4.33 Imposition and Enforcement of Regulations

Community supervision officers should be authorized to impose reasonable regulations for persons under their supervision. Such regulations should be designed to implement the terms of the disposition imposed by the family court. Regulations affecting a juvenile should interfere as little as possible with the juvenile's school, regular employment, or other activities necessary for normal growth and develop

ment.

A copy and explanation of all terms and regulations should be provided to persons subject to community supervision and their modifications should be similarly provided and explained. Persons under community supervision should also be advised that failure to adhere to the terms of the dispositional order may result in initiation of the enforcement procedures described in Standards 3.1810, 3.1811, and 3.1813.

Sources:

See generally National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice, Standards and Goals, Report of the Task Force on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Standards 23.2, 23.6, and 23.7 (1976) [hereinfater cited as Report of the Task Force]; Institute of Judicial Administration/American Bar Association Joint Commission on Juvenile Justice Standards, Proposed Standards Relating to Correctional Administration, Standard 6.2(e) (ii) (draft, 1976) [hereinafter cited as IJA/ABA, Corrections Administration]; Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 27.1 (1973).

Commentary

Community supervision officers are authorized by this standard to impose reasonable conditions or restrictions in the form of regulations upon persons under their supervision. This authority should be exercised in a manner wholly consistent with terms of the court order, and should not be used to imposed conditions beyond the spirit and scope of that order. The National Advisory Committee felt it unnecessary and cumbersome to require express approval of such supervisory regulations by the court in every instance. The juvenile's legal counsel is, of course, free to return to court to challenge supervisory regulations as beyond the scope of the court's disposition order.

The terms and regulations by which the juvenile must abide

during the supervisory period should be explained at the outset of the period. This explanation should be clear, complete, and communicated in the juvenile's primary language. Accord, e.g., IJA/ABA, Corrections Administration, supra at Standard 6.2(e) (ii) and Commentary. Copies of any modifications in the regulations should promptly be given to the supervisee, and should be fully explained in terms comprehensive to the supervisee. Id.

Persons being supervised also must be notified at the outset of all possible consequences of noncompliance with the regulations imposed by their supervisory officer. Particularly, the persons supervised should immediately be told that failure to adhere strictly to the terms of the disposition order and regulations may result in enforcement proceedings similar to probation violation proceedings, and might culminate in a complete loss of liberty (in delinquency cases) or in more severe curtailments upon liberty. See Standards 3.1810, 3.1811, and 3.1813. See Report of the Task Force, supra at Standard 23.7 and Commentary. Unlike this standard, the Task Force recommends that, as a general rule, solely matters that would result in the filing of a petition if the juvenile were not already on "probation" under community supervision— i.e., only alleged matters which if true, would constitute new acts of noncriminal misbehavior-should be reported to the court by the supervisory officer for enforcement purposes. See Report of the Task Force, supra at Commentary to Standard 23.7. Cf. Report of the Task Force, supra at Standard 14.22. The National Advisory Committee felt that this limitation could, even as a "rule of thumb," unduly restrict the discretion of supervisory personnel, and would tend to keep the family court in the dark about relevant information about its supervisees. Naturally, trivial violations should not be referred automatically to the court for enforcement. See generally Standards 3.1810, 3.1811, and 3.1813.

The standard specifies that special care be taken by community supervision officers to avoid impeding their supervisees' educational or employment opportunities, or normal patterns of growth and development. Such care must be taken to insure that the supervisory officer considers the possible adverse consequences of routine regulations. For example, a regulation that requires a juvenile to report to his/her community supervisor in person after school, could prevent the juvenile from obtaining an after-school job, or from participating in beneficial interscholastic athletics.

The powers of the supervisory officer may include the

power to take a supervisee back into formal custody, if necessary, and to conduct searches and seizures, but only upon probable cause to believe that a new violation of the law has occurred. Accord, e.g., Report of the Task Force, supra at Standard 23.6 and Commentary. See also Report of the Task Force, supra at Standard 23.7. Since the primary function of the community services officers is not to conduct searches or to make arrests, their powers should not extend to the carrying of firearms. Id. Community supervisors should be empowered and urged to return readily to court to recommend appropriate modifications of court disposition orders, and otherwise to petition the court on behalf of the juvenile. In particular, community supervisory personnel should be required to advise the court if a person under their supervision is not obtaining access to required services. Accord, Report of the Task Force, supra at Commentary to Standard 23.6. See Standard 4.32 and Commentary.

