California 

2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 |  2009 

---

2015

• Confidentiality and Expungement — California Strengthens Confidentiality Protections for Immigrant Youth:  Assembly Bill 899 clarifies that it is unlawful for local and state entities to share confidential information from juvenile court proceedings with federal officials without a court order upon the filing of a petition. The bill also expands the definition of “juvenile information” to include not only the case file, but also information related to the youth, including name, date or place of birth, and immigration status. The stated intent of the law is to ensure that court records from the juvenile justice system remain confidential regardless of the youth’s immigration status. The legislature also reiterated its intent to protect the confidentiality of information connected to juvenile justice court proceedings that are maintained by any government agency, including law enforcement. Assembly Bill 899 was authored by Assembly Member Marc Levine and signed into law on September 4, 2015.

• Confidentiality and Expungement — California Passes Law Removing Fee for Sealing Juvenile Records for Those Under 26: Senate Bill 504 makes it free for youth under 26 years of age to petition the court to seal their records. Existing California law allows a person to petition the court to seal their record if they were under 18 at the time of commission of a misdemeanor and meet certain other qualifications. Prior to passage of S.B. 504, the court was allowed to order youth to reimburse court costs and other costs involved in bringing such petitions, often making it too expensive for youth to get their records sealed. Now the court is prohibited from imposing such costs unless the individual is 26 or older. S.B. 504 was authored by Senator Lara and co-sponsored by Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Youth Justice Coalition, East Bay Community Law Center and the California Public Defenders Association. S.B. 504 was signed into law Sept. 30, 2015.

• Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) — California Passes the Racial Identity and Profiling Act of 2015: New legislation will strengthen the current racial profiling law in California by requiring every state and local law enforcement agency to collect data on all law enforcement stops of individuals and annually report this information to the Attorney General. Additionally, the legislation establishes a Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA) that is required to investigate and analyze state and local law enforcement agencies’ racial and identity profiling policies and practices, and to publicly report annually on its findings and policy recommendations beginning on January 1, 2018, and to hold public meetings annually. A.B. 953 was authored by Assembly Member Weber and co-authored by Assembly Member Bonta and Senator Mitchell. A.B. 953 was signed into law October 3, 2015.

• Juvenile Defense and Court Process — California Passes Juvenile Defender Training Bill: New legislation clarifies the duties of juvenile defenders, specifically requiring that they provide effective, competent, diligent, and conscientious advocacy; make rational and informed decisions based on adequate investigation and preparation; represent the expressed interests of clients who are minors and maintain a confidential relationship with them; confer with their client prior to each court hearing; and, when appropriate, juvenile defenders must consult with and seek to have appointed requisite experts as needed, such as social workers, mental health professionals, and educators. The legislation also requires that by July 1, 2016, the California Judicial Council develop and adopt rules of the court establishing minimum standards of training or experience that juvenile defenders must meet. A.B. 703 was authored by Assembly Member Bloom and co-sponsored by Youth Law Center and East Bay Children’s Office. A.B. 703 was signed into law September 20, 2015.

Back to the top »

2014

• Youth Involved in the Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare Systems — California Passes Law to Reduce Foster Care Youths’ Referral and Detention in the Juvenile Justice System
  Assembly Bill 388 sets up a number of new policies, reporting, and monitoring procedures to reduce the inappropriate referral and detention of foster youth from group homes and other placements into the juvenile justice system for minor incidents and typical adolescent behavior. A.B. 388 requires group homes, transitional housing, community treatment facilities or runaway and homeless youth shelters to report any incident involving law enforcement. It also requires the Community Care Licensing Division of the Department of Social Services (CDSS) to inspect facilities with greater than average law enforcement contacts, to develop performance standards and outcome measures requiring facilities for foster youth to implement programs, services, and protocols to minimize law enforcement contacts, and to publish annual reports on group home law enforcement contacts, complaints, and licensing suspensions. The new legislation limits secure detention of foster youth through a number of mechanisms including prohibiting courts from detaining youth in secure confinement based on the youth’s status as a foster youth or on the child welfare system’s inability to provide a placement for the youth. Assembly Bill 388 was authored by Assembly Member Chesbro and co-sponsored by The Youth Law Center, California Youth Connection, Children’s Advocacy Institute, and Public Counsel. A.B. 388 was signed into law on September 29, 2014.

