A look at what happens in juvenile court.
"Juvenile justice" is an umbrella term for the special procedures set up by every state to deal with young people whose cases belong in juvenile court. Juvenile courts handle most of the cases in which young people (usually called "juveniles" or "minors") are accused of committing crimes. Of course, the treatment of juveniles differs from state to state, judge to judge, cop to cop. And if differences of opinion generally exist about "getting tough on crime," the conflicting opinions on how to deal with minors accused of crimes are greater still.
Not every young person who commits an offense ends up in juvenile court. A police officer who suspects that a minor has committed a crime may:
* detain and warn the minor against further violations, and then let the minor go free
* detain and warn the minor against further violations, but hold the minor until a parent or guardian comes for the minor, or
* place the minor in custody and refer the case to a juvenile court.
If the police refer a case to the juvenile court, a prosecutor or a juvenile court "intake" officer (often a probation officer) must then decide whether to:
* dismiss the matter
* handle the matter informally, or
* "petition" the matter by filing formal charges.
In some localities, the probation officer makes only a preliminary assessment of whether to file formal charges, and leaves the final decision to a prosecutor. After this initial decision is made, procedures vary. What follows is a brief overview of how juvenile cases typically flow through the juvenile justice system:
* A decision to proceed informally often means that the minor must appear before a probation officer or a judge. The minor may receive a stern lecture, and may also be required to attend counseling sessions or after-school classes, repay the victim for damaged property or pay a fine, perform community service work or go on probation. If the intake officer suspects that a minor taken into custody has been abused or neglected, the officer may initiate proceedings to remove the minor from the custody of his or her parents or guardians.
If the intake officer decides to proceed formally, he or she files a petition and the case is placed on the juvenile court's calendar. (In large cities, juvenile courts may handle over 300 cases each day.)
* The minor is arraigned (formally charged) before a juvenile court judge or referee. At this point, the juvenile court either takes jurisdiction of the case or, if the crime or the juvenile's personal characteristics indicate that the case should be handled in regular court, the judge sets the case for a "fitness hearing."
At the hearing, the judge will determine whether the minor should be tried as a juvenile or as an adult in regular court. As younger and younger minors commit ever more violent crimes, these fitness hearings are becoming more common.
* If the case remains in juvenile court, the minor either enters into a plea agreement or faces trial (often called an "adjudication").
* If, after trial, the juvenile court judge "sustains the petition" (concludes that the charges are true), the judge decides on an appropriate sentence (usually referred to as a disposition).
* Post-disposition hearings may occur. For example, a judge's disposition order may require a minor to appear in court periodically so that the judge can monitor the minor's behavior.
http://www.ralphbehr.net/lawyer-attorney-C0C031DB-8342-4315-877D3948BEC1546C.html
Monday, May 28, 2007
Where Our Criminal Procedures Come From
How federal and state constitutions, legislatures and courts protect the rights of criminal defendants.
The word "criminal" reflects our society's belief that certain acts are unacceptable and that people committing these acts should be punished. Because we place a high value on freedom, however, our state and federal constitutions make it very difficult for the government to take that freedom away from us. As a result -- and perhaps as a price -- the court system often appears to protect the criminal rather than the victim, and to unduly favor defendants who are blessed with clever attorneys. On the other hand, if the system doesn't place a heavy burden on government prosecutors, we risk sending innocent people to jail and we make it easier for our government to slide into totalitarian practices. One thing is sure, no matter what type of system we have for separating the bad citizens from the good, it will always be a matter of great controversy.
Though legislators have relatively unfettered power to decide whether a certain behavior should be a crime, many rules limit the ways in which the state or federal government can prosecute someone for a crime. These restrictions start with the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, which provides basic protections for people suspected of and charged with crimes. These include the right to confront witnesses, the right to not testify, the right to an attorney, the right to a jury trial and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, among others. State constitutions may increase (but not take away from) the federal protections. Federal and state legislatures can pass statutes governing how criminal procedures work in their jurisdictions, but these laws cannot reduce the protections offered by the federal and state constitutions.
