United States v. Jose D.L. (Juvenile)

453 F.3d 1115 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose D.L. (Juvenile), Defendant-Appellant. No. 05-50597. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted April 5, 2006. Filed June 30, 2006. Michelle Betancourt, Federal Defenders of San Diego, San Diego, CA, for the defendant-appellant. Randy K. Jones, Assistant United States Attorney, San Diego, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California; Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-05-00814-MLH. Before MYRON H. BRIGHT, * HARRY PREGERSON, and ARTHUR L. ALARCÓN, Circuit Judges. PREGERSON, Circuit Judge. 1 Defendant Jose A. appeals the district court's finding that he is a juvenile delinquent under 18 U.S.C. § 5032 . On May 10, 2005, fifteen-year-old Jose was arrested after government agents found cocaine hidden in the vehicle he was driving from Mexico into the United States. Because Jose was a minor, the provisions of the Juvenile Delinquency Act, ("JDA") 18 U.S.C. § 5031 et seq. apply. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We reverse in part and remand for further proceedings. I.…

Defendant Jose A. appeals the district court’s finding that he is a juvenile delinquent under 18 U.S.C. § 5032 . On May 10, 2005, fifteen-year-old Jose was arrested after government agents found cocaine hidden in the vehicle he was driving from Mexico into the United States. Because Jose was a minor, the provisions of the Juvenile Delinquency Act, (“JDA”) 18 U.S.C. § 5031 et seq. apply. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We reverse in part and remand for further proceedings.

I. Factual Background

A. Arrest and Detention

On May 10, 2005, at approximately 4:15 p.m., fifteen-year-old Jose attempted to cross the United States — Mexico border at the San Ysidro, California, Port of Entry. Jose was driving a gray Toyota 4-Runner with a Mexican license plate. When Border Patrol Officer Mark Hill questioned him, Jose stated that the vehicle was his, then changed his answer to say that it belonged to his uncle. Officer Hill asked Jose about the purpose of his visit to the United States, to which Jose responded that he intended to go shopping for his mother.

Officer Hill conducted a preliminary search of the vehicle, tapping the driver’s rear quarter panel. According to…

concurring and dissenting:

I concur in the Majority’s holding that the Government did not egregiously. deprive Jose of his right to due process in delaying to advise him of his Miranda rights and in failing to bring him before a magistrate judge “forthwith.” Majority Op. at 1124.

I respectfully dissent from the Majority’s puzzling and contradictory determination that “[t]he government law enforcement agents flagrantly violated the JDA in this case,” Majority Op. at 1125, but that their conduct “did not, in the circumstances presented, affect the fundamental fairness of the proceedings.” Majority Op. at 1124-1125.

Respectfully, I cannot join the Majority’s number because (1) it has failed in its duty to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, and (2) it has ignored this Circuit’s harmless error standard of review for JDA violations and instead, fashioned a prejudicial per se standard that is applicable even to a good faith and harmless failure to comply with the JDA. Under the law of this Circuit, violations of the JDA are reviewed under the harmless error standard. A three-judge panel cannot overturn the law of this Circuit. See Taylor v.…