questions and answers graded A+
Short history of juvenile policing - ANS ✔- Early "juvenile justice" was handled by parents with
the support of the local authorities
- there was no juvenile court or separate juvenile detention until the 20th century
- police were the intermediate step between local institutions and the 20th century juvenile
court
larceny-theft - ANS ✔The completed or attempted theft of property or cash without the owners
consent
Procedures: what the police do - ANS ✔-most juvenile suspects enter the system through police
contact
-police also divert many juveniles from the system through discretion
- station adjustment: the police department deals with the offense, then releases the juvenile
-taking into custody:
-probable cause - a reasonable person would conclude that there is a high probability that an
offense is being or has been committed
-reasonable suspicion- lower standard than probable cause; officer needs at least 30%
suspicion that an offense has been committed or that the youth needs supervision
- booking: fingerprint, photograph, collect DNA, etc.
- search & seizure: an officer may conduct a search without a warrant or probable cause if the
subject, either a juvenile or adult, gives consent
- interrogation:
-fifth amendment: privilege against self-incrimination
- sixth amendment: right to counsel
, - fourteenth amendment: right to due process
-Custody: police must treat juveniles in custody differently than adults
- deinstitutionalization of status offenders
- separation of juveniles from adults
- removal of juveniles from adult facilities
- reduction of disproportionate minority contact, where it exists
Crosscurrents: police interrogation of juveniles: getting the third degree in the third grade - ANS
✔- the fifth amendment
- the following are some techniques that police interrogators use on suspects that wouldn't
work it a lawyer were present:
- befriending
- deception
- verbal insults
- threats
- refusals
- use of force
Yarborough v. Alvarado - ANS ✔- in 2004, the police interviewed 17 yo Michael Alvarado, who
wasn't officially in custody. Alvarado confesses, and his statements to the police were used to
convict him. Supreme Court ruled that the police weren't required to read Alvarado his Miranda
rights because he was never in custody and that his age was an issue in the matter
- age must be considered, but it doesn't absolutely determine what a child knows or how he or
she should be treated in an interrogation; the rules of interrogating juveniles must be
considered on a case-by-case basis
- the court declined to overturn a state court's conclusion that a minor was not in custody for
Miranda purposes during his police interview