Posted: December 22, 2018
Rules of Juvenile Procedure – Comment Period Closed February 4, 2019
URJP009. Detention hearings; scheduling; hearing procedures. Clarifies conditions under which a minor may be held in detention and deletes the Advisory Committee Note.
URJP027A. Admission of statements given by minors. Revised to delete paragraph (a)(2) due to concerns that the language may unconstitutionally shift the burden to a juvenile to show that the juvenile did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his or her rights. Also deletes the Advisory Committee Note.
I appreciate the rules committee amending this rule to reflect the changes to Utah Code 78A-6-113. I have an additional request. Rule 9, as revised, however, does not distinguish between detention, home detention, and conditions for release. As amended, in order to impose any of those, the Court must find that the juvenile is an unreasonable risk to public safety, no alternatives to placement, and they meet the criteria for detention under the guidelines. Section 113 of the statute, however, imposes these requirements with keeping young people in actual detention in mind. I don’t believe the legislature intends for the courts to make those findings for home detention or for placing conditions on release. In fact, I think it would hope that we could exercise those options in lieu of keeping them in detention.
I request that the rules committee further amend this rule to require the appropriate findings for keeping the young person in detention, but not require those for placing them on home detention or imposing other conditions upon release.
Rule 27A should not simply provide protections for youth under age 14 but all youth. Age is simply an arbitrary number. What makes a child who is 14 years and 1 month any more able to waive their rights than a child who is 13 years and 10 months? The rule should protect all youth and make a parent or attorney present for any youth that the police would like to question.
There is a growing body of research showing that juveniles, in general, do not understand their Miranda rights and are more likely to give a false confession. We know that the timing of adolescent brain development is unique to each child. Therefore, Rule 27A should offer the same protections to all youth (not just those under 14) and make it mandatory for a parent or attorney to be present during interrogations.
My comments pertain to Rule 9. Lines 19-21, “A minor may not be held in a detention facility longer than 48 hours before a detention hearing, excluding weekends and holidays, unless the court has entered an order for continued detention.” While this contemplates the possibility of an order for continued detention before a detention hearing, such an order is directly prohibited by UCA 78A-6-113(4)(d): “The judge or commissioner may only order a minor to be held in the facility or be placed in another appropriate facility, subject to further order of the court, if the court finds at a detention hearing….”
Lines 48, 50, and 60 use the terms “reasonable basis” and “reasonable cause” without defining those terms. I would suggest that those terms be defined; especially, whether they are the same as probable cause or how exactly they differ from probable cause.
Finally, I would strongly urge the Committee to provide a procedure for the courts to make a probable cause determination in every case within 48 hours of arrest – including weekends and holidays. While the United States Supreme Court decisions in Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) and Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) related to adults, the principles embodied therein apply just as much – if not more so – to juveniles.