Select Page

Juvenile Delinquency
Wayne State University Law School
Pilette, Jennifer A.

Juvenile Delinquency
Michigan Penal and Motor Vehicle Law Field Guide (Lexis – isbn 978-1-59345-581-1)
There will be something on Waiver, the Due Process Trilogy and the court process from pre-trial to disposition.
Week One – History of Juvenile Court
            The Progressive Movement – important because these are the ppl who founded the first Juvenile courts. Jane Addams founded Hull House in Chicago. Poverty and child misbehavior were related. Social science received its start.
·         A benevolent govt could intervene to fix social problems
·         Children’s Bureaus were developed to address the needs of children
·         Child labor laws spawned from this movement
·         Compulsory education was implemented
·         Minimum age and incest restrictions were placed on marriage
·         The first Juvenile Court was established in Chicago and others followed
o   Juvenile delinquents were the fault of faulty parenting and bad parenting
o   The purpose of these courts were to reform
o   The first courts rejected rules of evidence and other protocols to accommodate and create a juvenile atmosphere
o   Specialized judges were selected to serve in the juvenile courts
·         The Civil Rights movement brought the children’s rights movement
Week 2 – Jurisdiction and Overview Of Constitutional Rights
·         1966 – Kent v. US
o   Waiver to adult court – Scotus said waiver was allowable but there has to be a hearing, the juvenile should get a hearing and a judge should deliver an opinion on the record in order to ensure due process.
·         1967 – In re Gault
o   Lack of procedure in juvenile proceedings was hurting more than helping
o   Due Process was being denied to children when in fact Due Process in to be afforded to all citizens regardless of age
o   Gault made an obscene phone call to a neighbor. He was not given a hearing but was sentenced to six years in a reform school.
o   Court held that the Bill of Rights and the 5th Amendment protections were afforded to children.
o   Notice of the charges, right to counsel, right to confrontation and cross-examination, right against self-incrimination would all be afforded to children as due process requires.
o   Theory of rehabilitation was addressed and that this purpose should not be imposed in lieu of impinging on rights.
·         1970 – In re Winship
o   Scotus requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt in juvenile delinquent proceedings
·         1971 – McKeiver v. Pennsylvania
o   Denied the constitutional right to a trial by jury in juvenile delinquency proceeding
o   The court felt that jury trials would unjustly interfere with the juvenile system
o   Michigan has a statutory right to trial by jury
·         1975 – Breed v. Jones
o   Double Jeopardy standard applies even to juveniles
·         General Jurisdiction
o   Depends on Age and Subject Matter
o   Status offenders
o   Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act – JJDPA
§ Reports and recorders to measure delinquents
§ Divested funding to those who were progressing and those jurisdictions that were not
o   Most juveniles are involved in petty crimes and misdemeanors
o   Felonies by juvenile girls have increased exponentially even though violent crime is down
o   There have also been more arrests but fewer funds to place these offenders out of their homes
o   For the purposes of criminal law, you are an adult at 17.
o   Venue is either where offense occurred or where child lives because part of juvenile court is still to be therapeutic. Sometimes services need to be provided or probation requirements need to be enforced.
o   MCR 3.926e – proceedings can be bifurcated. But that never happens.
o   ICWA applies only to status offenders because it has to do with crimes against the child’s personal home. The tribe can weigh in on the culture and what is required of Indian children.
·         AGING OUT
o   David – homeless
o   Risa – dead
o   Daniella – broke
Week 3 – Children in Schools (Search and Confession)
·         New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) Scotus
o   Holding: (1) Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to searches conducted by public school officials. School officials act as representatives of the state and not surrogate parents when they conduct searches for criminal purposes. (2) Search of student’s purse was reasonable. Even though schoolchildren have a reasonable expectation of privacy, probable cause is not needed to conduct a warrantless search.
o   A teacher took defendant to principal’s office after catching her smoking in bathroom. Vice principal searched defendant’s purse and found marijuana and other contraband related to dealing. Defendant claimed search of purse was unreasonable.
·         Doe v. Renfrow (1979) Indiana
o   Holding:
o   A school wide drug inspection was conducted during first period by drug sniffing dogs and police officers under the guise that no legal ramifications would be felt but the school would discipline anyone found with drugs. The dogs alerted to over fifty students. One dog alerted to defendant and after emptying purse and pockets was given a body search where she had to remove some of her clothes. No drugs were found on her.
·         Vernonia School Dist. V. Acton (1995) Scotus
·         Board of Ed of Pottawatomie Cty v. Lindsay Earls (2002) Scotus
·         Beard v. Whitmore Lake Sch. Dist. (2005) 6th Cir.
1-29-09 Class 3
Criminal Procedure Background for Juvenile Court: Basic Search and Seizure Principles
·         Strong sense of justice
·         Generally, in terms of criminal procedure, 4th & 14th amendment prevents unreasonable search and seizure
·         Search: 2 Questions you must ask: 1) Was it a search? 2) Was it supported by probable cause? And if not, is there a special need for a lesser standard for probable cause? Is it reasonable suspicion? Or Reasonable Individualized Suspicion?
o   A full blown search requires a warrant to arrest and a warrant to search
§ Exigent Circumstances: where you don’t need a warrant
§ Warrant is based on the standard of probable cause for adults
§ Terry Stop: Stop and Frisk – police stop you on the street and pat you down – this is a stop and considered less than a full blown search
·         You don’t need probable cause for this bc it’s not a full blown search
·         Reasonable Suspicion standard
o   Standards for searching/arresting:
1.      Probable Cause: Evidence sufficient to warrant a reasonable and prudent person to believe a crime has or is going to be committed – highest standard
2.      Reasonable Individualized Suspicion
3.      Reasonable Suspicion – lowest standard
·         Always balancing interest between gov’t interest and individual interest – just bc the gov’ts interest might be overwhelming, it does not create probable cause
·         Exclusionary Rule – prohibits use of evidence in a criminal proceeding that was incorrectly obtained
o    Prosecutor’s burden to prove:
1.      Confession is freely, knowingly, and voluntarily given
2.      search – probable cause or consent or a terry stop –
 burden to prove reasonable suspicion to make that stop
·         School Searches:
o    Usually looking for drugs or weapons
Lanes v. State: Kid’s probation said he could be fingerprinted at any time – kid picked up by the police – taken to the station and hold him and then fingerprinted
·         Does 4th amendment probable cause apply when the police want to arrest a child?
·         So different from the Progressive Movement
·         Hold the arrest wasn’t valid
·         He was entitled to the standard – probation said can be fingerprinted at any time, not taken into custody at any time
·         Exclusionary rule wa

