D. B. v. Tewksbury
545 F. Supp. 896, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15294 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits punishing pretrial juvenile detainees. Confining any child in an adult jail prior to adjudication constitutes unconstitutional punishment per se because it is fundamentally unfair and contrary to the rehabilitative principles of the juvenile justice system.
Facts:
- The Columbia County Correctional Facility (CCCF), an adult jail, housed pretrial juvenile detainees ranging in age from 12 to 18.
- Detained children included both 'status offenders' (e.g., runaways) and those accused of acts that would be crimes if committed by an adult.
- Graham Tewksbury, the Director of the Columbia County Juvenile Department, publicly stated that detention at CCCF was intended as punishment to make the experience 'unappetizing'.
- Children at CCCF were denied basic items and privileges afforded to adult inmates, such as underwear, books, mail, regular phone calls, and family visitation.
- The children were held in concrete cells without natural light, forced to use unscreened toilets visible to others, and were sometimes placed in barren isolation cells with only a sewer hole for a toilet.
- The facility provided no educational or recreational programs, no exercise facilities, and no adequate medical or mental health screening for children.
- Children could see, hear, and communicate with adult inmates through corridors and cell doors, and several were subjected to sexually suggestive comments from the adults.
- Jail staff were not trained to handle the specific needs of children and were sometimes verbally threatening or insensitive to children in distress.
Procedural Posture:
- A class of children, who were or could be confined at the Columbia County Correctional Facility (CCCF), filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Columbia County officials.
- The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, which is a federal trial court.
- The plaintiffs sought a declaration that their confinement in the adult jail violated their constitutional rights and a permanent injunction to stop the practice.
- After the court certified the class, the case proceeded to a bench trial (a trial before a judge with no jury).
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 confinement of pretrial juvenile detainees in an adult correctional facility violate their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Frye, District Judge
Yes, the confinement of pretrial juvenile detainees in an adult correctional facility violates their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. First, under the standard from Bell v. Wolfish, pretrial detainees cannot be subjected to punishment. The court found that the defendants had an express intent to punish, which was carried out through the extraordinarily harsh conditions at CCCF, including the denial of recreation, education, privacy, and family contact. Second, the court held that placing children in any adult jail is unconstitutional per se. For status offenders, confinement in a jail with its criminal stigma constitutes punishment for their 'status,' which is unconstitutional. For children accused of crimes, the juvenile justice system's denial of certain adult constitutional rights (like a jury trial) is permissible only because it is offset by a promise of 'special solicitude' and rehabilitative care under the parens patriae doctrine. Lodging a child in an adult jail, a place designed for punishment and staffed by guards rather than guardians, is fundamentally unfair and provides the 'worst of both worlds,' thus violating the principles of due process established in In Re Gault.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant categorical rule that detaining any juvenile in an adult jail prior to adjudication is a per se violation of due process. It moves beyond a fact-specific inquiry into jail conditions to condemn the practice itself as fundamentally unfair. The ruling strongly reinforces the parens patriae philosophy of the juvenile justice system, holding that the state cannot strip children of adult procedural protections without providing the promised 'special solicitude' and rehabilitative environment in return. This precedent pressures jurisdictions to develop and utilize separate, youth-appropriate detention facilities rather than relying on adult jails for juvenile detention.