The courts regulate the interplay between constitutional provisions and legislative enactments. Courts decide whether or not a particular legislative rule, court practice or police action is permissible under federal and state constitutional law. What may seem like a slight variation in the facts from one case to another can be, in the eyes of a court, the determining factor that leads to a vastly different result.
Example: Using binoculars to look through a window, a police officer sees something illegal going on in a private home. If the officer is not trespassing at the time she views the activity, she may legally enter the home without a search warrant to arrest the suspects and possibly seize evidence. The legal reasoning behind this result is that people inside a home have no reasonable expectation of privacy if their activities can be viewed through the window. However, if the officer uses a high-powered telescope, or a surveillance satellite picks up the illegal conduct through an open skylight, the results may be different., because we reasonably expect that our private activities will not be subject to such invasive surveillance techniques.
http://www.ralphbehr.net/lawyer-attorney-4373DD5E-39D7-46D3-A14B18B8E8BFE2EE.html
The word "criminal" reflects our society's belief that certain acts are unacceptable and that people committing these acts should be punished. Because we place a high value on freedom, however, our state and federal constitutions make it very difficult for the government to take that freedom away from us. As a result -- and perhaps as a price -- the court system often appears to protect the criminal rather than the victim, and to unduly favor defendants who are blessed with clever attorneys. On the other hand, if the system doesn't place a heavy burden on government prosecutors, we risk sending innocent people to jail and we make it easier for our government to slide into totalitarian practices. One thing is sure, no matter what type of system we have for separating the bad citizens from the good, it will always be a matter of great controversy.
Though legislators have relatively unfettered power to decide whether a certain behavior should be a crime, many rules limit the ways in which the state or federal government can prosecute someone for a crime. These restrictions start with the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, which provides basic protections for people suspected of and charged with crimes. These include the right to confront witnesses, the right to not testify, the right to an attorney, the right to a jury trial and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, among others. State constitutions may increase (but not take away from) the federal protections. Federal and state legislatures can pass statutes governing how criminal procedures work in their jurisdictions, but these laws cannot reduce the protections offered by the federal and state constitutions.
The courts regulate the interplay between constitutional provisions and legislative enactments. Courts decide whether or not a particular legislative rule, court practice or police action is permissible under federal and state constitutional law. What may seem like a slight variation in the facts from one case to another can be, in the eyes of a court, the determining factor that leads to a vastly different result.
Example: Using binoculars to look through a window, a police officer sees something illegal going on in a private home. If the officer is not trespassing at the time she views the activity, she may legally enter the home without a search warrant to arrest the suspects and possibly seize evidence. The legal reasoning behind this result is that people inside a home have no reasonable expectation of privacy if their activities can be viewed through the window. However, if the officer uses a high-powered telescope, or a surveillance satellite picks up the illegal conduct through an open skylight, the results may be different., because we reasonably expect that our private activities will not be subject to such invasive surveillance techniques.
http://www.ralphbehr.net/lawyer-attorney-4373DD5E-39D7-46D3-A14B18B8E8BFE2EE.html
You Can Run, But You Can't Hide
A recent Supreme Court decision encourages you to stand your ground if you're stopped by police.
While patrolling a "high-crime" district in Chicago, two police officers saw a man take off running when he spotted their patrol car. The police chased and caught him, patted him down and found an illegal weapon. At his trial, the man -- Wardlow by name -- asked the court to keep the weapon out of evidence, arguing that the chase and pat down were illegal. Wardlow argued that the police had no constitutional basis to believe that he might be engaged in criminal activity. The trial court refused Wardlow's request, and the case ultimately reached the United States Supreme Court.
On January 12, 2000, the Court ruled that the police acted constitutionally and that the trial court was correct in allowing the weapon into evidence. (Illinois v. Wardlow)
What does the Wardlow case teach us? Basically, it confirms what most of us already suspect -- when it comes to the police you can run, but you can't hide. But if this rule is so simple, why did it take a U.S. Supreme Court case to set us right? Let's take a closer look at the law of search and seizure, and why this case makes an important contribution to it.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution requires that to make a valid search, the police must first have probable cause to believe that contraband or other evidence of a crime will be uncovered. Probable cause has no fixed definition. In essence, it means that there is adequate objective information to form a belief that it is more likely than not that a crime has occurred or is occurring and that the suspect is involved. The police are supposed to obtain a search warrant -- written permission from a judge -- before making a search. However, there are exceptions, such as when circumstances don't allow adequate time to get a warrant.
