Constitutional protections afforded juveniles
The United States Supreme Court has held that in juvenile
proceedings, juvenile courts must afford to juveniles basic
protections, such as advance notice of the charges, the right to
right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and the
right to remain
silent. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 18 L. Ed.
(1967).The Supreme Court has extended the search and seizure
protections of the
Fourth Amendment to juveniles. New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469
U.S. 325, 333,
105 S. Ct. 733, 738, 83 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1985). It has also been
held that the
Fourth Amendment requires that a juvenile arrested without a
warrant be provided
a probable cause hearing. Moss v. Weaver, 525 F. 2d 1258,
Cir. 1976). The exclusionary rule also applies to federal
adjudications. United States v. Doe, 801 F. Supp. 1562,
Juveniles are entitled to Fifth Amendment protection against
self-incrimination in juvenile proceedings despite the non-criminal
those proceedings. In re Gault, 387 U.S. at 49-50, 87 S.
Ct. at 1455-56.
Substance, not form, controls in determining the applicability of
Amendment to proceedings not labeled criminal. Id. at
49-50, 87 S. Ct.
at 1455-56. Since a juvenile defendant's liberty is at stake, the
Amendment applies. Id.
Juveniles are not, however, accorded the full panoply of
rights that adult
criminal defendants are accorded, such as the right to trial by
McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528, 91 S. Ct. 1976, 29
L. Ed. 2d 647
(1971). Most of the opinions reason that a jury trial is not
the Act does not treat alleged juvenile delinquents as alleged
therefore, the Constitution does not mandate it. The
stated that, "(t)here is a possibility, at least, that the jury
required..., will remake the juvenile proceeding into a fully
and will put an effective end to what has been the idealistic
prospect of an
intimate, informal protective proceeding." 403 U.S. at 545, 91 S.
Ct. at 1986.
As a result, juvenile courts still process juvenile delinquents in
a manner more
paternal and diagnostic than that afforded their adult criminal
Alexander S. by and through Bowers v. Boyd, 876 F. Supp.
773, 781 (D.S.C.