Moss v. Weaver

• Decision Date: 19 January 1976
• Docket Number: No. 74--3672,74--3672
• Parties: Ronald Moss, etc., and Sarah Sermons, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Sidney WEAVER, Donald Stone, Dixie Chastain, William Gladstone, etc., and Richard E. Gerstein, etc., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 1258

525 F.2d 1258

Ronald Moss, etc., and Sarah Sermons, etc., et al Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Sidney WEAVER, Donald Stone, Dixie Chastain, William Gladstone, etc., and Richard E. Gerstein, etc Defendants-Appellants.

No. 74--3672.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 19, 1976.

Stuart Simon, Dade County Atty., Alan T. Dimond, Asst. County Atty., Miami, Fla., for Weaver, Stone, Chastain, Gladstone, Gerstein.

Steven Wisotsky, Melvin S. Black, Miami, Fla., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before GODBOLD, DYER and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.

GODBOLD, Circuit Judge:

Ronald Moss filed this class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the judges of the Juvenile and Family Division of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, and against the state attorney for that county. The suit challenges the juvenile court judges' practice of imposing pretrial detention upon accused juvenile delinquents without determining whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused has committed an offense. The District Court found the practice unconstitutional and ordered that no accused delinquent could be held in custody without a showing of probable cause made in an adversary proceeding. 383 F.Supp. 130 (S.D.Fla.1974). We affirm, except that we hold that the Constitution does not require a hearing as full as that prescribed by the District Court.

Under Florida law a juvenile taken into custody on a charge of violating the criminal law is brought within 48 hours to a 'pre-detention hearing,' where the court decides whether to release or detain him pending a formal 'adjudicatory hearing.' The applicable statute specifies three factors for the judge to consider: whether detention is necessary to protect the person or property of the child or of others; whether a parent or guardian is available and able to provide adequate care and supervision for the child; and whether the parent or guardian convincingly assures the court of the child's future presence at the adjudicatory hearing. Fla.Stat. § 39.03(3)(c). The parties agree that in practice the seriousness of the alleged offense is also frequently taken into consideration. If a decision is made to detain the child, money bail is not available.

The District Court concluded that this scheme embodied fatal constitutional infirmities. The court quoted from Cooley v. Stone, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 317, 414 F.2d 1213 (1969), to the effect that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on penal custody without a prompt judicial determination of probable cause applies to adults and juveniles alike. As an alternative rationale the court found that 'the classical principles of procedural due process of law' dictate a similar result, saying: '(D)ue process of law requires at a minimum that a showing of probable cause be made by competent, sworn testimony, and that witnesses be subject to cross-examination.'

Some months after the District Court's order was entered, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling affirming in part and reversing in part our decision in Pugh v. Rainwater, 483 F.2d 778 (CA5, 1973), on which the District Court had relied. In Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975), the Court had before it a class action brought on behalf of persons in Florida arrested and detained under a prosecutor's information. The Court held that Florida's failure to accord the plaintiffs a probable cause determination by a magistrate, and not just by a prosecutor, violated the Fourth Amendment. The Court was explicit in maintaining that the Fourth Amendment rather than the procedural due process guarantees of the Fourteenth controlled the case. Denying that due process cases such as Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U.S. 600, 94 S.Ct. 1895, 40 L.Ed.2d 406 (1974), and Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975), were relevant, the Court noted:

The historical basis of the probable cause requirement is quite different from the relatively recent application of variable procedural due process in debtor-creditor disputes and termination of government-created benefits. The Fourth Amendment was tailored explicitly for the criminal justice system, and its balance between individual and public interests always has been thought to define the 'process that is due' for seizures of person or property in criminal cases, including the detention of suspects pending trial . . . Moreover, the Fourth Amendment probable cause determination is in fact only the first stage of an elaborate system, unique in jurisprudence, designed to safeguard the rights of those accused of criminal conduct.

420 U.S. at 125 n. 27, 95 S.Ct. at 869, 43 L.Ed.2d at 72 n. 27.

Upon examining the judgment below in light of Gerstein v. Pugh, our proper course is clear. First, we affirm the District Court's opinion insofar as it discerned a Fourth Amendment violation in Florida's current juvenile justice system. A finding of probable cause--i.e., of 'facts and circumstances 'sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the (suspect) had committed or was committing an offense," Gerstein, supra, 420 U.S. at 111, 95 S.Ct. at 862, 43 L.Ed.2d at 64--is central to the Amendment's protections against official abuse of power. Pretrial detention is an onerous experience, especially for juveniles, and the Constitution is affronted when this burden is imposed without adequate assurance that the accused has in fact committed the alleged crime. Cooley v. Stone, supra. This case presents none of the circumstances Gerstein described as temporarily suspending the Amendment's command. 420 U.S. at 113--14, 95 S.Ct. at 862--863, 43 L.Ed.2d at 65.

Attempting to distinguish away the Supreme Court's disapproval of analogous procedures for adults in the Dade County criminal justice system, the defendants invite us to test juvenile rights by a more flexible standard of 'fundamental fairness,' citing McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528, 543, 91 S.Ct. 1976, 1985, 29 L.Ed.2d 647, 659 (1971). Assuming for argument's sake that fundamental fairness is the correct standard, Dade County's current procedures for pretrial detention of juveniles fail to pass muster. Florida may properly direct its juvenile court judges to make a decision about the child's welfare when they consider whether he should be released pending his adjudicatory hearing. But if they do not find release desirable on...