
• Clothes
• Colors
• Tattoos
• Graffiti
• Police Gang Suppression
• Graffiti:
• Language of the street
• Identifies territories
• Identifies gang members
• Challenges to or from other gangs
• Police Gang Suppression
• Police officer suppression efforts include:
• Document gang members
• Deliver documentation letter from the district attorney to gang members making them eligible for offense enhancements and punishment
• Police Gang Suppression
• Minor admitted membership
• Identified by reliable informant
• Appears in gang photos/documents
• Identified by another gang member
• Identified by untested informant plus corroboration
• Taken into custody with known gang member during an offense
• Task or Strike Force Organizations
• Urban areas
• Juvenile activities not linked to a specific area
• Not limited to traditional delinquent offenses
• Violent offenses by juveniles up 30%
• Gang involvement accounts for most of this increase
• Task or Strike Force Organizations
• Use of guns
• Police agencies combining resources to form task forces
• Suppression of gang activities
• County-wide or region-wide
• Most recently nationwide – MS-13
• CA often uses probation and parole agents – not all states do
• Task or Strike Force Organizations
• Many gang members are on probation or parole
• Proposition 21 makes it easier to track gang members through gang registration requirements