• Confidentiality and Expungement — California Provides Automatic Dismissal of Juvenile Petitions and Sealing of Records
  Senate Bill 1038 requires the Juvenile Court to seal the record and dismiss the charges of youth who have successfully completed probation or diversion in all cases other than those categorized by law as “serious and violent crimes” for which minors may be “direct-filed” in adult criminal court. The legislation allows the court to dismiss charges and seal the records for individuals beyond the age of 21 “in the interests of justice.” The bill permits prosecutors and probation officers to access sealed records only for the limited purpose of determining eligibility for a “deferred entry of judgment” and allows the court to access a sealed file only in order to determine the eligibility of youth who have petitioned the court for continued foster care services. Senate Bill 1038 was authored by Senator Mark Leno and signed into law on August 22, 2014.

• Conditions of Confinement — California Requires Incarcerated Individuals under the Age of 22 be Considered for a Lower Security Level Placement
  Assembly Bill 1276 requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to conduct individual assessments of every person under the age of 22 who is entering state prisons and to consider placing these youth at a lower security level than corresponds with their classification level and in a facility that permits increased access to rehabilitation programs. Previously, youth under the age of 22 were routinely sent to the highest security prison yards, known as “level IV” yards. The legislation also allows youth who did not qualify for a lower security level to have their placement reconsidered at their annual review until the age of 25. Assembly Bill 1276 was authored by Assembly Member Richard Bloom, with principal co-author Senator Hancock, sponsored by Human Rights Watch and co-sponsored by the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office and the Anti-Recidivism Coalition. A.B. 1276 was signed into law on September 26, 2014.

• School-to-Prison pipeline — California Bans Incarceration of Truant Youth
  Senate Bill 1296 prohibits a court from securely detaining or otherwise taking into custody youth who were adjudicated truant and failed to comply with a valid court order to attend school. The legislation authorizes a court to issue any other lawful order, as necessary, to secure the youth’s attendance at school.  Although past laws specifically prohibited incarceration of adjudicated truants, court decisions had created a loophole.  The decisions held that when a youth had been ordered to attend school and still failed to do so, the court was then permitted to incarcerate that youth for violating court orders. This legislation closed that loophole and decriminalized truancy. Senate Bill 1296 was authored by Senator Mark Leno and signed into law on June 28, 2014.

• Probation, Parole, and Reentry — California Ensures Reenrollment Rights for Youth Returning from Juvenile Justice Facilities
  Assembly Bill 2276 requires a pupil who has had contact with the juvenile justice system to be immediately enrolled in a public school. The legislation also has several mechanisms to facilitate the successful transition of these youth into the public schools. It requires the county office of education and county probation department to develop joint transition planning policies on issues such as improving communication regarding the release dates and educational needs of juvenile justice involved youth, coordinating the immediate school placement and enrollment of these youth, and ensuring probation officers have the information that they need to support the youths’ return to public school. Additionally, subject to funding, it requires the convening of a statewide group to study successful county programs and develop model policies relating to the prompt transfer of education records and credits and the immediate enrollment of students transferred from juvenile justice schools. Assembly Bill 2276 was authored by Assembly Member Raul Bocanegra and signed into law on September 30, 2014.

• Youth Involved in the Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare Systems — California Protects Youth from Unreasonable Delays in Moving Out of Post-Dispositional Detention
  Assembly Bill 2607 addresses the issue of youth who are currently held in secure detention for long periods of time following disposition while they await an appropriate placement. Many of these youth are foster youth who are detained in part because they do not have a home to which they can return. The legislation adds new criteria for determining whether the delay is unreasonable which include delays attributable to the probation officer’s failure to make reasonable efforts to identify an appropriate and available placement. If the court finds the delay to be unreasonable, it must order the probation officer to assess the availability of suitable temporary placements and can place the youth in a nonsecure placement or alternative to detention after consultation with all parties. Assembly Bill 2607 was authored by Assembly Member Nancy Skinner and was signed into law on September 26, 2014.

