Justia Juvenile Law Opinion Summaries

A 13-year-old male student at a Virginia Beach middle school received a sexually explicit photo from a female classmate and, several months later, showed the image to other students during the school day. After teachers reported the incident, the assistant principal removed the student from class, questioned him, and searched his phone’s photo gallery. The school resource police officer was notified and began a criminal investigation. The student ultimately showed the explicit photo to the officer, was read his Miranda rights, arrested, and charged in juvenile court with possession of child pornography. The juvenile court found sufficient evidence for guilt but deferred disposition; the charge was dismissed after the student completed court-imposed conditions.The student, through his mother and later counsel, sued the assistant principal, the school resource officer, the Virginia Beach School Board, and the City of Virginia Beach in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. He alleged violations of his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as conspiracy and Monell claims. The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants, finding the phone search reasonable under New Jersey v. T.L.O., the confession voluntary, no evidence of unlawful conspiracy, and no underlying constitutional violations to support Monell liability.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the assistant principal’s search of the student’s phone was justified at its inception and reasonable in scope under T.L.O., and that Riley v. California did not displace this standard in the school context. The court also held the student’s confession was voluntary under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, found no evidence of a conspiracy to violate constitutional rights, and determined Monell liability could not attach absent an underlying constitutional violation. The court therefore affirmed summary judgment for all defendants. View "O.W. v. Carr" on Justia Law

In 2018, a juvenile wardship petition alleged that E.J. committed several offenses, including assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm. E.J. admitted to that charge as part of a negotiated disposition, and the juvenile court found the allegations true, dismissed the remaining counts, declared E.J. a ward of the court, and placed him on probation. In 2019, the court reduced the offense to a misdemeanor, terminated probation, discharged E.J. as a ward, and sealed the record. Despite these actions, E.J. remained subject to a statutory firearm prohibition until age 30 under Penal Code section 29820.In 2025, E.J. filed a motion in the Superior Court of San Bernardino County to terminate the firearm prohibition. The juvenile court denied the motion. E.J. appealed, arguing that Penal Code section 29820 was facially unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, claiming it failed to align with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, improperly used age as a proxy for dangerousness, and did not provide a mechanism for individualized assessment regarding dangerousness.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that section 29820 is not facially unconstitutional. It found that firearm prohibitions based on juvenile adjudications for certain offenses are consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation and that the statute’s application based on prior adjudication—not age alone—does not offend the Second Amendment. The court also held that due process does not require an individualized assessment of dangerousness when the statute’s application is triggered solely by a prior adjudication. The court further found that any as-applied challenge was forfeited because it was not raised in the trial court or in E.J.’s opening brief. The order was affirmed. View "In re E.J." on Justia Law

A 12-year-old seventh-grade student was accused by a classmate of inappropriate touching at school. The following day, two police officers, neither previously known to the student, removed him from class for questioning. The first interrogation took place in a small, closed office used by the school resource officer, with one officer questioning the child and another, fully uniformed and armed, standing in front of the door. No Miranda warnings were given, and the student was not told he could leave, refuse to answer, or contact his parents. He eventually admitted that he may have accidentally touched the other student. Less than an hour later, questioning continued in a school suspension cubicle, where multiple authority figures, including the officers and an assistant principal, stood around him and asked more direct questions, resulting in a similar admission.The State charged the student with Fourth Degree Sexual Assault. Before trial in the Manitowoc County Circuit Court, the student sought to suppress his statements to law enforcement, arguing violations of Miranda v. Arizona and involuntariness. The circuit court denied suppression, finding the interrogations non-custodial and voluntary. After a bench trial, the court adjudicated the student delinquent. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Miranda did not apply because the student was not in custody and that his statements were voluntary.The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reviewed the case. It concluded that the student was in custody for Miranda purposes during both interrogations and that the lack of Miranda warnings rendered his statements inadmissible. However, the court found that admitting the statements was harmless error: the essential evidence was provided by other witnesses, and the statements were not crucial to the finding of delinquency. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin affirmed the decision of the court of appeals. View "State v. K. R. C." on Justia Law

