schall martin argued january decided june together abrams attorney general new york martin et also appeal section new york family act authorizes pretrial detention accused juvenile delinquent based finding serious risk juvenile may return date commit act committed adult constitute crime appellees juveniles detained brought habeas corpus class action federal district seeking declaratory judgment violates inter alia due process clause fourteenth amendment district struck statute permitting detention without due process ordered release class members appeals affirmed holding since vast majority juveniles detained statute either cases dismissed adjudication delinquency released adjudication statute administered preventive purposes impose punishment unadjudicated criminal acts therefore statute unconstitutional juveniles held section invalid due process clause fourteenth amendment pp preventive detention statute serves legitimate state objective held common every state protecting juvenile society hazards pretrial crime objective compatible fundamental fairness demanded due process clause juvenile proceedings terms condition confinement compatible objective pretrial detention need considered punishment merely juvenile subsequently discharged subject conditions put probation even case terminated prior factfinding follow decision detain juvenile pursuant amounts due process violation pp procedural safeguards afforded family act juveniles detained prior factfinding provide sufficient protection erroneous unnecessary deprivations liberty notice hearing statement facts reasons given juvenile prior detention formal hearing held within short time thereafter factfinding hearing scheduled within three days merit argument risk erroneous unnecessary detention high despite procedures standard detention fatally vague legal point view nothing inherently unattainable prediction future criminal conduct prediction experienced one based host variables readily codified moreover postdetention procedures habeas corpus review appeals motions reconsideration provide sufficient mechanism correcting basis erroneous detention pp rehnquist delivered opinion burger white blackmun powell joined marshall filed dissenting opinion brennan stevens joined post judith gordon assistant attorney general new york argued cause appellants cases briefs appellant robert abrams attorney general pro se peter schiff melvyn leventhal deputy first assistant attorney general george zuckerman deputy solicitor general robert schack assistant attorney general frederick schwarz leonard koerner ronald sternberg filed brief appellant martin guggenheim argued cause appellees cases brief burt neuborne janet fink charles fn brief amici curiae urging reversal filed commonwealth pennsylvania et al leroy zimmerman attorney general pennsylvania kathleen mcgrath deputy attorney general attorneys general respective jurisdictions follows charles graddick alabama norman gorsuch alaska robert corbin arizona john van de kamp california jim smith florida tany hong hawaii jim jones idaho neil hartigan illinois linley pearson indiana robert stephan kansas william guste louisiana frank kelley michigan michael greeley montana paul douglas nebraska gregory smith new hampshire anthony celebrezze ohio dave frohnmayer oregon travis medlock south carolina david wilkinson utah john easton vermont kenneth eikenberry washington mcclintock wyoming aviata faalevao american samoa briefs amici curiae urging affirmance filed american bar association wallace riley andrew shookhoff steven goldblatt association children new jersey dennis brotman national juvenile law center harry swanger national legal aid defender association michael dale public defender service district columbia francis carter james mccomas youth law center et al mark soler loren warboys james bell robert schwartz david crump filed brief texas district county attorneys association et al amici curiae justice rehnquist delivered opinion section new york family act authorizes pretrial detention accused juvenile delinquent based finding serious risk child may return date commit act committed adult constitute crime appellees brought suit behalf class juveniles detained pursuant provision district struck permitting detention without due process law ordered immediate release class members ex rel martin strasburg supp sdny appeals second circuit affirmed holding provision unconstitutional juveniles statute administered way detention period serves punishment imposed without proof guilt established according requisite constitutional standard martin strasburg noted probable jurisdiction reverse conclude preventive detention fca serves legitimate state objective procedural protections afforded pretrial detainees new york statute satisfy requirements due process clause fourteenth amendment constitution appellee gregory martin arrested december charged robbery assault criminal possession weapon based incident two others allegedly hit youth head loaded gun stole jacket sneakers see petitioners exhibit martin possession gun arrested years old time therefore came within jurisdiction new york family incident occurred night martin lied police lived consequently detained overnight petition delinquency filed martin made initial appearance family december accompanied grandmother family judge citing possession loaded weapon false address given police lateness hour evidencing lack supervision ordered martin detained time ii see supra hearing held five days later december probable cause found exist crimes charged factfinding hearing held december martin found guilty robbery criminal possession charges adjudicated delinquent placed two years probation detained pursuant initial appearance completion factfinding hearing total days appellees