AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Civil Liability of
Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Juvenile Arrestees
Monthly
Law Journal Article: Greene
v. Camreta - The Ninth Circuit's Ruling on Questioning Minors in Abuse
Investigations, 2010 (6) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Civil
Liability for Improper Interrogation of Minors--Part 1, 2010 (7) AELE Mo. L.
J. 101
A minor girl and
her mother sued four officers or employees of a police department who were
alleged responsible for the public release of information regarding the
juvenile’s arrest in violation of a New Mexico state law. Claims for violation
of privacy were asserted under both federal and state law. The defendants
appealed the federal trial court’s refusal to dismiss the
plaintiffs’ federal civil rights equal protection claim based on
qualified immunity. A federal appeals court found that the defendants were on
notice they would violate the girl’s right to equal protection under the
law if they intentionally and without a rational basis differentiated between
her and similarly situated juvenile arrestees in applying state laws against
the disclosure of juvenile arrest and delinquency records. “Any
reasonable official” in their shoes would have understood that they were
violating the plaintiffs’ equal protection rights by these actions. A.N. v. Alamogordo Police Department, #18-2112, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 20156
(10th Cir.).
The highest court in Massachusetts
has struck down a local ordinance making it a crime for minors under age 17 to
violate a curfew. The court ruled that the criminal penalties minors faced for
violating the ordinance, including arrest and possible commitment to state
custody were too broad to be constitutionally permissible, even if the city had
intended to serve legitimate public safety goals by promoting a youth curfew.
"The criminal processes and punishments provided in the ordinance
contradict well-established goals of rehabilitating, not incarcerating,
juvenile offenders,'' the court stated, while leaving untouched civil penalties
in the ordinance for curfew violators. The curfew requires minors to be home
during the hours of 11 p.m. to 5 a.m., with some stated exceptions for certain
activities. The civil penalty is a $50 fine and the sending of a notice to a
parent or guardian. Commonwealth v. Weston W., #SJC-10299, 455 Mass. 24; 913
N.E.2d 832 (2009).
A California city's youth curfew was overly broad
and improperly prohibited otherwise "innocent and legal" conduct by
minors even when they had parental permission to engage in activities after
curfew. A California intermediate appeals court therefore ruled that it
violated the equal protection provisions of the U.S. and California constitutions.
While the curfew ordinance included exemptions for official school, religious,
and other recreational activities, it did not allow minors to travel to and
from such activities after 10 p.m. unaccompanied by an adult, even with
parental permission. Also, a stated protection in the ordinance for minors
engaged in protected First Amendment activities was "hollow," the
court found, since it did not allow minors to travel to or from such activities
without an adult present. The court also took issue with the ordinance failing
to have a "going to" or "coming from" exceptions to permit
minors to go safely from one curfew exempt location to another. In re A.
G.,#D053991, 2010 Cal. App. Lexis 132 (4th Dist.).
New York's highest court rules that a Rochester,
N.Y. nighttime curfew for juveniles violates both the childrens' substantive
due process rights to "freedom of movement," and parents' rights to
direct the upbringing of their children. While the intended purpose of the
ordinance of preventing victimization of minors was legitimate, the proof
offered by the city of the connection between the goal and the curfew used to
achieve it failed to show the needed connection. The incidents the city pointed
to would not have been prevented by the curfew since two of the victims killed
met their deaths during hours before the time of the curfew, and a third minor
decedent was already subject to an individual curfew. Crime statistics
presented also did not support the argument for the curfew, and there was no substantial
relationship between the curfew and another stated goal of promotion of
parental supervision. Anonymous v. Rochester, #81, 2009 N.Y. Lexis 2010.
Arrest of four female minors for violation of a
D.C. law imposing only civil penalties for underage possession or consumption
of alcoholic beverages stated a valid claim for violation of their Fourth
Amendment rights. Doe v. Metro. Police Dep't of the Dist. of Columbia, No.
