Supreme Court's Constitutional Domestication of the Juvenile Courts

• NCJ Number: 164012
• Journal: Children's Legal Rights Journal Volume: 16 Issue: 2 Dated: (Spring 1996) Pages: 6-13
• Author(s): I M Rosenberg
• Date Published: 1996
• Length: 8 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court indicate that the constitutional domestication of juvenile courts may be over; the earlier suggestion that adult criminal trials and juvenile delinquency proceedings were functionally equivalent has given way to a different perspective that emphasizes the unique status of children only to lower constitutional protection.

Abstract

Limiting constitutional rights of children in juvenile courts is facilitated by U.S. Supreme Court rulings constricting the content of constitutional guarantees as they apply to adults. For example, the Supreme Court has never decided whether evidence illegally obtained by school officials is admissible in delinquency proceedings. That question is complicated by the ruling in Arizona v. Evans which held that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule extended to court employees who failed to notify police that a warrant against the defendant had been quashed. This failure resulted in the defendant's arrest, and a search of his person turned up drugs that were used against him at trial. The Supreme Court re-emphasized that the exclusionary rule was historically designed to deter police misconduct, not mistakes by court employees. Given this position, it is questionable whether evidence seized illegally by school officials can be suppressed in either criminal or juvenile courts. In addition, the Supreme Court has never answered the broader question of whether the exclusionary rule of the fourth amendment applies at all in delinquency proceedings. Some commentators, driven by the disparity in constitutional protection between children and adults charged with criminal violations, have urged abolition of juvenile courts. The author believes, however, that a better solution involves reliance on State law. She emphasizes the need for child advocates to convince State officials that adjudicatory delinquency hearings and criminal trials share a common core concern, whether accused persons committed the criminal act for which they are charged. 68 endnotes