luis rosario kenneth morgan age also ordered detained pending factfinding hearings rosario charged attempted robbery assault incident four others allegedly tried rob two men putting gun head one beating head sticks see petitioners exhibit time initial appearance march rosario another delinquency petition pending knifing student two prior petitions adjusted probable cause found march april rosario released father case terminated without adjustment september kenneth morgan charged attempted robbery attempted grand larceny incident another boy allegedly tried steal money girl brother threatening blow heads grabbing search pockets see petitioners exhibit morgan like rosario release status another petition robbery criminal possession stolen property time initial appearance march arrested four previous times mother refused come trouble often want home hearing set march continued april combined factfinding hearing morgan found guilty harassment petit larceny ordered placed department social services months detained total eight days initial appearance factfinding hearing december still preventive detention pending factfinding hearing gregory martin instituted habeas corpus class action behalf persons pendency action preventively detained pursuant fca rosario morgan subsequently added additional named plaintiffs three class representatives sought declaratory judgment violates due process equal protection clauses fourteenth amendment unpublished opinion district certified class app also held appellees required exhaust state remedies resorting federal habeas highest state already rejected identical challenge juvenile preventive detention statute see people ex rel wayburn schupf exhaustion state remedies therefore exercise futility app trial appellees offered evidence case histories members class including three named petitioners parties presented general statistics relation pretrial detention ultimate disposition addition testimony concerning juvenile proceedings number witnesses including legal aid attorney specializing juvenile cases probation supervisor child psychologist family judge basis evidence district rejected equal protection challenge insubstantial agreed appellees pretrial detention fca violates due process ordered class members custody pursuant family act section shall released forthwith appeals affirmed reviewing trial record opined vast majority juveniles detained either petitions dismissed adjudication delinquency released adjudication concluded fact utilized principally preventive purposes impose punishment unadjudicated criminal acts early release many detained contradicts asserted need pretrial confinement protect community therefore concluded must declared unconstitutional juveniles individual litigation practical impossibility periods detention short litigation mooted merits determined ii doubt due process clause applicable juvenile proceedings problem stressed ascertain precise impact due process requirement upon proceedings gault held certain basic constitutional protections enjoyed adults accused crimes also apply juveniles see notice charges right counsel privilege right confrontation winship proof beyond reasonable doubt breed jones double jeopardy constitution mandate elimination differences treatment juveniles see mckeiver pennsylvania right jury trial state parens patriae interest preserving promoting welfare child santosky kramer makes juvenile proceeding fundamentally different adult criminal trial tried therefore strike balance respect informality flexibility characterize juvenile proceedings winship supra yet ensure proceedings comport fundamental fairness demanded due process clause breed jones supra mckeiver supra plurality opinion statutory provision issue cases permits brief pretrial detention based finding serious risk arrested juvenile may commit crime return date question us whether preventive detention juveniles pursuant compatible fundamental fairness required due process two separate inquiries necessary answer question first preventive detention new york statute serve legitimate state objective see bell wolfish kennedy second procedural safeguards contained fca adequate authorize pretrial detention least juveniles charged crimes see mathews eldridge gerstein pugh preventive detention fca purportedly designed protect child society potential consequences criminal acts people ex rel wayburn schupf making detention decision family judge specifically directed consider needs best interests juvenile well need protection community fca craig app div bell wolfish supra left open question whether governmental objective ensuring detainee presence trial may constitutionally justify pretrial detention initial matter therefore must decide whether context juvenile system combined interest protecting community juvenile consequences future criminal conduct sufficient justify detention legitimate compelling state interest protecting community crime doubted de veau braisted see also terry ohio stressed crime prevention weighty social objective brown texas interest persists undiluted juvenile context see gault supra harm suffered victim crime dependent upon age perpetrator harm society generally may even greater context given high rate recidivism among juveniles gault supra juvenile countervailing interest freedom institutional restraints even brief time involved undoubtedly substantial well see gault supra interest must qualified recognition juveniles unlike adults always form custody lehman lycoming county children services gault supra children definition assumed capacity take care assumed subject control parents parental control falters state must play part parens patriae see state gleason people ex rel wayburn schupf supra baker smith app respect juvenile liberty interest