Minor Off enses

• Author: Wendy Davis
• Pages: 18-19

Minor O enses

Lawsuit says diversion program meant to keep troubled kids out

of the criminal justice system violates their constitutional rights

By Wendy Davis

In February 2018,

the Val Verde Unifi ed

School District in

Califor nia summoned

a high school sopho-

more and her grandmother, Cindy

McConnell, to a meeting to add ress

the student’s attendance.

The student, identifi ed in court

papers as J.F., had continual prob-

lems getting to school by the 7:30

a.m. start t ime. A school board

member, a Riverside County proba-

tion o cer a nd other district o cia ls

were present; J.F. and her grand-

mother appeared without a law yer.

At that gathering, J.F. says she

was pressured into a greeing to a

six-month term of “informal” pro-

bation through the county’s Youth

Accountability Team program . The

next day, she was given a probation

contract with a slew of cond itions.

Among others, she had to agre e to

submit to drug testi ng, follow a cur-

few, perform 20 hours of community

service, a llow searches of her home

or car, refrain from a ssociating with

anyone not approved by the program

and tour a correct ional facility.

She is now one of the plainti s in

a class action lawsuit ch allenging

Riverside County’s informa l proba-

tion program.

“Many children have fallen prey

and su ered the constitutional vio-

lations and abuse that prevai ls in

Riverside County’s YAT program,”

says a complaint brought by the

American Civ il Liberties Union,

the National Center for Youth Law

and the law fi rm Sheppard, Mullin,

Richter & Hampton.

“Children are not infor med of

their rights, including the right t o

remain silent or to speak w ith a law-

yer,” the complaint states. “Instead

they are led to believe that i f they do

not agree to enter the YAT program,

they may be referred to the d istrict

attorney’s o ce, even when they are

not accused of a crim inal o ense.”

The lawsuit, fi led last year and

currently pending in federa l court

for the Central Distr ict of California,

alleges that the Ri verside County

Probation Department violates

youths’ due process rights, their

Fourth Amendment right to be f ree

from unlawf ul searches and sei-

zures and their Fir st Amendment

right to associate w ith others. The

ACLU argues that placement on

“informal” probation leaves juve-

niles worse o than no intervention

at all. One reason is th at information

gleaned through the progr am can

be used against juveni les in future

court case s; another is that children

who participate in the prog ram are

presumed ineligible for diversion if

they’re subsequently arrested.

“Rather than diver t children, YAT

draws more children into the cr imi-

nal system,” the complaint read s.

GOOD INTENTION S

Diversion programs generally

aim to keep juveniles who have got-

ten in trouble out of court, espe -

cially when they’ve been a ccused of

low-level o en ses. These programs

can address m inors’ issues—whether

it’s a need for counseling or help

in school—without drawing them

into the crimina l or juvenile justice

system.

Riverside County sugges ts its

program wil l head o problems by

working with troubled kids before

their behavior escalat es into crime.

Riverside’s Probation Department

declined to comment, citing t he

pending litigation. But at a pub-

lic meeting in January, the county

described the initiat ive as volun-

tary. An o cial with the county’s

Youth Accountability Team said

the Probation Department planned

activities for pa rticipants, including

fi eld trips to a football game, art

projects and tours of River side

Community College.

But advocates for juveniles say

Riverside County’s initiat ive harms

teens by subjecting them to a heav y-

handed set of rules whi le failing to

address part icipants’ underlying

problems.

“There is a lot of evidence that for

most kids who haven’t committed

serious o enses, the less criminal-

justice-ty pe intervention we do, the

better,” says Krista L arson, direc-

tor of the Vera Institute of Justice’s

Center on Youth Justice.

“I would like to keep the crimi-

nal justice syst em separate from the

education and social welfa re sys-

tems,” adds Victor Rios, a Universit y

of California at Sa nta Barbara,

sociology professor and author of

Punished: Policing the Live s of Black

and Latino Boys.

He says the justice system doesn’t

have the right tools to help kids who

are lagging in school or a cting out

in ways that don’t amount to crimes.

Instead, the sy stem subjects youths

to additional ru les and surveil-

lance—which can lead to more a ccu-

sations and entanglements with t he

authorities .

The result, he says, is that chi l-

dren who are alrea dy having di cul-

ties become more enmeshed with the

court system. “It’s almost a sel f-ful-

fi lling prophecy.”

From 2005 through 2016, about

13,000 children were placed in

Riverside County’s informa l proba-

tion program, accord ing to the law-

suit. Many referral s came through

schools—and often for activ ity that

isn’t criminal.

MISBEHAVING

The majority of recent referra ls

were for violations of the Californ ia

Welfare & Institutions Code

The Docket

18 || ABA JOURNAL MAY 2019

National

Pulse