Twin infants who are eligible for tribal membership were placed in emergency foster care with licensed, non-tribal foster parents after being born with serious medical issues. The county obtained temporary legal custody of the children through a Child in Need of Protection or Services (CHIPS) proceeding, and the children were eventually moved from the foster parents’ home to the home of maternal relatives who are members of the same tribe as the children. The foster parents, after learning of the planned move, sought to intervene permissively in the CHIPS case, filed a third-party custody petition, and moved to stay the placement change, arguing in part that tribal placement preference statutes were unconstitutional.The Minnesota District Court denied the foster parents’ motions to intervene and for a stay, and dismissed the third-party custody petition without considering their constitutional arguments. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. It directed the district court to reconsider intervention and third-party custody, and addressed the constitutionality of the Minnesota Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA), finding it constitutional. On remand, the district court again denied intervention and dismissed the third-party custody petition, concluding the foster parents were not proper parties and could not file such petitions in the ongoing CHIPS proceeding.The Minnesota Supreme Court consolidated the appeals. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying permissive intervention, as such intervention was not in the children’s best interests. The court also held that a third-party custody petition is not available in juvenile court CHIPS proceedings and may only be brought as a petition to transfer custody by a party to the action. Because the foster parents were not parties, the court declined to address their constitutional challenges to ICWA and MIFPA, and vacated the Court of Appeals’ discussion of those constitutional issues. The court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: L.K." on Justia Law

A 15-year-old boy shot and killed his former girlfriend, a 17-year-old, after sending her harassing and threatening messages. The confrontation occurred at a park following an exchange with the victim’s cousin, which escalated into a plan to fight. The defendant brought his mother’s handgun to the scene and, during the confrontation, shot the victim in the face as she approached him. He was apprehended shortly after the shooting and confessed to law enforcement.The State originally charged the defendant with first-degree murder and misdemeanor stalking. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he pled guilty to second-degree murder and stalking. At sentencing, the prosecutor and defense agreed that an individualized hearing was appropriate, given the defendant’s juvenile status. The prosecution recommended a sentence of 44 to 75 years for the murder conviction, referencing Wyoming’s Bear Cloud line of cases and statutory limits for juvenile offenders. The defense argued that, under Wyoming law and constitutional principles, the maximum allowable sentence for a juvenile convicted of homicide should be 22.5 years to life, or at most a minimum term not exceeding 43 years. The District Court of Natrona County sentenced the defendant to 42 to 75 years for second-degree murder and time served for stalking.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming reviewed whether (1) Wyoming’s juvenile parole eligibility statute applied, (2) the sentence exceeded statutory limits, and (3) the sentence violated the Wyoming Constitution’s prohibition on cruel or unusual punishment. The Court held that the parole eligibility statute applied only to life sentences, not to terms of years. The sentence fell within statutory limits for second-degree murder. Finally, the Court found the sentence was not “unusual” under the state constitution because there was no consensus among legislatures or courts that such a sentence for a juvenile was unlawful. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Castaner v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

During a daytime traffic stop in Lawrence, Massachusetts, a police officer encountered a sixteen-year-old juvenile who had been reported missing by the Department of Children and Families. The juvenile was seated in a vehicle with an infant and three adults, one of whom was known by the officer to be affiliated with a street gang. The officer ordered the juvenile out of the car without asking any questions and immediately conducted a patfrisk, discovering a handgun on the juvenile’s person. The juvenile was subsequently charged with multiple firearms offenses and indicted as a youthful offender on one count.The Essex County Juvenile Court reviewed the juvenile’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from the exit order and patfrisk, arguing violation of constitutional rights. After an evidentiary hearing, the judge granted the motion to suppress, finding the officer's actions unjustified under the circumstances. The Commonwealth sought interlocutory review, and a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk allowed the appeal. The Appeals Court reversed the suppression order, concluding the officer’s actions were reasonable under the community caretaking doctrine. The Supreme Judicial Court then granted further appellate review.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the officer’s exit order was justified under the community caretaking doctrine, as the officer was acting to ensure the safety and well-being of a missing juvenile. However, due to inconsistencies in the Juvenile Court judge’s findings regarding the credibility of the officer’s testimony about key facts supporting the patfrisk, the Supreme Judicial Court vacated the suppression order. The case was remanded to the Juvenile Court for clarification of factual findings and reconsideration of the legal conclusions in light of those findings and the Supreme Judicial Court's opinion. View "Commonwealth v. Demos D." on Justia Law

An 11-year-old child, L.D., was placed in foster care with Trina Mae Johnson. Over a period of fifteen months, Johnson inflicted severe abuse on L.D., including physical torture, starvation, denial of medical care, and psychological torment. The abuse resulted in significant weight loss, untreated injuries, and lasting trauma. Johnson concealed the abuse, enlisted others in her household to participate, and intimidated L.D. into silence. The abuse came to light when Johnson brought L.D. to a youth shelter, prompting an investigation by child services and the FBI.Johnson and several co-defendants were indicted on charges of child torture, child neglect, child endangerment, and assaulting a minor with a dangerous weapon in both federal and Minnesota state law violations. Some co-defendants pleaded guilty, while Johnson’s sister went to trial. Johnson was unable to accept a plea agreement because it was contingent on both sisters pleading guilty. She ultimately pleaded guilty without an agreement. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota sentenced Johnson to 216 months in prison, after considering the relevant sentencing factors and victim impact statements. The sentence was below the government’s recommendation but above the prior plea offer.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Johnson argued that the district court judge’s direct, sympathetic comments to L.D. at sentencing demonstrated judicial bias and violated her due process right to an impartial tribunal. The Eighth Circuit applied plain error review, noting Johnson did not object to the judge’s comments at sentencing or seek recusal. The court held that the judge’s empathetic remarks to the victim did not display deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. Finding no plain error or due process violation, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