Related Standards

3.181 Duration of Disposition and Type of SanctionDelinquency

4.4 Rights and Procedures

4.41 Mail and Censorship

A juvenile should have the right to send mail without prior censorship or prior reading. A juvenile should also have the right to receive mail without prior reading or prior censorship. However, if the facility suspects the delivery of contraband or cash, it may require the juvenile to open the mail in the presence of a staff member.

A juvenile should have the right to mail a minimum of two letters per week at agency expense and any number of additional letters at his/her own expense.

All cash sent to juveniles should be retained by the juveniles or held for their benefit in accordance with the procedures of the facility. However, such procedures should be in writing and approved by the agency.

Packages should be exempt from these provisions and be subject to inspection at the discretion of the facility

Sources:

New York Official Compilation of Codes Rules and Regulations, § 171.5 (1973); National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Report of the Task Force on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Standard 24.13 (1976) [hereinafter cited as Report of the Task Force]; Institute of Judicial Administration/American Bar Association Joint Commission on Juvenile Justice Standards, Proposed Standards Relating to Correctional Administration, Standard 7.6 (draft, 1976) [hereinafter cited as IJA/ ABA, Correction Administration].

Commentary

This standard recognizes the juvenile's need for and right to maintain contact with persons outside the institution and, importantly, asserts that he/she may do so with a reasonable degree of privacy. A facility may legitimately interfere with this privacy right by requiring the juvenile to open mail in the presence of a staff member when officials suspect that contraband or cash has been delivered in the mail. Packages, which are exempt from this provision, may be opened at the discretion of the facility.

In two fairly recent Supreme Court cases, the Supreme Court addressed the issues of censorship and inspection of adult prisoners' mail and found a First Amendment right in

the person outside the facility, whether recipient or writer. Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1976), Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). While the ruling of the Supreme Court is much more restrictive than the standard, it must be noted that the Court was discussing the right in the context of adult penal institutions and not small facilities for delinquent and neglected children. In Procunier, the Court held that censorship of incoming and outgoing mail in adult penal institutions must be tested against two criteria. First, the inspection must further an important governmental interest such as the preservation of security or internal order, discipline, or rehabilitation. Second, the limitation can be no greater than is necessary or essential to the protection of the interest. So long as the regulations further a governmental interest, are not related to the suppression of free speech and impose a restraint that is not broader than required, the censorship of mail in adult penal institutions is likely to be upheld.

As noted in both Procunier and Wolff, the Supreme Court addressed the rights of sentenced adults housed in state prisons. In the setting of a juvenile facility, where the population is small and is placed for rehabilitative rather than penal purposes, security issues are less significant. Therefore, censorship of mail should not generally be necessary. Indeed, this standard, like all others in the 4.4 series of standards, is intended to apply to all types of residential facilities described in the 4.2 series of standards, not just facilities for delinquent children. Since even training schools are limited to 20-bed units within a 100-person facility, the security needs of the facility which were noted by Supreme Court are not involved. Further, the rehabilitative model demands maximum access to the outside community.

Several cases concerning juvenile facilities have been construed consistently with Standard 4.41. In Morales v. Turman, 383 F. Supp. 53 (E.D. Tex. 1974), rev'd on other grounds, 535 F.2nd 864 (5th Cir. 1976), rev'd and remanded, 430 U.S. 322 (1977), remanded on rehearing, 562 F.2d 993 (5th Cir. 1977) the power of the institution was limited to opening mail in the presence of the child for the sole purpose of examining it for contraband. In Nelson v. Heyne, 355 F. Supp. 451 (N.D. Ind. 1972), aff'd, 491 F.2nd 352 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 976 (1974), the institution was enjoined from maintaining a correspondence list and from limiting the persons to whom a juvenile could correspond. Finally, in

4.42 Dress Codes

Juveniles should have the right to wear their personal clothing if they so choose, or wear combinations of their own clothing and clothing issued by the facility in cases where their own clothing does not meet all of their clothing needs. Clothing issued by the facility should be available to those children lacking personal clothing or who choose to wear issued clothing.

