Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

At issue in this appeal was whether a juvenile has a statutory right to counsel during a police interrogation conducted before a complaint is filed or an appearance is made in juvenile court. The juvenile in this case was adjudicated delinquent of aggravated robbery with a three-year firearm specification. The juvenile appealed, arguing that the police sergeant violated Ohio Rev. Code 2151.352 in obtaining a written statement before giving the juvenile an opportunity to obtain counsel. The appellate court rejected the juvenile's claim, concluding that a juvenile proceeding does not commence until the filing of a complaint, and because no complaint had been filed against the juvenile at the time he was interrogated and gave the written statement, section 2151.352 did not apply. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) pursuant to section 2151.352, a child is statutorily entitled to representation by legal counsel upon the filing of a complaint in juvenile court or upon initial appearance in the juvenile court; and (2) thus, the right of a juvenile to counsel pursuant to section 2151.352 attaches when the jurisdiction of a juvenile court is properly invoked. View "In re M.W." on Justia Law

The State filed a petition that charge D.B. as a principal with theft and criminal trespass for entering a construction site and removing a pair of bolt cutters. The juvenile court adjudicated D.B. a delinquent as an accomplice on both counts. The court of appeals affirmed. D.B. filed a petition for writ of certiorari, claiming that he did not receive adequate Sixth Amendment notice that he may be adjudicated delinquent as an accomplice for the charges. The Supreme Court reversed the delinquency adjudication on the criminal trespass charge but affirmed it on the theft charge, holding (1) D.B. received constitutionally adequate notice through trial testimony that he faced accomplice liability for theft; but (2) the juvenile court adjudicated D.B. delinquent as an accomplice for criminal trespass without notice. Remanded. View "D.B. v. State" on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant, who at the time was detained at a juvenile detention center, with one count of battery by detainee in violation of Fla. Stat. 784.03 and 784.082. Defendant moved to dismiss the charge, contending that a juvenile could not be lawfully charged with battery by detainee while detained in a juvenile detention facility. The trial court dismissed the charge based on its belief that it was bound to follow the first district court of appeal's decision in T.C. v. State, which held that the battery by detainee offense was inapplicable to juveniles held in juvenile facilities. The fourth district court of appeals reversed, noting that in the past it and the fifth district had affirmed a trial court order adjudicating a juvenile guilty of battery upon a fellow detainee. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a juvenile detention center qualifies as a "detention facility" for purposes of section 784.082, and thereby disapproving the first district's decision in T.C. View "Hopkins v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiff taught sixth-grade at a public school and met with a student’s parents about a threat the student had made against another student. He met the parents again after seeing the student beating another student. The father threatened a lawsuit and told plaintiff that an older son, who had assaulted the assistant principal, should have assaulted plaintiff. During a subsequent class, the student used an assignment to write a song with lyrics about stabbing plaintiff. The police liaison encouraged plaintiff to file criminal charges; under Illinois law declaring a knowing threat of violence against a person at a school is disorderly conduct, 720 ILCS 5/26-1(a)(13). School administrators feared a suit and were not supportive. After plaintiff filed charges, his evaluations went from satisfactory to unsatisfactory and administrators advised him that they would recommend that he not be rehired. Plaintiff resigned and filed suit, claiming retaliation for exercise of First Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on the ground that the complaint was not protected by the First Amendment because it did not involve a matter of public concern. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Principles underlying the suit are well settled, which defeats claims of qualified immunity.

The Minor in this case was the subject of several delinquency petitions. Minor was eventually placed in foster care. Minor appealed, arguing the dispositional order placing him in foster care had to be reversed because the juvenile court had failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (INCA). The court of appeals affirmed, holding notice was not required because federal law specifically excludes delinquency cases from ICWA, and any interpretation of California law that would expand ICWA's application to delinquencies would be invalid under federal preemption principles. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) California law requires the court to inquire about a child's Indian status at the outset of all juvenile proceedings, but ICWA's additional procedures are not required in most delinquency cases; (2) a delinquency court must ensure that notice is given and other ICWA procedures are complied with only under certain circumstances; and (3) assuming Minor was an Indian child, the juvenile court did not err in failing to give notice under ICWA in this case.

