Bell v. Superior Court in & for Cty. of Pima
117 Ariz. 551, 574 P.2d 39, 1977 Ariz. App. LEXIS 801 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment requires a judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to the extended pre-trial detention of a juvenile accused of a delinquent act.
Facts:
- On September 30, 1977, Dennis Bell, a juvenile, was arrested by Tucson police officers.
- The alleged offense was possessing stolen property, specifically four Mag wheels and tires, and one car seat, valued at $100 or more.
- Immediately following his arrest, Bell was transported to and detained at the Pima County Juvenile Court Center.
- Bell remained in detention for several days while awaiting further proceedings.
Procedural Posture:
- The state filed a formal delinquency petition against Dennis Bell in the Pima County Juvenile Court.
- At a detention hearing before a juvenile court referee, Bell requested a probable cause hearing and that bail be set.
- The referee denied both requests and recommended that Bell remain in detention.
- Bell appealed the referee's recommendation to a juvenile court judge on the same day.
- The juvenile court judge affirmed the referee's decision, ruling that the court was not required to hold a probable cause hearing or set bond for a detained juvenile.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fourth Amendment require a judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to the extended pre-trial detention of a juvenile accused of a delinquent act?
Opinions:
Majority - Richmond, J.
Yes. The Fourth Amendment requires a judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to extended restraint of liberty following arrest, and this protection extends to juveniles. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Gerstein v. Pugh, the court reasoned that once a suspect is in custody, the need for a neutral magistrate's determination of probable cause increases significantly. The court held that detained juveniles have no less Fourth Amendment protection than detained adults. While the state argued that its rule requiring an adjudicatory hearing within 15 days was sufficient, the court found this did not obviate the need for a prompt probable cause determination. The court clarified that this determination does not require a full adversarial hearing and can be based on affidavits or a sufficiently detailed petition, but a merely conclusory petition is insufficient. The court declined to rule on a constitutional right to bail for juveniles, finding that state procedural rules limiting the grounds for detention provided an adequate substitute.
Analysis:
This decision formally extends the Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirement for pre-trial detention, established for adults in Gerstein v. Pugh, to juvenile delinquency proceedings in Arizona. It establishes that a prosecutor's filing of a delinquency petition is not, by itself, sufficient to justify holding a juvenile in custody. This ruling strengthens the due process rights of juveniles by requiring a neutral judicial check on executive power, thereby preventing potentially baseless extended detentions. The decision impacts juvenile court procedure by mandating either a hearing or the presentation of sufficient factual evidence to a judge to justify detention, shaping how petitions are drafted and how initial detention hearings are conducted.