Juveniles should also have the right to wear items of jewelry. However, reasonable restrictions may be imposed which prohibit juveniles from possessing items of clothing or jewelry that could be used to inflict bodily harm on themselves or others. Any time a restriction is placed upon the wearing of jewelry or clothing, a report should be forwarded to the ombudsman.

Source:

N. Y. Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations, $171.2 (1973); Institute of Judicial Administration/American Bar Association Joint Commission Juvenile Justice Standards and Goals, Proposed Standards Relating to Correctional Administration, Standard 7.6(1) (draft, 1976) [hereinafter cited as IJA/ABA, Corrections Administration].

Commentary

This standard recognizes the right of juveniles to wear their own clothing and jewelry within the facility; it also acknowledges the obligation of the facility to provide clothing for the children and the power to impose reasonable restrictions upon the possession of items of clothing and jewelry.

The purpose of this standard, as well as that of Standard 4.43, is to allow children to maintain individuality in their personal appearances and to stimulate self-pride and normalization. Indeed, the development of self-esteem and individuality through interest in appearance and grooming is to be encouraged rather than discouraged in juvenile facilities. See N.Y. Official Compilations of Codes, Rules and Regulations, §171.2(g) (1973).

Personal selection of clothing is important to all young people and becomes particularly so when they have been placed in a facility and removed from family and friends. Such clothing heightens the children's sense of dignity and individuality and strengthens their identification with their home community. Alterations in clothing, such as embroidery or patchwork, should be allowed, again to enhance personal self-esteem as well as diversity. See Children's Bureau, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Institutions Serving Children, 96 (1973). Above all, children should not be

compelled to wear degrading, poorly fitted uniforms or "breeze attire," oversized pants with no belts, shoes without laces, or pajamas, which are sometimes required when escapes are suspected. IJA/ABA, Corrections Administration, supra at Standard 7.6(I).

It is often the case, however, that children arrive at the facility with insufficient clothing to meet their needs. It is then that the facility's responsibility to provide clothing arises. Clothing must also be provided for those children who prefer to wear issued clothing. The facility should make funds available for the purchase of clothing which is varied so as to avoid an institutional appearance. IJA/ABA, Corrections Administration, supra at Standard 7.6(I). Street clothes are especially important as the children become more involved with the community. Since this standard is applicable to all residential facilities, it is essential that the clothing provided by the facilities resemble to the greatest extent possible, clothing worn by other children in the community. To the extent that training schools issue clothing that is not completely suitable for wear in the community, additional clothing should be purchased by the facility and issued to those children released from the training school or to those participating in some community activities while residing in the training school. IJA/ABA, Corrections Administration, supra at Standard 7.6 (I). It would be preferable if the clothing provided by the institution was selected by the juvenile from community clothing services; however, it is acknoweldged that state purchasing practices may not permit this in all jurisdictions. Where such purchasing is not permitted, facilities should be encouraged to seek private donations so that a clothing fund can be created for the purchase of street clothes for juveniles who have little clothing other than that issued by the facility. Another approach would be to modify state or agency purchasing practices to provide greater variety in bulk clothing purchases.

Juveniles should be responsible for the care and cleaning of personal clothing which cannot be washed together with the regular facility laundry. Because of the restraints that a facility may place upon the movement of children, this directive presupposes that the facility has an obligation to provide the children with reasonable means to clean their clothing. See N. Y. Official Compilations of Codes, Rules and Regulations $171.2(f) (1973).

The standard, again based upon the expression of individuality rationale, permits juveniles to wear jewelry. Some items, of course, may be sharp or pointed and may endanger the safety of the child, as well as that of other persons in the facility. Therefore, reasonable restrictions may be placed upon the possession of jewelry as well as clothing which could be