The State filed a delinquency petition against Appellant, alleging that Appellant committed second-degree intentional murder. The juvenile court certified the proceeding to adult court. Appellant was charged in district court with second-degree intentional murder. The complaint was amended to include second-degree felony murder. The jury found Appellant guilty of second-degree felony murder and second-degree manslaughter. Appellant appealed, arguing that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the amended charge of second-degree felony murder and the lesser-included offense of second-degree manslaughter. The court of appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court had jurisdiction over the charge specified in the certification order and other charges arising out of the same behavioral incident; and (2) the certification process did not violate Appellant's right to procedural due process. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a "proceeding" permitted by statute includes non-enumerated offenses arising out of the same behavioral incident as the offense enumerated in the certification order; and (2) following a valid certification order, a child no longer has a liberty interest in a juvenile adjudication for offenses arising out of the behavioral incident certified to adult court, and therefore the district court is not required to conduct another hearing on the certification issue.

Ariz. Rev. Stat 8-238 requires juveniles charged with certain offenses and summoned to appear at an advisory hearing to submit to the investigating law enforcement agency a sample of buccal cells or other bodily substances for DNA testing and extraction. The penalty for failure to comply is revocation of release pending adjudication. In this case seven juveniles were separately charged with violations of offenses specified in section 8-238(A). Each was summoned to an advisory hearing, released, and ordered to submit a buccal sample to law enforcement within five days. In each case, the superior court rejected Fourth Amendment objections to the sampling order. The Juveniles jointly filed a special action in the court of appeals, which held that requiring the submission of DNA samples from juveniles for whom a probable cause determination has been made does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the court of appeals, holding that the statutory scheme violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

This matter involved two cases, one involving two youths who appeared in youth court for detention hearings and one involving an adult who pled guilty to driving under the influence in justice court. After appearing in district court, the youths filed motions to substitute district court judge, and the court denied the motions as untimely. After the adult pled guilty in justice court, she appealed only the justice court's denial of her pretrial suppression motion, which the district court denied as untimely. The Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of supervisory control for the youths and denied it for the adult, holding (1) the district court improperly determined that the youths had filed untimely motions for substitution of district judge; and (2) the district court correctly denied the adult's motion for substitution of district court judge, as no right exists under Mont. Code Ann. 3-1-804 to substitute a district judge in an appeal of a specific pre-trial legal ruling from justice court.

Appellant N.D. was a juvenile when he was adjudicated delinquent for commission of aggravated robbery and possession of a weapon. After N.D. escaped from the detention center, the State filed a felony information charging N.D. as an adult with capital murder, escape in the first degree, aggravated robbery, theft of property, and second-degree battery. After the Supreme Court reversed the criminal court's denial of N.D.'s motion to transfer his case to the juvenile court, the criminal court transferred N.D.'s case to juvenile court. The juvenile court subsequently entered a decision that N.D. be designated for extended juvenile jurisdiction (EJJ). N.D. appealed, asserting that the criminal court already declined to make such a designation, and because the Supreme Court did not reverse that refusal in N.D.'s first appeal, the issue was decided by law of the case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Court did not previously reach a decision or provide direction to the criminal court with respect to EJJ designation, nor did the criminal court make a decision regarding EJJ designation, and so the law-of-the case doctrine did not bar the juvenile court from granting the State's motion for an EJJ designation.

Sixteen-year-old C.B. was charged with the felony offenses of, inter alia, capital murder, aggravated robbery, first-degree escape, and theft of property. C.B. filed a motion to dismiss and to declare Ark. Code Ann. 9-27-318 unconstitutional and a motion to transfer to juvenile court. In challenging the constitutionality of section 9-27-318, C.B. contended that the statute, among other things, violated the separation of powers doctrine by improperly vesting in the local prosecuting attorney power to determine which court has initial jurisdiction over certain classes of juveniles. The circuit court denied both motions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 9-27-318 was constitutional; and (2) the circuit court did not clearly err in denying C.B.'s motion to transfer.