Detention rules
Detention rules are regulations that dictate how and when a person may be deprived of their liberty or kept in a confined space. These rules provide instructions to authorities a person may be subject to, including law enforcement officials or school officials. Detention rules are implemented to protect the rights of those who may be deprived of their basic rights through detention, as this could otherwise lead to unlawful treatment or imprisonment. It is important for authorities to know these standards and regulations, as they help ensure the treatment of people in holding cells, detention centers, schools, or jails meet the legal standards required for their release, transfer, arrest, or confinement.
These rules are primarily used within law enforcement and educational settings throughout the U.S. , though they vary based on the state in which a rule is being implemented. Many states throughout the U.S. have carefully written detention rules to ensure they are consistent and align with the strict standards set for the treatment of individuals in other contexts. In the school context, for example, detention rules can be used to ensure all teachers handle classroom rudeness or misconduct in a fair manner, offering the same amount of leeway for detention suspensions across the board.
Detention rules can be used to protect individuals from being inappropriately detained or imprisoned, as well as to contain stricter in-school detentions, such as suspensions. They are more involved than simply requiring that rules and regulations be evenly applied across all cases. Instead, they help parties understand the necessity of certain terms and conditions being implemented within the rules so that any instances of detainment meet appropriate legal standards.
School detention rules
Detention Rules In Schools
Pursuant to the governing standards established by the circuit courts of the state, the detention rules in schools are that a child can be detained for no longer than 30 minutes after the bell and the detention that is given must adhere to a reasoned basis. In other words, the detention must be proportionate to the actions that caused it to happen in the first place, they cannot usually be connected to an arbitrary goal of the school.
In other words, a child who is talking in short fashion with his friends to and from school cannot be detained for the purposes of having him stay longer to finish semester work or exams in order to help him achieve a goal that he would not have otherwise accomplished. The detention must be based in simple cause and effect.
The above example is one area where the schools tend to go overboard at times and this leads some parents to have to bring their cases into court as they prepare to file their claims for school damages. This is because the circuit courts and state courts are not likely to deny simple negligence based claims by students against their educational institutions and the laws pertaining to those instances.
In short, an educational institution has no business keeping a student beyond what the normal hours are if the detention in question is not connected to a disciplinary proceeding. Students cannot be held against their will by their teachers and professors without a short explanation, a short term logically placed and a logical reason as to why the detention is taking place.
Absent a Catholic school, a detention must be connected in rational ways to the actions of the student in the connected timeframe and this is the basis upon which whether a detention is lawful or unacceptable will be decided in a potential, subsequent school damage lawsuit. For instance, a claim may only be brought against the teacher and/or the principal at the relevant school and the Department of Education or other non-public educational institution. Some detention school damage cases are brought against the relevant county or city board of education.
In short, a school has the right to keep students after hours, but only for a short, defined period of time-provided the overall levels of realtime or timed running of the school day allow for ample opportunity to punish, teach or communicate with the student in question.
Police detention rules
The law of police detention is governed by a number of different sources. There are laws governing the grounds for making a traffic stop, who can issue traffic tickets, and who can arrest people in certain locations. The PA Crimes Code deals with the level of offenses that the police can charge and investigate. Police investigations are subject to additional limitations. Federal and state constitutions, particularly that of Pennsylvania, deal with many of these issues.
Starting with the Constitutional provisions, the Fourth Amendment specifically states that: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Article 1, Sec. 8 of the PA Constitution includes the same language, but is somewhat broader in that it also states that "No person shall be deprived of the right to …be let to bail, by excessive bail, imposed; nor be had in custody except as may by law be provided." The criminal code also reduces the constitutional requirement for "probable cause" to a lesser standard of "reasonable suspicion" when dealing with the police. Arguably the most important of the constitutional protections is the Fifth Amendment right to protection from self-incrimination by means of police questioning. The Miranda decision is the vehicle by which the Supreme Court interprets this Amendment. Miranda established the requirement that persons interrogated after being detained must be informed of the right to have counsel present during questioning. If an individual is arrested, they will also have the right to have their lawyer present even during any argument over whether or not they will be sent to jail or prison, or face a summary citation. The requirement to inform an individual of these rights has led to the "Miranda Warning," recited by police officers to anyone they arrest or hold in custody. Police will very often read an individual this warning before asking them any questions, or at a time when it is evident that charges are likely to be filed. However, an arrest does not necessarily mean that a police officer will ask about the crime. This is more of a tactical decision on behalf of the officer. It is possible that even a person who is arrested can be taken before a magistrate without any questioning. The amount of detention is likewise something that is governed by the constitution. For traffic citations, the police must, under Mosteller v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission file the citation within 2 hours or release the driver. Detention for receiving a citation should last no longer than two (2) hours. A DUI arrest, as opposed to a traffic citation, will also require that the officer prepare an affidavit of probable cause for the arrest, along with a copy of the ticket. This must be filed within four (4) days of the arrest, or the charges cannot be filed. DUI testing must be done within 2 hours of the incident, or the charges may not be brought. Clearly, there are a number of rules that the officers must follow. They may not issue DUI tickets while the person is asleep or unconscious. They must make the arrest without unreasonable delay. They must file the intoxilyzer dump ticket with the citation within 24 hours of the arrest. In other words, citizens should not be subjected to more prolonged detention than is legally permissible given the nature of the offense. Furthermore, any delay of more than 2 hours will validate a claim for damages. This is critical, as some officers and departments are not familiar with the binding effect of the Courts’ rulings on detention.