04-7114, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 10263 (D.C. Cir.). [2006 LR Jun]
Although detectives' interrogation of an
eleven-year-old girl, which produced her confession of involvement in the death
of a two year old, was custodial and produced an involuntary statement in
violation of her Fifth Amendment rights, the questioning detectives could not
be held liable for her subsequent prosecution and conviction, later overturned.
A decision by the trial judge to admit her confession was superseding cause of
her damages. Murray v. Earle, No. 03-51379, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 5220 (5th Cir.
2005). [2005 LR May]
A "zero tolerance" policy allowing more
severe treatment of children than adults, under which 12-year-old girl was
arrested for eating a single french fry in a train station, while adults were
given citations, was not unconstitutional. Hedgepeth v. Washington Metro Area
Transit Auth., No. 03-7149, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 22230 (D.C. Cir. 2004). [2004
LR Dec]
Indiana's curfew statute violated minor's First
Amendment rights, even with the inclusion of an affirmative defense for minors
arrested while going to or from First Amendment protected activities, since
subjecting them to the possibility of arrest may improperly "chill"
such activities, federal appeals court rules. Hodgkins v. Peterson, No.
01-4115, 355 F.3d 1048 (7th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Dec]
345:138 New York high court rules that juvenile
adjudicated delinquent for endangering the safety of officers effectively
waived any privilege against the subsequent use of that adjudication in other
proceedings by suing the officers for excessive use of force. Green v.
Montgomery, 723 N.Y.S.2d, 746 N.E.2d 1036 (N.Y. 2001).
Even if murder confessions officers obtained from
juvenile suspects were coerced, they could not be held liable under federal
civil rights law for violation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against
self-incrimination when the statements obtained were not used against the
suspects in a criminal trial, but only in grand jury proceedings leading to
their indictment and in a hearing to determine whether they should be tried as
adults. Crowe v. County of San Diego, 303 F. Supp. 2d 1050 (S.D. Cal. 2004).
[N/R]
Police officer was not shown to have used
investigative techniques in child abuse investigation that were "so
coercive and abusive" that he knew or should have known that they would
yield false information. Officer had probable cause for arrest of suspect even
if portions of his affidavit supporting the arrest were inaccurate as to the
number of child victims who had told the officer the arrestee had sexually abused
them. Gausvik v. Perez, No. 02-35902, 345 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2003). [2004 LR
Feb]
344:122 Officers investigating child sexual abuse
allegations had a duty, under Washington state law, to avoid negligence in
doing so; appeals court reinstates lawsuit by parents arrested but later
acquitted of involvement in child sex ring; improper interrogation techniques
during interviews with children alleged. Rodriguez v. City of Wenatchee, #
43812-3-I, 994 P.2d 874 (Wash. App. 2000).
340:59 Even if the techniques used to interview
child complainants were improper and coercive, nursery school teacher indicted
and prosecuted for alleged sexual abuse of children could not recover damages
since these interrogation techniques did not violate her own constitutional
rights; prosecutors were entitled to absolute immunity for presenting
children's testimony to grand jury and at trial. Michaels v. New Jersey,
#99-5486, 222 F.3d 118 (3rd Cir. 2000).
314:26 Interrogations by detective squad of
juveniles facing possible delinquency charges would not be enjoined by federal
court; case-by-case determination as to whether interrogations were coercive
was required; proper remedy for any alleged violation of Miranda rights was
suppression of incriminating statements rather than federal civil rights claim.
Deshawn v. Safir, #97-7410, 156 F.3d 340 (2nd Cir. 1998).
309:136 Officer's alleged threats to eleven year
old female student in guidance counselor's office that she would be in a lot of
trouble unless she answered his questions about her parents' alleged drug use,
combined with promise that nothing would happen if she did provide information,
was conduct "shocking to the conscience." Grendell v. Gillway, 974
F.Supp. 46 (D. Me. 1997).