2013

• Adjudication and Sentencing — California Requires Meaningful Opportunity for Release on Parole: Citing the holdings and reasoning from Miller v. Alabama, Graham v. Florida, and People v. Caballero, California passed legislation to increase parole opportunities for individuals sentenced to long terms for serious crimes committed when they were youth. Prior law allowed individuals to submit a petition for recall and resentencing after serving 15 years. Now, people are automatically eligible for a "meaningful opportunity" for release on parole during the 15th year of incarceration if they received a determinate sentence, during the 20th year if they received a sentence less than 25 years to life sentence, and during the 25th year if they received a 25 years to life sentence. The law requires the parole board to give "great weight to the diminished culpability of juveniles as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity." The law also allows statements from family members, friends, school personnel, faith leaders, and representatives from community-based organizations who knew the individual prior to the crime or who can comment on the individual's growth and maturity since the commission of the crime. The law does not apply to individuals sentenced for "three strikes" offenses or individuals sentenced to life without parole. S.B. 260/Act No. 312, signed into law September 16, 2013; effective January 1, 2014.

• Confidentiality and Expungement — Probation Must Provide Youth with Information on Process for Sealing and Destruction of Court Records: California allows youth to petition for sealing and destruction of their court records under certain circumstances and by following specific guidelines. A new law requires the probation department to provide youth with information regarding their eligibility for sealing and destruction of court records and the procedures for requesting such sealing and destruction. All informational materials and forms must be developed by January 1, 2015. A.B. 1006/Act No. 269, signed into law September 9, 2013; effective January 1, 2014. 

• Gangs — Police Required to Notify Youth and Families of Inclusion in Gang Database: California law enforcement officers must now provide written notice to youth and their parent(s) or guardian(s) prior to including youth in a gang database, unless such notice would compromise an active criminal investigation or compromise the health or safety of the youth. The notice must include the basis for the designation. Previously, youth and families received no such notice. The new law also provides youth and families with the right to contest inclusion in the database. S.B. 458/Act No. 797, signed into law October 13, 2013; effective January 1, 2014.

• Interrogations and Confessions — Law Requires Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations of Youth Accused of Murder: Citing the dangers and injustice of false confessions, California passed a law requiring the electronic recording of the entire custodial interrogation of a youth under age 18 who is suspected of committing a murder. The law includes various exceptions, including "exigent circumstances" and a reasonable belief on the part of law enforcement that electronic recording would disclose the identity of a confidential informant or jeopardize the safety of an officer, the youth being interrogated, or another individual. If an exception is invoked, the prosecution must show by clear and convincing evidence that the exception is justified. If the interrogation is not recorded, the court must provide the jury with specific instructions to view with caution the statements made by the youth during the interrogation. S.B. 569/Act No. 799, signed into law October 13, 2013. 

• School-to-Prison Pipeline — California Schools to Use Safety Plans to Encourage Positive School Climate: In order to help limit suspensions, expulsions, and arrests, California amended its education code to encourage schools to develop school safety plans that include specific guidelines for the roles and responsibilities of adults with school-related health and safety responsibilities, such as school resource officers, community intervention professionals, and school counselors. The law authorizes the use of the plans as primary strategies for maintaining a positive school climate, and for prioritizing mental health and intervention services, restorative and transformative justice programs, and positive behavior interventions and support. A.B. 549/Act No. 422, signed into law September 30, 2013; effective January 1, 2014.

• School-to-Prison Pipeline — Los Angeles Bans Suspensions for Willful Defiance: The Los Angeles Unified School District voted to ban suspensions for willful defiance, passing a School Climate Bill of Rights with a five-to-two vote. Prior to the ban, students who failed to comply with any policy or instruction given by teachers or school administrators—including wearing baggy pants or talking back—were automatically suspended due to zero-tolerance policies. The ban stemmed from concerns that the existing policy was excessively harsh and disproportionately affected students of color, and from the acknowledgment that removing students from school can lead directly to involvement in the juvenile justice system. The ban provided momentum for a pending bill that would institute a statewide ban on suspensions for willful defiance (A.B. 420). The School Climate Bill of Rights also requires schools to exhaust all alternatives to suspension prior to suspending a student; develop and implement restorative justice practices; provide students and parents with data on suspensions, expulsions and arrests; use school-wide Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports; limit involvement of school police in non-threatening school discipline actions; and provide notice to parents and students of their right to appeal a suspension. Passed May 14, 2013.

Back to the top »

2012

• Adjudication and Sentencing — California Allows Resentencing for Certain Youth in Prison The California State Legislature passed a law that allows individuals sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed as youth to petition for resentencing after they have served 15 years. At that time, judges have the discretion to change a sentence from life without parole to 25 years to life. The law requires judges to review eight factors related to the petitioner's criminal and developmental history and the petitioner must submit a statement addressing his or her remorse and work towards rehabilitation. If the sentence is not changed on the first attempt, individuals may reapply for resentencing after having served 20 and 24 years. The law is retroactive. S.B. 9/Act No. 828, signed into law September 30, 2012; effective January 1, 2014. 