Immigration detention rules
With the growing significance of immigration control issues at the border and within the interior of the country, courts have attempted to clarify the rules regarding both civil and criminal detention. In Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 164 (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that the confusion among lower courts in this area was due to the failure to draw a clear line between civil and criminal detention – which resulted in separate and distinct procedures that did not vary based on valid justifications for the detention. Thus, in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 698 (2001), the Supreme Court analyzed whether the continued detention of aliens under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6)’s post-removal period violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and also stated that statutory preconditions for prolonged detention of an alien, such as danger or flight risk, are not determinative for the interpretation of the meaning of the 180-day period of the statute.
Although criminal aliens cannot be detained if the government is not making "all reasonable efforts" to remove them , the Supreme Court has reasoned that laws regarding civil detention differ in two important ways. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 693. As the Supreme Court explained, "criminal proceedings are punitive; but civil detention proceedings, while punitive in nature, bear no relation to the purposes for which criminal punishment may be invoked." The Court added, "in the course of immigration detention proceedings, the alien may be entitled to a hearing at which he may contest some aspect of the basis for the detention." Id. (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (four-factor test for determining whether administrative procedures comply with Due Process guarantees)). However, the Supreme Court also held that the "constitutionality of the detention must ‘be weighed against other important governmental interests,’" including the Government’s interest in ensuring that the removal proceedings are finally completed. Id. at 699-700 (citations omitted).
Detention rules and human rights
Besides the State’s law, the most important influences over detention rules and standards are human rights concerns. For example, concerning the standards of entry and removal detention for the 25,000 non national minors currently held in detention, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child requires that ‘the arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law’ and that ‘no child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily and that the decision to treat a child in this manner and any subsequent decisions relating to his or her treatment shall be subject to review.’ Domestic rules will have to comply with this in order to be necessary and proportionate.
The desire to comply with human rights standards means that the UK Government (and indeed its agencies) may frequently find its existing detention rules and practices are challenged. A useful set of general guidance for those looking to challenge detention, or assess the legality of detention rules, is the joint statement Human Rights, Terrorism, and Armed Conflict issued on 10 July 2010 by the Special Rapporteurs of The United Nations into human rights and terrorism (Ben Emmerson), torture (Juan Mendez), summary executions (Christof Heyns), and independence of the judiciary and the role of lawyers (Gabriela Knaul). In it they made the following comment: ‘As each of the areas of human rights covered by the mandates of the four mandate holders listed above take on increased significance against the background of terrorist activity, military operations, and national security concerns, it is increasingly important for Governments and regional and international organizations to adopt human rights based perspectives to both national and global countermeasures. The use of military approaches to national security is not new. But the current practice of militarising so many aspects of national security policy is relatively recent, and creates profound challenges for human rights. Effective efforts to prevent and combat terrorism must reflect the respect for human rights that are consistent with a free and open society. It is of paramount importance that the fight against terrorism should never be used to justify human rights abuses.’
Debate and reform of detention rules
The expansiveness of the detention rules has not gone without criticism, and policymakers have debated the meaning and scope of the detention rules both before and after adoption of the APA. The debate has cross-cut issues such as the appropriate role for administrative adjudication, how to balance concerns for preventing arbitrary detention against concerns for preserving state discretion. The APA’s detention rules have been criticized as inappropriately limiting state discretion and ensuring too much procedural protection in civil detentions.
The subcommittee notes that some criticism directed at the detention rules is not party to the APA, but instead rests on a perceived overuse of detention rules. Criticism includes the belief that other forms of disciplining youth should first be exhausted before resorting to detaining the youth. Some have suggested that status offenders should never be sent to a secure facility. More generally, there has been a debate over the use of detention in the juvenile justice system. While law enforcement has argued that a detention facility is the only safe place to provide for the welfare of the youth, others have noted that detention is traumatic for youth and leads to placement in detention facilities that are harsh and jail like. In 1994, President Clinton’s secretaries of education, health and human services and the attorney general convened a national summit on children and adolescent mental health. The summit’s report noted that juvenile correctional facilities account for the largest proportion of psychiatric hospitalization for children and adolescents , and that the quality of remaining institutions is highly variable. These observations have been stated with particular force in the context of secure detention facilities housing status offenders.
In addition, it has been suggested that the state procedures to comply with the APA’s detention rules tend to overlook "the development and evaluation of alternative community-based dispositions." State facilities have been found to be over crowded, creating security and control challenges for staff at the facilities. Consequently, some facilities have implemented at least some of the other techniques to process juveniles quicker and minimize the length of stay. The alternative techniques used include expedited detention interviews, which expedites the transfer of juveniles in custody at the courts to the Department of Youth Services, thus shortening their stay at the courthouse and providing them access to programming.
Efforts have been made in various states to address some of these issues by providing community based alternatives and guidance as to what specific types of sanctions would be appropriate for specific offenses and dispositions. The Department of Youth Services in Massachusetts is currently required by statute to establish, whenever possible, a system of continuum of care to address the treatment, rehabilitation, and education needs of all youth under its supervision. In Minnesota, the legislature established in 1998 the Disproportionate Minority Impaction Grant program and since 2003, the grant program must assign priority to programs that address the identified DMI offense categories, including status offenses. Other approaches have attempted to address geographic variation in the length and conditions of juvenile detention.