In the Wardlow case, there was no search in the classic sense. Rather, the officers conducted what's known as a "stop and frisk." In a case decided over 30 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the police may:
* stop a person in a public place if they have a "reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity," and
* frisk the person (pat his or her outer clothing for weapons) for self-defense purposes if they are concerned that the person might be armed.
If the police discover evidence of a crime in the course of conducting the frisk, that evidence can be used in a criminal trial only if the police can demonstrate "reasonable suspicion" for the initial stop. But what is reasonable suspicion? As with probable cause, the definition varies from case to case. Reasonable suspicion requires less certainty than probable cause but more than a mere hunch. All we really know for sure is that the police must base their suspicion on facts that can be articulated and not on mere intuition. In Wardlow, the articulated facts were:
* Wardlow was in a "high narcotics traffic" area, and
* Wardlow ran when he saw the police.
These facts, said the Court, were enough to justify the stop (actually, the chase) under the reasonable suspicion standard, so the frisk was therefore legal.
Suppose Wardlow had stood his ground. Even though it was a high crime area, previous cases have held that the police cannot use that one fact to justify a stop and frisk. It was only because Wardlow took flight that the police succeeded in proving reasonable suspicion.
http://www.ralphbehr.net/lawyer-attorney-1F59B97A-E405-4205-B17204ED7102568F.html
While patrolling a "high-crime" district in Chicago, two police officers saw a man take off running when he spotted their patrol car. The police chased and caught him, patted him down and found an illegal weapon. At his trial, the man -- Wardlow by name -- asked the court to keep the weapon out of evidence, arguing that the chase and pat down were illegal. Wardlow argued that the police had no constitutional basis to believe that he might be engaged in criminal activity. The trial court refused Wardlow's request, and the case ultimately reached the United States Supreme Court.
On January 12, 2000, the Court ruled that the police acted constitutionally and that the trial court was correct in allowing the weapon into evidence. (Illinois v. Wardlow)
What does the Wardlow case teach us? Basically, it confirms what most of us already suspect -- when it comes to the police you can run, but you can't hide. But if this rule is so simple, why did it take a U.S. Supreme Court case to set us right? Let's take a closer look at the law of search and seizure, and why this case makes an important contribution to it.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution requires that to make a valid search, the police must first have probable cause to believe that contraband or other evidence of a crime will be uncovered. Probable cause has no fixed definition. In essence, it means that there is adequate objective information to form a belief that it is more likely than not that a crime has occurred or is occurring and that the suspect is involved. The police are supposed to obtain a search warrant -- written permission from a judge -- before making a search. However, there are exceptions, such as when circumstances don't allow adequate time to get a warrant.
In the Wardlow case, there was no search in the classic sense. Rather, the officers conducted what's known as a "stop and frisk." In a case decided over 30 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the police may:
* stop a person in a public place if they have a "reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity," and
* frisk the person (pat his or her outer clothing for weapons) for self-defense purposes if they are concerned that the person might be armed.
If the police discover evidence of a crime in the course of conducting the frisk, that evidence can be used in a criminal trial only if the police can demonstrate "reasonable suspicion" for the initial stop. But what is reasonable suspicion? As with probable cause, the definition varies from case to case. Reasonable suspicion requires less certainty than probable cause but more than a mere hunch. All we really know for sure is that the police must base their suspicion on facts that can be articulated and not on mere intuition. In Wardlow, the articulated facts were:
* Wardlow was in a "high narcotics traffic" area, and
* Wardlow ran when he saw the police.
These facts, said the Court, were enough to justify the stop (actually, the chase) under the reasonable suspicion standard, so the frisk was therefore legal.
Suppose Wardlow had stood his ground. Even though it was a high crime area, previous cases have held that the police cannot use that one fact to justify a stop and frisk. It was only because Wardlow took flight that the police succeeded in proving reasonable suspicion.
http://www.ralphbehr.net/lawyer-attorney-1F59B97A-E405-4205-B17204ED7102568F.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)