• Adjudication and Sentencing — California Supreme Court Strikes Down Life without Parole Sentences for Youth Convicted of Non-Homicide OffensesThe California Supreme Court ruled that youth convicted of non-homicide crimes may not be issued lengthy sentences that are effectively de facto sentences of life without the possibility of parole. This ruling followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Graham v. Florida, which held that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment prohibits sentencing youth who are convicted for non-homicide offense to life without the possibility of parole. The California case centered around a 110-year-to-life sentence given to an 18-year-old for crimes he committed at age 16. The California Supreme Court wrote that “the state may not deprive [youth] at sentencing of a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate their rehabilitation and fitness to reenter society in the future.” The People of the State of California v. Rodrigo Caballero, 55 Cal.4th 262, 282 P.3d 291, 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 286 (2012). 

• Conditions of Confinement — Law Curbs Use of Restraints on Women in Labor in Prison
  The California legislature amended the penal code to prohibit restraint by the use of leg irons, waist chains, or handcuffs behind the body of a woman who is incarcerated and is pregnant, is in labor, in recovery, or has recently given birth. Such restraint may only be used when deemed necessary for the safety and security of the woman, staff, or the public. The law also requires that women who are incarcerated be advised of these standards orally or in writing. A.B. 2530/Act No. 726, signed into law September 28, 2012. 

• Confidentiality and Expungement — Law Provides for Expungement of Juvenile Prostitution Convictions
  California law provides that a person who has reached 18 years of age may petition the court to seal all records relating to his or her case in juvenile court if he or she has not subsequently been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, and if the person has been rehabilitated to the court’s satisfaction. The California State Legislature amended the law to include a person who was adjudicated for prostitution. Such individuals may now petition to have these records sealed without having to show they have not been subsequently convicted of a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, or that rehabilitation has been attained. Individuals who paid money, or attempted to pay money for prostitution are excluded from the relief provided by the law. A.B. 2040/Act No. 197, signed into law August 27, 2012; effective January 1, 2013. 

• Girls in the System — Law Curbs Use of Restraints on Women in Labor in Prison
  The California legislature amended the penal code to prohibit restraint by the use of leg irons, waist chains, or handcuffs behind the body of a woman who is incarcerated and is pregnant, is in labor, in recovery, or has recently given birth. Such restraint may only be used when deemed necessary for the safety and security of the woman, staff, or the public. The law also requires that women who are incarcerated be advised of these standards orally or in writing. A.B. 2530/Act No. 726, signed into law September 28, 2012. 

• Gangs — California Commits Majority of Gang Prevention and Youth Violence Funding to Evidence-Based Programs
  The California Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC)  is now required to ensure that within three years, no less than 70 percent of funding for gang and youth violence suppression, intervention, and prevention programs is put toward programs that utilize “promising and proven evidence-based practices and principles.” The BSCC is also to work with local governments to help develop regional partnerships in order to serve a broader population and maximize the impact of state funds. A.B. 526/Act No. 850, signed into law September 30, 2012.

• School-to-Prison Pipeline — California Encourages Use of Alternative Means of Discipline in Order to Reduce Suspensions and Expulsions
  A new California law expands the authority of school administrators to use alternative means of discipline before suspending or expelling students, including students with disabilities. Stating an intention to reduce the overuse of suspension and expulsion, particularly of students of color, students with disabilities, LGBT youth, and other vulnerable populations, the law authorizes administrators to use alternatives that “are age-appropriate and designed to address and correct the student’s misbehavior.” Such alternatives include conferences with parents; referrals to a psychologist; enrollment in a restorative justice, anger management, or prosocial behavior program; referral for a comprehensive psychosocial or psychoeducational assessment; positive behavioral supports with tiered interventions during the school day; and after-school programs that address behavioral problems and/or expose students to positive activities. A.B. 1729/Act No. 425 , signed into law September 21, 2012; effective January 1, 2013.

