Overview of the Juvenile Justice Process

• Initial contact (police, parents, schools, DFS)• Discretion to make referral• Taken into custody arrest• Investigation• Diversion• Detention hearing• Pretrial procedures

Process

• File a petition (indictment)• Adjudicatory hearing (trial) • Agree to a finding or deny petition• Adjustment (plea bargain) Adjudication (conviction)• Disposition (sentence)• Bifurcated process• Aftercare

Process

• Commitment (incarceration, institutionalized)• Youth development center, training school

(prison)• Residential facility (halfway house)

Current legislation

• National advisory commission on criminal justice standards and goals (1973)

• Emphasized: • Prevention• Diversion• Dispositional alternatives• Due process• Controlling the violent and chronic delinquent

Legislation

• Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974

• Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)

• Removed juveniles from adult jails• Separation of status offenders and delinquents• Violent crime control and law enforcement act of

1994

Police and Juveniles

• Role conflicts: law enforce or service-oriented delinquency prevention

• Arrests• 64% referred to juvenile court• 28% informally handled and released• 5% referred to criminal court• 2% referred to DFS

History

• 19th century: increase in number of unemployed and homeless youths

• Wickersham Commission, IACP advocated police reform

• Delinquency control squads• Vollmer (Berkeley): prevention programs and

juvenile aid bureaus, first organized special police services for youths

History

• 1960s: increased tension between police and citizens

• Civil unrest; police seen as oppressors• Increase in crime• Law Enforcement Assistance Administration

(LEAA)• Development of role in community awareness

and crime prevention

History

• Specialized programs for juveniles• Police athletic leagues• Project DARE• Community outreach (crime prevention, Weed &

Seed• School resource officers• Gang control

Police and the law

• Law of arrest the same for adults and juveniles• Probable cause• Misdemeanor: police must observe crime• Felony: probable cause• Otherwise must have a warrant• Police can “arrest” youths for status offenses such as

truancy, running away and alcohol use

Police and the law

• In loco parentis• Protective rather than punitive function• Once arrested, formal safeguards of the 4th and

5th amendment attach• 4th amendment standards of search and seizure

have been determined to apply to juveniles

Police and the law (exceptions to the warrant requirement)

• Same stop and frisk rule (Terry v. Ohio)• Search after a legal arrest in the immediate area

of the subject’s control (Robinson v CA)• Automobile can be searched if there is probable

cause• Consent to search• Abandoned property

Law and the police

• Plain view doctrine• What about school officials?• Can school officials do searches and turn over

what they find to police?• New Jersey v. T.L.O.• What should be the standard?

New Jersey v T.L.O.

• Balance between the student’s right to privacy and school’s need to provide a safe environment

• Teachers do not need to obtain a warrant before searching a student

• Justified if violating the law OR violating school rules

• Legality depends on reasonableness, rather than probable cause

New Jersey v TLO

• Considerations are the scope of the search, age and sex of the student, and that behavior that prompted the search

• An adult could not be searched by an agent of the government under this standard

• This case is a balance between protections of adults and the needs of youths

• In loco parentis

Veronia School district

• Supreme Court allowed for suspicionless drug testing program for those in the athletics program

• Would this case apply to youths who are not in such programs, i.e., random testing ? Not clear, has not be litigated

Custodial interrogations

• Miranda v. AZ (1966)• In re Gault applied Miranda warnings to juveniles

(1967)• Is a child’s waiver of those rights valid?• People v. Lara: whether juvenile can waive

depends on the totality of the circumstances: • Age and other factors

Interrogations

• People v Lara also said that other factors could be considered: education, knowledge, whether youth could consult with family or friends, method of interrogation, whether youth had refused previously to give statements

• Validity of waiver to be determined on a case by case basis

Other cases on interrogations

• Fare v. Michael: asking to speak to his probation officer not the same as asking for his attorney, statements were admissible

• CA v Prysock: Miranda warning worded slightly differently (taped), court ruled that it was understandable to the juvenile

• Many jurisdictions require attorney and/or parent, just to be sure

Police discretion and juveniles

• Problem of discretion: need for flexibility, but it can be misused (can result in discrimination, especially against the poor and minority groups)

• Considerable evidence that poor children and perceived and treated differently from middle class children

Studies of police discretion

• More than ½ of police juvenile encounters are handled informally

• Stationhouse detention• Factors affecting decision to handle

formally/informally• Piliavin and Briar: other factors being equal, the

demeanor of the juvenile

Studies of police discretion

• Other factors:• Type and seriousness of offense• Wishes of the complaintant• Prior contacts• Race, sex and age• Perceived willingness of the parents to solve the

problem

Discretion

• Location• Police perception of community alternatives• Police department practices• Perceived community standards and norms• Racial bias? Mixed results• Police appear more likely to arrest minorities for

more minor offenses, makes little difference for serious offenses

Discretion

• African Americans more likely to be recommended for formal processing

• However, greater involvement of minorities in offenses

• Factors interact with others indicated above (perceived community standards, alternatives, etc.)

Police and gender bias

• Paternalism, chivalry hypothesis• Police tend to be more lenient toward female

delinquency, but treated them more harshly• Females more likely to be referred for status

offenses• Inconclusive

Class bias

• Youths growing up in poor areas had a significantly greater chance of having an arrest record than youths in other areas, regardless of the crime rates in these areas.

• Might be a function of departmental policy to concentrate on certain areas

New directions: law enforcement

• Field interrogations• Foot patrol and neighborhood storefront police

stations• Community mobilization programs (block watch,

weed and seed, Neighborhood Watch, neighborhood cleanups, etc)

• Community policing

Should discretion be controlled?

• Policies?• Recording of decisions?• Narrowing the scope of the juvenile code?

Other directions

• Mentoring• Curfews• Afterschool programs• School resource officers