may appropriate circumstances subordinated state parens patriae interest preserving promoting welfare child santosky kramer supra new york appeals upholding statute issue stressed length desirability protecting juvenile folly people ex rel wayburn schupf supra society legitimate interest protecting juvenile consequences criminal activity potential physical injury may suffered victim fights back policeman attempts make arrest downward spiral criminal activity peer pressure may lead child see district arapahoe morris see also eddings oklahoma minority time condition life person may susceptible influence psychological damage bellotti baird juveniles often lack experience perspective judgment recognize avoid choices detrimental substantiality legitimacy state interests underlying statute confirmed widespread use judicial acceptance preventive detention juveniles every state well district columbia permits preventive detention juveniles accused crime number model juvenile justice acts also contain provisions permitting preventive detention courts eight including new york appeals upheld statutes specific reference protecting juvenile community harmful pretrial conduct including pretrial crime district arapahoe supra morris supra state gleason pauley gross app people ex rel wayburn schupf aubrey gadbois cal app cal rptr baker smith commonwealth ex rel sprowal hendrick fact practice followed large number conclusive decision whether practice accords due process plainly worth considering determining whether practice offends principle justice rooted traditions conscience people ranked fundamental snyder massachusetts leland oregon light uniform legislative judgment pretrial detention juveniles properly promotes interests society juvenile conclude practice serves legitimate regulatory purpose compatible fundamental fairness demanded due process clause juvenile proceedings cf mckeiver pennsylvania plurality opinion indication statute preventive detention used intended punishment first detention strictly limited time juvenile detained initial appearance denied charges entitled hearing held three days conclusion initial appearance four days filing petition whichever sooner fca family judge finds probable cause must also determine whether continued detention necessary pursuant detained juveniles also entitled expedited factfinding hearing juvenile charged one limited number designated felonies factfinding hearing must scheduled commence days conclusion initial appearance juvenile charged lesser offense factfinding hearing must held three days initial appearance latter case since times hearing factfinding hearing coincide two hearings merged thus maximum possible detention youth accused serious crime assuming extension factfinding hearing good cause shown days maximum detention less serious crimes assuming extension good cause shown six days time frames seem suited limited purpose providing youth controlled environment separating improper influences pending speedy disposition case conditions confinement also appear reflect regulatory purposes relied upon state juvenile remanded initial appearance absent exceptional circumstances sent prison lockup exposed adult criminals fca instead child screened assessment unit department juvenile justice testimony kelly deputy commissioner operations new york city department juvenile justice app assessment unit places child either nonsecure secure detention nonsecure detention involves open facility community sort halfway house without locks bars security officers child receives schooling counseling access recreational facilities testimony benjamin secure detention restrictive still consistent regulatory parens patriae objectives relied upon state children assigned separate dorms based age size behavior wear street clothes provided institution partake educational recreational programs counseling sessions run trained social workers misbehavior punished confinement one room see testimony kelly conclude record controlled environment briefly imposed state juveniles secure pretrial detention imposed purpose punishment rather incident legitimate governmental purpose bell wolfish appeals course conclude underlying purpose punitive rather regulatory dispute preventive detention might serve legitimate regulatory purposes terms conditions pretrial confinement new york compatible purposes rather invalidated significant aspect new york juvenile justice system based solely case histories statistical study appeared show vast majority juveniles detained either petitions dismissed adjudication delinquency released adjudication assumed dismissal petition failure confine juvenile dispositional hearing belied need detain prior factfinding therefore pretrial detention constituted punishment since punishment imposed without prior adjudication guilt per se illegitimate appeals concluded juveniles held pursuant obvious flaws statistics case histories relied upon lower even assuming case far greater number juveniles incarcerated never confined consequence disposition imposed adjudication delinquency find insufficient ground upsetting widely shared legislative judgment preventive detention serves important legitimate function juvenile justice system unpersuaded appeals rather cavalier equation detentions lead continued confinement adjudication guilt wrongful punitive pretrial detentions pretrial detention need considered punitive merely juvenile subsequently discharged subject conditions put probation fact actions reinforce original finding close supervision juvenile required lenient supervised disposition keeping act purpose promote welfare development child new york appeals noted surprise one caution concern juvenile society may indicate conservation decision detain outset whereas later development