Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

S.L. was charged with one count of rape in the juvenile division of the circuit court. Before the adjudication hearing, S.L. filed a motion to dismiss for violation of his right to a speedy trial, which the circuit court denied. S.L. then filed another motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial, which the circuit court granted. The State appealed. After noting that the State's appeal under these circumstances required the Supreme Court's review for the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law under Ark. R. App. P.-Crim. 3(d) instead of relying on facts unique to the case, the Court dismissed the appeal, as it did not have at issue the correct and uniform administration of justice and, instead, involved the application of the Court's speedy-trial rules to the unique facts of the case.

Appellant, a juvenile, was petitioned for a felony and then adjudicated delinquent of a misdemeanor arising out of the same set of circumstances. The court ordered that Appellant provide a biological speciman to determine her DNA profile for the limited purpose of criminal identification after concluding that Minn. Stat. 609.117, subd. 1(2), which requires a juvenile adjudicated delinquent of a misdemeanor to submit a DNA sample, did not violate constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures and was not a denial of equal protection. The Supreme Court affirmed after applying a totality-of-the-circumstances test, holding (1) the State's legitimate governmental interests in collecting Appellant's DNA outweighed Appellant's reduced expectation of privacy following her misdemeanor adjudication arising out of the same set of circumstances as her felony petition; (2) consequently, as applied to Appellant, section 609.177, sub. 1(2) did not violate the prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures in the state and federal constitutions; and (3) Appellant's equal protection claim failed because Appellant was not similarly situated to misdemeanants without a felony petition, who were not required to provide a DNA sample under the statute.

Defendant filed a due process hearing complaint with California's Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), alleging that he was being denied the free appropriate public education (FAPE) that he was entitled to under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. The court certified the following question to the California Supreme Court: Does California Education Code 56041 - which provided generally that for qualifying children ages eighteen to twenty-two, the school district where the child's parent resides is responsible for providing special education services - apply to children who are incarcerated in county jails? The case was withdrawn from submission and further proceedings were stayed pending final action by the Supreme Court of California.

T.M.L. was seventeen when he pled guilty to felony burglary and misdemeanor criminal trespass to vehicles. The youth court entered a dispositional order providing that T.M.L. be placed on probation until he reached age eighteen, after which supervision was to be transferred to the district court and adult probation and parole department. After T.M.L. turned eighteen, the youth court transferred T.M.L.'s matter to district court and transferred T.M.L.'s supervision to adult supervision under the department of corrections. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the youth court's denial of T.M.L.'s motion to dismiss where the youth court had jurisdiction over T.M.L.; and (2) remanded the matter for the limited purpose of striking the condition that T.M.L. register as a sexual offender as a condition of T.M.L.'s sentence, as the youth court did not have the power to require T.M.L. to register as a sexual offender.

The State filed a delinquency petition alleging that a seventeen-year-old girl had engaged in criminal solicitation to commit murder after she asked a stranger to punch her in the stomach to terminate her pregnancy. The juvenile court (1) held that an assault of a woman by punching her in the stomach was a "procedure" intended to terminate her pregnancy and therefore qualified as an abortion under statute; and (2) dismissed the State's petition against the minor because a woman cannot be held criminally liable for seeking an abortion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the solicited assault of a woman to terminate her pregnancy was not a "procedure" as contemplated by statute and therefore did not constitute an abortion. Remanded.

Parents "Madeline P." and "Rex P." challenged a school district's actions regarding their child's educational program under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). A hearing officer found an IDEA violation but awarded less compensatory education services for the child than the parents requested. On appeal, the superior court affirmed the IDEA violation finding and the compensatory education award. The parents appealed, arguing that more compensatory education services should have been awarded; the school district cross-appealed, arguing that no compensatory education services should have been awarded. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's findings regarding the school district's violation of the IDEA's procedural and substantive requirements and the compensatory education award.

After a jury trial, Appellant Scott Brockelbank was convicted of aggravated criminal trespass and assault. The Court of Appeals affirmed Appellant's judgment and sentence, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to disprove Appellant's competing harms defense because there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the State disproved at least one of the elements of the defense; and (2) the sentencing court acted within its discretion by permitting the State to introduce information related to Appellant's nonpublic juvenile adjudication during the sentencing proceedings to the limited extent reasonably necessary to respond to and explain information introduced by Appellant related to the same adjudication.

Jerad Parks was charged with first degree sexual assault on a child. Although Parks was twenty-four years old at the time he was charged, he filed a motion to transfer to the juvenile court because he was a juvenile at the time of the offenses. The district court denied the motion. Parks then pled no contest to attempted second degree sexual assault and felony child abuse. The district court ordered Parks to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Parks' motion to transfer because under the plain language of the juvenile code, the juvenile court's jurisdiction ends when the juvenile reaches the age of majority; and (2) because Parks pled no contest to a registrable offense under SORA, the plain language of the statute required Parks to register as a sex offender.

Defendant Jesse Pearson, a seventeen-year-old, robbed and beat an elderly man. After he was apprehended, Pearson refused to waive his Miranda rights. The next morning, however, he confessed to his social worker, Marie Mahler, without his attorney present. The district court denied Pearson's motion to suppress his confession, concluding that Mahler's interview was not a custodial interrogation implicating Miranda safeguards. A jury convicted Pearson of first-degree robbery, willful injury, and going armed with intent. The court of appeals reversed Pearson's conviction on the going armed charge and otherwise affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether Pearson's confession to Mahler was admissible. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Mahler's interview of Pearson was not a custodial interrogation for Miranda purposes and that his confession to her was voluntary and admissible.

Parents requested that the Anchorage School District evaluate their child for eligibility for special education services. While awaiting the results of the eligibility assessment, the parents arranged for private tutoring. The school district did not assess the childâs eligibility within the statutorily-required time, and the parents requested a due process hearing. They also arranged for their child to be privately evaluated to determine whether he was eligible for special education services. The school district subsequently completed its evaluation and determined the child to be ineligible for services. At the due process hearing, the parents alleged that the school district committed procedural violations under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), including impermissibly delaying the evaluation. They sought reimbursement for the cost of their childâs private evaluation and tutoring. An independent hearing officer presided over the due process hearing and ultimately agreed with the district that the child was ineligible for services. The hearing officer ordered the school district to pay the cost of the private eligibility assessment and to partially pay the cost of the tutoring. The superior court upheld the award of the private eligibility assessment, but reversed the award of the private tutoring cost. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the school district argued that the parents should not be reimbursed for the evaluation or the tutoring; the parents argued they are entitled to full reimbursement for both expenses. The central question the Court addressed was: where a child is ultimately determined to be ineligible for special education services, does the IDEA provide relief for procedural violations that occur during the process of evaluating the childâs eligibility for services? The Court affirmed the superior courtâs decision, upholding the independent hearing officerâs award of the private assessment cost, but reversing the hearing officerâs award of the private tutoring expenses.