A seventeen-year-old defendant was charged with murder after the shooting death of a victim in a Bridgeport housing complex stairwell. Surveillance footage showed the defendant leading the victim into the building and exiting alone minutes later, covering his face with a mask. The victim was later found naked and bleeding outside the basement door, having been shot six times. Police investigation led to a search of the defendant’s home, where a .45 caliber pistol and matching ammunition were found in his bedroom. The defendant, interviewed at home in the presence of his legal guardian, admitted to owning the gun and being with the victim but denied involvement in the shooting. Nineteen minutes into the interview, he invoked his right to remain silent, but questioning continued. The defendant was later located in Florida and returned to Connecticut for trial.In the Superior Court for the judicial district of Fairfield, the defendant moved to suppress statements made during the police interview, arguing he had not knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. The court found, under the totality of the circumstances, that the waiver was valid, considering the defendant’s age, education, prior experience with law enforcement, and the presence of his guardian. The court suppressed only statements made after the defendant invoked his right to remain silent. The jury convicted the defendant of murder, and he was sentenced to forty-five years’ incarceration.On appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court, the defendant challenged the validity of his Miranda waiver, sought greater protection under the state constitution, alleged prosecutorial impropriety, and objected to a consciousness of guilt jury instruction. The Supreme Court held that the waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, declined to adopt a rule requiring consultation with an interested adult before a juvenile’s waiver, found no prosecutorial impropriety, and determined any error in the consciousness of guilt instruction was harmless. The judgment was affirmed. View "State v. Cooper" on Justia Law

A 16-year-old committed a violent home invasion, during which he sexually assaulted his former neighbor at knifepoint. He was convicted by a jury of multiple offenses, including rape, sodomy, oral copulation, robbery, burglary, and related enhancements. The original sentence was a combination of determinate and indeterminate terms, ultimately resulting in a total sentence of 44 years to life in prison, with parole eligibility at age 60 after a later modification.After serving more than 15 years, the defendant petitioned the Superior Court of Tulare County for recall and resentencing under California Penal Code section 1170(d), arguing that his sentence was the functional equivalent of life without parole (LWOP) and that excluding him from resentencing relief violated equal protection principles. The trial court denied the petition, finding that his sentence was not functionally equivalent to LWOP and that, under People v. Heard, he was not eligible for relief.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, considered whether the functional equivalency analysis from People v. Contreras, which is rooted in Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, should apply to equal protection challenges under section 1170(d). The court declined to import the Eighth Amendment standard, instead applying a rational basis review as articulated in recent California Supreme Court decisions. The court held that the Legislature could rationally distinguish between juveniles sentenced to explicit LWOP and those, like the appellant, sentenced to lengthy terms with parole eligibility within their expected lifetimes. The court concluded that section 1170(d)’s limitation to LWOP sentences does not violate equal protection as applied to a 44-years-to-life sentence. The trial court’s denial of the petition was affirmed. View "People v. Baldwin" on Justia Law

Police received reports of a group committing robberies or attempted robberies in a white Nissan Rogue that had been reported stolen. Officers tracked the vehicle, observed it being driven recklessly, and saw it crash. Four individuals, including E.A., fled from the car. E.A. was apprehended shortly after the crash, frisked, and found to have a handgun in his sweatshirt pocket. He was subsequently charged with carrying a pistol without a license and possession of an unregistered firearm.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia denied E.A.’s motion to suppress the handgun, finding that officers had reasonable articulable suspicion to stop and frisk him based on his association with the group suspected of recent robberies and the stolen vehicle, as well as his flight from the crash. The court also concluded that, even if the officers’ actions exceeded the scope of a Terry stop, they had probable cause to arrest E.A. for multiple offenses, justifying a search incident to arrest. E.A. was adjudicated delinquent on both firearms charges and appealed, challenging the denial of his suppression motion.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the officers had reasonable articulable suspicion to stop and frisk E.A., relying on the collective knowledge from radio dispatches, corroborated by officers’ observations and the circumstances of the stop. The court further held that the officers’ use of handcuffs and drawn weapons did not convert the stop into an arrest, given the safety concerns and flight risk. Therefore, the search and seizure of the handgun did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and the judgment was affirmed. View "In re E.A." on Justia Law