Bail, Detention and Preventive Detention Class 15

Case of the Day N.G. & S.C. v. Connecticut, 382 F.3d 225 (2004) State policy allows juveniles to be strip searched at juvenile detention facilities upon: Initial intake (Protection from hazards of contraband) Re-admission (including return from furlough, hospital, or court proceedings) Reasonable belief that a detainee may be carrying dangerous contraband (Justice v City of Peachtree) The principal basis for detention is to await trial following arrest for a juvenile offense, and (in CT, at least) the majority of which are status offenses Searches in custodial setting justified by “special need,” individualized reasonable suspicion and “legitimate gov’t interest” (Bell v Wolfish, Roe v Marcotte) (see N.G. opinion at 233) What is the penological interest that motivates a strip search of either a minor or an adult when an offense other than a felony is alleged (Turner v Safley)? Child protection interest (parens patriae) as special need? But is there a danger of re-victimization if child is traumatized?

Facts: Parents of two young girls (ages 13 & 14) file suit alleging violation of daughters’ Fourth Amendment rights Neither girl was convicted of any crime, but were being held for trial as status offenders History of mental illness, suicide attempts, self-mutilation, and drug and alcohol abuse Eight searches of one (usually upon transfer from one facility to the next), two of another Instigation – e.g., disappearance of pencils on two occasions Legal Issues: Fourth Amendment? Are strip searches “reasonably related to a penological interest?” (Turner v. Safely) If so, must it be tied to the investigation of an alleged criminal act? What about “subjective purposes” of search? Special consideration for body cavity searches (Wolfish) Does Turner standard apply? (prison case) Reasonableness should be indexed to reason for confinement as indicated by type/reason of placement – these kids were runaways, truants, status offenders What about juveniles’ “special needs?” (Board v. Earls) Protecting kids from themselves State as de facto guardian has right to search Strip searches as a means of detecting abuse/well-being and preventing self-harm Do strip searches pose risks to juveniles’ psychological health (e.g., “demeaning,” “dehumanizing,” “terrfying,” “humiliating” experience)

Second Circuit concludes: Strip searches conducted on female juveniles after their transfer from one detention facility to another violates Fourth Amendment. However, strip searches are lawful when: Performed upon initial admission to detention facility to assess juveniles’ well-being and institutional safety; repetitive searches are unreasonable and unjustified Reasonable belief that detainee may be carrying dangerous contraband at admission Strip searches exclude cavity searches Sotomayor Dissent Where’s the individualized suspicion? Need a higher bar Is deterrence interest enough to compromise invasion of bodily privacy? Invitation to abuse by staff?

Right to Bail Juveniles do not have an absolute constitutional or statutory right to bail (L.O.W. v District Court) Protective purposes of juvenile court intervention supercede individual rights Due process then, is limited to “fundamental fairness” in the trial proceeding (Gault, Winship) Does denial of bail weaken pre-trial preparations and unduly disadvantage youthful defendant? Do (informal) pretrial hearings provide ample opportunity for judge to consider factors relevant to pretrial release or other forms of release (i.e., “the child’s needs and welfare”)?

Bail can be set, for the usual reasons Some juvenile courts assume that the regulatory function of the juvenile detention hearing is a substitute for bail Presumption of innocence/release limits use of detention Explicit consideration of child welfare issues Tacit consideration of child’s assistance in his or her defense Statutory standards for detention also mitigate its harm vis-à-vis child’s welfare

Bail Raises Difficult Questions about the Juvenile Court If we have a bail system, why then have a juvenile court? Isn’t the purpose to use the law’s teeth to protect children, not just ensure that they make their court date? Doesn’t a bail system reproduce the same inequalities for juveniles as for adults? Isn’t it double punishment for children (poor parents lead to delinquency, then poor parents increase risk of detention)? Presumption of guilt Remedial value of detention?

Detention Case Law Bell v Wolfish – use of detention to ensure appearance at trial, a regulatory function and not a penal one Barefoot v Estelle – validity of individualized predictions of dangerousness based on clinical criteria Schall v Martin – since it was regulatory, time limited and not punitive, detention did not violate due process – is this an excuse for minimal services in detention? (despite litigation over conditions)

Bases for Detention Ensure appearance at court hearings Parent refusal to take the child back into the home “FINS” cases where there is probable cause that a delinquent act has been committed (CT statutes) Georgia, LA screening criteria Balance of risk versus protective factors ?

ABA Juvenile Detention Standards Purposes of Detention are: Protect the jurisdiction and process of courts Public safety Protect juvenile from bodily harm Purposes are NOT: Punishment Allow parents to avoid responsibility Satisfy victim or police demands Ease administrative access to juvenile Facilitate interrogation Substitute for inadequate alternatives

Recurring Legal and Policy Issues on Detention Juveniles cannot be detained in secure facilities for status offenses Does presumption of dangerousness (and therefore detention) for certain offenses automatically trigger right to bail? When does legitimate interest (danger) trump right to bail? Do harsh conditions of pretrial confinement also trigger additional due process rights (including bail)? CO Supreme Court says no (People v Denver Juvenile Court, 1995) Does rebuttable presumption of dangerousness risk self-incrimination during detention proceeding? CO Supreme Court (again) says no, the presumption of detention does not neuter due process guarantees.

Detention Decision-Making Decision Stages – Alfredo A v Sup Ct LA County Police Apprehension “Promptness” standard (Gerstein) Initial Hearing (24-72 hours) (CA: 48 hour rule invalid) Continued Detention (14 days) Detention hearing is not a Preliminary Hearing 48 Hour rules (McLaughlin) for adults need not apply to juveniles Factors that Influence Decision (State Studies) Prior record Severity of charge, weapon (gun), Injury to victim Appearance of responsible adult at each hearing Demeanor, physical appearance Gender and Race Alternatives are permissible at each stage

Impacts of Detention Strongest predictor of severity of sentence (disposition) Primary source of racial disparities and disproportionate minority confinement Unregulated punishment – generally poor services, poor staff, chaotic and violent places Remediation – race-blind screening, alternatives to detention, development of standards that invite regulation (See, Feld, at 355-7

Schall v Martin (1984) NYS Court of Appeals found that detention was unregulated punishment, since most petitions were dismissed or defendants were released US Supreme Court: Judges can predict future danger best (reject social science claim) State interest in protecting juveniles justifies use of detention to help juveniles themselves avoid future crimes that would expose them to further court action and other harms (“his own folly”) Also, legitimate regulatory interest Schall blamed for much overcrowding, leading to significant litigation all across the country Schall narrowed and simplified standards for detention, substituted procedural standards for substantive standards

Validity of Predictions Fagan & Guggenheim Research on Schall Sample Short-term test – 14 days, 30 days – no significant differences for violent offenses Significant differences for all offense types High rates of false positives among Schall sample FTA rates not significantly different Long-term predictions were useless

Conditions in Detention Do conditions matter? Not much in Schall Should conditions matter? Must conditions match “parental supervision”? (Rehnquist in Schall) Do conditions contribute to failure? Yes, if it is overused, since conditions may be iatrogenic See: Facilities Review Panel v Coe (WV case) Rights to education? MH services? Health care? When is detention = punishment? Indexed to conditions? Juveniles in Adult Jails Sight and sound separation