Youth defender advocates for court discretion in juvenile cases

Juveniles hold their hands behind their backs as they walk through the Clark County Juvenile Detention Center on Wednesday, May 25, 2011. Photo by Steve Marcus

Katherine Maher, a youth defender with the Washoe County public defender’s office, on Tuesday presented two hypothetical cases to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary.

In one, a minor gets into a fight at school and is charged with misdemeanor battery.

In the other, the same events transpire, but the minor is charged with challenging someone to fight, a more serious gross misdemeanor under current state law.

Nevada juvenile court judges can reduce the first student’s case to “informal supervision,” potentially referring them to anger management or counseling. But even if the court wanted to do the same for the second student, it wouldn’t be possible without approval of the local district attorney.

Legislation before the committee — Assembly Bill 88 — would allow juvenile courts the sole discretion as to who gets informal supervision.

“We feel this is the proper separation of powers, allowing the court to dispose of a case as it deems appropriate,” Maher said.

Along with the judge and district attorney, the child’s probation officer also has to recommend a minor be put under informal probation.

While Tuesday’s discussion was hypothetical, the issue was all too real for minors caught with marijuana pens just a few years ago.

At the time, they were being charged with felony possession of a controlled substance, Maher said.

The result was a “pretty invasive level of intervention” for young people who may have not had any other criminal history, she said.

They were subject to random urine tests and searches of their home.

“That was in part just due to the state’s policy at the time,” Maher said.

In some cases, Juvenile Justice Services recommended the cases be handled informally, but the judge did not have the discretion to do so, Maher said.

Maher said the state’s policy had since changed, but the situation demonstrated the “imbalance” with the way the law is written.

Assemblymember Thaddeus “Toby” Yurek, R-Henderson, said he was surprised that the public defender’s office would advocate for a program that requires minors to admit to their crimes before they can go through the informal process.

He questioned whether a young person may be motivated to admit to a crime, even with little evidence against them, to get into the program. “Are you really OK with that?” he asked.

Maher said if a minor expressed discomfort or said they wanted to speak with a lawyer, Juvenile Justice Services would refer the petition to the public defender’s office.

Informal supervision would also be used for a limited set of cases, she said.

“Juvenile Services is generally not recommending informal handling for a youth that’s exhibiting very high-risk behavior, violent offenses. And even if that were recommended, we have the safeguard of the judge,” Maher said.

Another bill the committee discussed, but also took no action on, would limit strip searches for children “except under extraordinary circumstances.”

Some legislators took issue with the lack of specificity as to the definition of “extraordinary.”

Assemblymember Cecelia Gonzalez, D-Las Vegas, who presented the bill, said she would “definitely take that into consideration.”

The legislation would require two officials to be present during a strip search and that one would have to submit a report on the search within 72 hours.

“Most (state facilities), if not all, have policies in place, but I think this bill ensures that there’s consistency … and limits what, when and how searches are undertaken,” said Jennifer Fraser, chief deputy public defender in Clark County’s Juvenile Division.