lace – no right to the air around your space so ct has no problem with this
o   If dog had an interest, kid had to empty his pockets – ct’s ok with this
o   If the dog still had an interest in you, then kid had to do a strip search – ct not ok with this!
–          Strip Searches: Ct said not reasonable in its scope – dog is only trained for the smell and not its presence
o   Ct said there are a lot of reasons a dog might show interest in you – u might have a dog at home, etc.
o   This is a good example of balancing interests – your privacy interest in being clothed in the school vs the interest in the gov’t based on the sniff of the dog – privacy interest of student outweighed the gov’t through the use of a strip search
–          Rule: On a standard of less than probable cause, they are not going to allow a search that is that intrusive based on a standard less than probable cause
–          Situations with Adults – where we determine less than probable cause is ok based on special needs – Ex’s:
o   Customs officials can be forced to give urine almost any time, railroad people
o   Cts will allow searches based on less than probable cause with adults in certain circumstances but as a general rule they don’t allow it
Vernonia School District 47J v. Wayne Acton: (reasonable suspicion to search body bi-products) Drug Testing athletes
–          Leaders of the drug culture is athletes
–          If you tried out for sports you had to test negative for drug testing – if not negative, you had to do it again, and if it wasn’t negative that time either, you were excluded from playing
–          It was the school’s feeling that the drug culture was very much among the athletes and felt they needed to take these measures
–          Ct said: if you’re trying out for sports – you’ve chosen that – so you’re choosing to give up that expectation of privacy
–          Search of body bi-products requires at least reasonable individualized suspicion – even though she concurred in TLO, she says this is a line I’m not going to cross
–          Dissent: says historically we don’t allow these types of searches – it’s overbroad and unreasonable
Board of Education of Independent School District v. Lindsay Earls: (reasonable suspicion to search body bi-products) school wanted to screen every student trying out to be involved in extracurricular activities
–          Great student, very involved, etc – brings suit – says I’m not going to give you a urine sample to be in choir – challenges this rule on its face
–          Ct says there’s a special needs analysis – bc it’s in a school – school
–          Ginsberg was with the majority in Vernonia – but said in Earls, it’s going too far – you cant say any kid in any activity without any showing, should be made to give body bi-products
–          1 by 1 justices are saying you’ve reached a line I can’t cross
–          Dissent says: special needs in the school don’t let you do anything – went too far – too invasive – impermissible search
–          230 Education Law Reporter 1 – good law review article on this subject – school searches