• School-to-Prison Pipeline — California Limits Mandatory Expulsion
  A new California law changes the listed offenses for which a youth must be recommended for expulsion from school. Possession of over-the-counter or medication prescribed for the student is now exempt from provisions requiring automatic expulsion for possession of a controlled substance. Additionally, possession of an imitation firearm is no longer an automatic suspension or expulsion offense.  The law also authorizes a principal or superintendent to not recommend expulsion for listed offenses if he or she determines that an alternative means of correction would address the conduct. A.B. 2537/Act No. 431, signed into law September 21, 2012; effective January 1, 2013.

• School-to-Prison Pipeline — California Schools Prohibited from Denying Entry to Youth Involved in the Juvenile Justice System
  California amended its education code to prohibit a public school from denying enrollment or readmission to a student solely based upon contact with the juvenile justice system including, but not limited to: arrest, adjudication by juvenile court, formal or informal supervision by a probation officer, or detention for any length of time in a juvenile facility or enrollment in a juvenile court school. S.B. 1088/Act No. 381, signed into law September 19, 2012; effective January 1, 2013.

• Sex Offender Laws and Registries — California Limits Sex Offender Registration
  California modified existing law to remove specified offenses requiring registration as a sex offender from those provisions that allow the court, in certain circumstances, to retain jurisdiction over an individual until that person reaches his or her mid-20s (jurisdiction normally ends at age 21). The change applies retroactively. A.B. 1481/Act No. 342, signed into law and effective September 17, 2012.

• Sexual Exploitation of Youth — California Expands Tattoo Removal Program for Youth
  California expanded eligibility for a Division of Juvenile Justice voluntary tattoo removal program for youth ages 14 to 24. Previously, the program was only available to youth with gang-related tattoos. The new law expands eligibility to include individuals with tattoos used for identification in trafficking and prostitution. A.B. 1956/Act No. 746, signed into law September 29, 2012; effective January 1, 2013.

• Sexual Exploitation of Youth — Law Provides for Expungement of Juvenile Prostitution Convictions
  California law provides that a person who has reached 18 years of age may petition the court to seal all records relating to his or her case in juvenile court if he or she has not subsequently been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, and if the person has been rehabilitated to the court’s satisfaction. The California State Legislature amended the law to include a person who was adjudicated for prostitution. Such individuals may now petition to have these records sealed without having to show they have not been subsequently convicted of a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, or that rehabilitation has been attained. Individuals who paid money, or attempted to pay money for prostitution are excluded from the relief provided by the law. A.B. 2040/Act No. 197, signed into law August 27, 2012; effective January 1, 2013.

• Status Offenses — Los Angeles Reforms Truancy Law
  The Los Angeles City Council amended the county’s truancy law, which allowed Los Angeles police to issue tens of thousands of “truancy tickets” to L.A. schoolchildren, even when they were on their way to class. Such tickets carried heavy fines and unnecessarily criminalized youth. Police may no longer issue tickets to students who are on their way or running late to class. Sanctions for the first and second offense are limited to counseling, development of an attendance plan, and/or community service, and third and subsequent offenses may result in a fine not exceeding $20 for any individual youth. The change follows recommendations made by the Los Angeles County Education Coordinating Council and policy changes adopted by the Los Angeles Police Department. Ordinance No. 182084, April 13, 2012.

Back to the top »

2011

• Facility Closures and Downsizing — State Drastically Reduces Youth Prison Population:Over the past several years, litigation and concern about dangerous conditions in California youth prisons resulted in media attention, stakeholder education about the problematic conditions, advocacy by a broad spectrum of organizations, and increased costs to the state for the confinement of youth. These developments have led to higher numbers of youth being treated by community-based programs in some counties, legislation restricting the types of offenses that can lead to state imprisonment, and budget realignment that redirects funds from state juvenile justice to the counties. These practice and policy changes—along with an unfortunate increase in direct files to adult court—have contributed to a dramatic drop in the population sent to California’s state youth facilities over the past fifteen years. On February 22, 2010, the California Division of Juvenile Justice closed the Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility in Chino, the state’s largest juvenile prison. The state now has only three youth prisons, down from 11 in 2003. The overall population of California’s youth prisons has declined from a staggering 9,572 in 1996 to 1,082 at the end of 2011, an 89 percent decrease.

