Juvenile Justice - Status Offenses Flashcards
Status Offenses
Refers both to (i) genuine status offenses limited to the status of youth (truancy/MIP/underage smoking) and (ii) status conditions - being ungovernable
Robinson v. California
[SCOTUS]
8th Amendment violated if you punish a pure status - being a drug addict
In re Gault
Holding is limited to delinquency proceedings, so we have questions about what proceedings are required in status offense cases to satisfy due process.
S.S. v. State
[Maine]
Issue: is adjudicating a juvenile of “living in circumstances of manifest dangers of falling into habits of vice or immorality” to vague? HELD: Just as the natural parent can limit the child’s freedom, the state can too, in exercise of its parens patriae guardianship. This isn’t vague - the judge just has to decide if the allegations of the petition show that there is a real danger the conduct, if persisted, there is a real danger the conduct will bring about criminal violations of adulthood. It is valid legislation b /c it requires a person to conform his conduct to an imprecise but comprehensible normative standard - criminal conduct.
* Gardner says that this is vague, but it’s okay b/c it’s a decision, not conduct case
Lanes v. State
[Texas]
The probable cause requirement of the 4th Amend. extends to children having engaged in delinquent conduct or indicating a need for supervision. Majority of states have adopted this rule - 4th Amendment protections against searches and seizures (including arrests) apply to juveniles in the same way they do for adults.
State in Interest of J.B.
[N. Jersey]
A warrant-less arrest for a felony is lawful if the arresting officer has probable cause but unlawful for a misdemeanor unless the offense was committed in the presence of the officer. A lawful custodial arrest justifies a full search of the person. Police took the juvenile into custody for being delinquent (namely for idly roaming the streets at night), then found MJ.
Fare v. Michael
[SCOTUS]
PO=Atty A P.O. isn’t an atty - he can’t protect a suspect (act as a buffer between state and client; give advice) like an atty can. A P.O. works for the state, he’s a peace officer; only an attorney can legally keep info from client secret. We decline to find that the request for a P.O. is tantamount to the request for an atty PO = Asserting Silence there’s nothing to suggest juvenile asking for his P.O. constitutes an expression of the juvenile’s right to remain silent. Waiving Miranda State has to demonstrate defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel, looking at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation. This includes evaluation of juvenile’s age, background, education, experience, and intelligence/capacity.
Schall v. Martin
SCOTUS
Is preventive detention compatible w/ the fundamental fairness required by due process? Yes b/c juvenile’s liberty interest may be subordinated to the State’s parens patriae interest in preserving his welfare, recognition of the fact children are always in someone’s custody and the state’s compelling interest in protecting the community from crime. Punishment? A pretrial detainee can’t be punished - legitimate state interests won’t justify punishment w/o a trial. Is something punishment? Decide whether there is an alternative purpose to which the restriction may rationally be connected to and considering whether an whether it appears excessive. No indication detainment = punishment b/c limited in time, placed in detention not jail.
In re LM
Kansas
Both SCOTUS and Kan. Sup. Ct. say no right to jury trial for a juvenile, but the Kan. system has changed since then, becoming more punitive and more like adult criminal court, so juveniles should have a right to a jury trial.
RLR v. State
[Alaska]
6th Amend. guarantees right to public trial. Alaska Con. has similar provision. Public trial is necessary to check judicial discretion, prevent courts from being instruments of persecution, alert unknown wits, teach public about the government, promote fairness (esp. b/c appeal process doesn’t seem to be adequate to check error b/c of mootness problems and cost of prosecuting). These concerns also apply to juveniles. Court can exercise discretion and refuse to have an open hearing towards persons whose presence isn’t desired by the child or if there’s no courtroom sufficiently large enough to hold all the individuals, but that’s it.
In re J.S.
[Vermont]
SCOTUS says in Richmond Newspaper Inc. v. Virginia that 1st Amend. contains right of access to criminal trials. HELD: Richmond is limited to criminal proceedings and juvenile proceedings aren’t criminal. And even if that right was extended, you’d have to balance it with the compelling interests in the juvenile of maintaining confidentiality, which the U.S. Sup. Ct. has recognized and implicitly endorsed. The state’s interest in maintaining juvenile confidentiality - protecting juvenile from stigma, not rewarding hardcore juvenile delinquents, etc. - override the public and news media interests. And while the newspaper argues in this case confidentiality comes too late, the juveniles have already been named, that’s unpersuasive - this would require a case-by-case analysis, rewards incorrigible delinquents, and allows the news media to determine what cases are open by simply turning up the volume of publicity concerning any case that strikes their fancy.
Affirmative Defenses
- Competency
- Insanity
- Infancy
- Battered child syndrome
