United States v. C.M. (A Juvenile)

Opinion by Judge FERGUSON; Dissent by Judge CALLAHAN.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 5033 of the Juvenile Delinquency Act (“JDA”) prescribes the process due to a juvenile who is placed in federal custody. The arresting officer must immediately advise the juvenile of his or her rights; immediately advise the juvenile’s parents, guardian, or custodian of the juvenile’s rights; comply with any request by the juvenile to speak with his or her parents or a parental surrogate; and bring the juvenile before a magistrate judge “forthwith.” None of these requirements were met in this case — C.M. was not advised of his rights until six hours after his arrest; neither his parents, nor any individual who could act in loco paren-tis, were notified of C.M.’s rights; C.M.’s repeated requests to speak with a representative of his consulate went unheeded; and C.M. was locked in a holding cell for nearly ten hours before being brought before a magistrate judge.

We find that the government violated every requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 5033 , and that these violations were not harmless. As a result of the government’s illegal conduct, C.M. lost his right under § 5033 to the advice of an adult guardian prior to…

dissenting:

I question whether the government agents violated 18 U.S.C. § 5033 of the Juvenile Delinquency Act (“JDA”) in their processing of C.M. in as many ways as the majority states, but I agree with the majority’s implicit determination that the alleged violations did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See United States v. D.L., 453 F.3d 1115, 1125 (9th Cir.2006). I disagree, however, with the majority’s determination that the alleged *506 violations, were prejudicial and with its directions that the juvenile information must be dismissed. I read our precedent as requiring not only a determination of whether the violations contributed to the juvenile’s statements, but also whether the improperly procured statements were harmless. Here, the improperly procured statements were harmless, but even if this conclusion were in doubt, our precedents direct that the proper remedy is a remand. D.L., 453 F.3d at 1126-27 ; United States v. RRA-A, 229 F.3d 737, 747 (9th Cir.2000); United States v. Doe (Doe II), 862 F.2d 776, 781 (9th Cir.1988).

I '

Accepting that the record supports a determination that the Government’s violations of the JDA were a cause of C.M.’s…

485 F.3d 492 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. C.M. (A Juvenile), Defendant-Appellant. No. 05-50585. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued February 14, 2006. Submitted May 2, 2007. Filed May 8, 2007. Michelle Villasenor-Grant, Federal Defenders of San Diego, San Diego, CA, for the defendant-appellant. Christopher M. Alexander, Assistant United States Attorney, San Diego, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California; Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-05-00873-DMS. Before B. FLETCHER, WARREN J. FERGUSON, and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge FERGUSON; Dissent by Judge CALLAHAN. FERGUSON, Circuit Judge. 1 Title 18 U.S.C. § 5033 of the Juvenile Delinquency Act ("JDA") prescribes the process due to a juvenile who is placed in federal custody. The arresting officer must immediately advise the juvenile of his or her rights; immediately advise the juvenile's parents, guardian, or custodian of the juvenile's rights; comply with any request by the juvenile to speak with his or her parents or a parental surrogate; and bring the juvenile before…