Back to the top »

2010

• Youth Involved in the Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare Systems — Foster Youth Aging Out of Juvenile Court’s Jurisdiction Gain Notice of Services: Acknowledging that foster youth face greater obstacles as they transition back into society after release from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction, the California Assembly passed a law meant to provide them with increased resources to help them succeed. The legislation recognizes that one of the major barriers foster youth face is their lack of knowledge that assistance programs exist for foster youth; and when they are aware of them, they often have difficulty documenting that they are eligible for such programs. As a result, the law requires probation or parole officers to provide foster youth with a written notice stating that they are foster youth and that they may be eligible for services and benefits available to former foster children through public and private programs, including, but not limited to, any independent living program for youth who have been in the foster care system. S.B. 945/Ch. 631, signed into law September 30, 2010; effective January 1, 2011.

• Conditions of Confinement — Corrections Standards Authority Must Inspect Facilities Where Juveniles Are Held for More than 24 Hours: A new California law requires the Corrections Standards Authority to inspect and collect relevant data from any facility that may be used for the secure detention of minors. The law aims to ensure that the state complies with the monitoring requirements of the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. S.B. 1447/Ch. 157, signed into law August 18, 2010; effective January 1, 2011.

• Mental Health and Substance Abuse — Senate Concurrent Resolution Acknowledges Rights of Youth and Importance of Treatment:  A Senate concurrent resolution in California acknowledges the role that substance abuse often plays in the lives of young offenders and sets forth the rights of all youth in the juvenile justice system. The resolution asserts rights to rehabilitation, treatment, education, family and social services, least restrictive alternatives, reintegration, nondiscrimination, safety and security, counsel, protection from self-incrimination, evidence-based practice, and speedy review. The resolution urges each facility in the state that houses youth or is responsible for the oversight of youth to adopt these rights into the regulations and common practices of the facility. S.C.R. 40/ Ch. 55, passed July 7, 2010.

• Gangs — Los Angeles Removes Obstructions to Summer Employment Opportunities for Youth on Gang Databases; Proposed Cuts to Gang Prevention Programs Quashed: In 2010, the Los Angeles Mayor’s Office of Gang Reduction and Youth Development removed language from the city’s summer youth job application that prohibited youth on gang databases and gang injunctions from obtaining summer employment. Advocates successfully raised concerns regarding the lack of due process when youth are labeled as gang members—without any rights to notification, appeal, or removal—as well as the need for systeminvolved youth to receive more resources, not less. Advocates additionally helped stop the Los Angeles City Council from cutting $1.4 million in gang prevention and intervention programs from the city budget. The money will continue to go towards neighborhood intervention as well as programs to connect youth to jobs, education, and counseling.

• Competency — Minors with Questionable Mental Competency Receive Right to Hearing: California law now requires the court to suspend proceedings if doubt is expressed as to a youth’s sufficient present ability to rationally and factually understand the nature of the proceedings or assist his or her attorney in mounting a defense. The court must then order a hearing to determine the youth’s competency. The court must appoint an expert in the field of juvenile adjudicative competency to evaluate whether the youth suffers from a mental disorder, developmental disability, or developmental immaturity and, if so, whether the condition impairs the youth’s competency. Lastly, if the youth is found to be incompetent by a preponderance of the evidence, all proceedings must remain suspended until the youth becomes competent or the court no longer retains jurisdiction. A.B. 2212/Ch. 671, signed into law September 30, 2010; effective January 1, 2011.

• Facility Closures and Downsizing — Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Passes New Policy Limiting Detention of Young Children: On May 11, 2010, the Board of Supervisors in Santa Clara County, California unanimously approved a new policy discouraging the detention of children under the age of 13. The board hopes that the policy will encourage judges to send children to alternative settings, such as home-based supervision, intensive foster care, and community-based treatment centers.

Back to the top »

2009

• Immigrant Youth in the System — San Francisco Board of Supervisors Overrides Mayor’s Veto on Immigrant Juvenile Justice Policy: On November 10, 2009, in an historic vote, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors overrode by a vote of eight to three the mayor’s veto of an ordinance to shore up San Francisco’s sanctuary policy for undocumented youth. The Board of Supervisors reinstated a city ordinance that allows referral of youth to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) only after an adjudication of guilt. Previously, such youth were referred to ICE upon arrest for a felony charge. The ordinance was originally passed in October 2009, but was quickly vetoed by the mayor, who alleged it conflicted with federal immigration law.

Back to the top »

 

Having trouble viewing the PDFs linked above in your Google Chrome web browser? Try opening the page using another web browser, such as Firefox. Alternatively, here are instructions on how to fix the problem in your Chrome browser.

Photo: Chuck Coker, under Creative Commons License.