much relevant information may prove finding delinquency warranted placement may indicated people ex rel wayburn schupf may course circumstances detention juvenile pass constitutional muster validity detentions must determined basis section invalid face reason ambiguous statistics case histories relied upon find justification conclusion contrary express language statute judgment highest state punitive rather regulatory measure preventive detention fca serves legitimate state objective held common every state country protecting juvenile society hazards pretrial crime given legitimacy state interest preventive detention nonpunitive nature detention remaining question whether procedures afforded juveniles detained prior factfinding provide sufficient protection erroneous unnecessary deprivations liberty see mathews eldridge gerstein pugh held judicial determination probable cause prerequisite extended restraint liberty adult accused crime however mandate specific timetable require full panoply adversary safeguards counsel confrontation compulsory process witnesses instead recognized desirability flexibility experimentation gerstein arose fourth amendment concern flexibility informality yet ensuring adequate predetention procedures present context winship kent many respects fca provides far predetention protection juveniles found constitutionally required determination adults gerstein initial appearance informal accused juvenile given full notice charges complete stenographic record kept hearing see juvenile appears accompanied parent guardian first informed rights including right remain silent right represented counsel chosen law guardian assigned fca initial appearance may adjourned longer hours next day whichever sooner enable appointed law guardian counsel appear counsel present juvenile informed charges furnished copy delinquency petition representative presentment agency appears support petition nonhearsay allegations delinquency petition supporting depositions must establish probable cause believe juvenile committed offense although family judge required make finding probable cause initial appearance youth may challenge sufficiency petition ground fca thus juvenile may oppose recommended detention arguing probable cause believe committed offense offenses charged petition dismissed juvenile given opportunity admit deny charges conclusion initial appearance presentment agency makes recommendation regarding detention probation officer reports juvenile record including prior current family probation contacts well relevant information concerning home life school attendance special medical developmental problems concludes offering agency recommendation detention opposing counsel juvenile parents juvenile may speak behalf challenge information recommendation judge decide detain juvenile must state record facts reasons detention noted detained juvenile entitled formal adversarial hearing within three days initial appearance one extension possible good cause shown burden hearing presentment agency call witnesses offer evidence support charges testimony oath subject ibid accused juvenile may call witnesses offer evidence behalf finds probable cause must decide whether continued detention necessary facts reasons detention must stated record sum notice hearing statement facts reasons given prior detention formal hearing held within short thereafter factfinding hearing scheduled within three days flexible procedures found constitutionally adequate fourth amendment see gerstein pugh due process clause see kent supra appellees failed note additional procedures significantly improve accuracy determination without unduly impinging achievement legitimate state purposes appellees argue however risk erroneous unnecessary detentions high despite procedures standard detention fatally vague detention based finding serious risk juvenile released commit crime prior next appearance already seen detention juveniles ground serves legitimate regulatory purposes appellees claim district agreed virtually impossible predict future criminal conduct degree accuracy moreover say statutory standard fails channel discretion family judge specifying factors rely making prediction procedural protections noted thus view unavailing ultimate decision intrinsically arbitrary uncontrolled cases indicate however legal point view nothing inherently unattainable prediction future criminal conduct judgment forms important element many decisions specifically rejected contention based sort sociological data relied upon appellees district impossible predict future behavior question vague meaningless jurek texas opinion stewart powell stevens jj white concurring judgment also recognized prediction future criminal conduct experienced prediction based host variables readily codified greenholtz nebraska penal inmates judge quinones family testified trial colleagues make determination based numerous factors including nature seriousness charges whether charges likely proved trial juvenile prior record adequacy effectiveness home supervision school situation known time day alleged crime evidence seriousness possible lack parental control special circumstances might brought attention probation officer child attorney parents relatives responsible persons accompanying child testimony judge quinones app decision based much information reasonably obtained initial appearance ibid given right hearing counsel statement reasons reason specific factors upon family judge might rely must specified statute new york appeals concluded people ex rel wayburn schupf real extent family must exercise substitute parental control particularized criteria also reason add federal assume state judge strive apply state law conscientiously possible sumner mata worth adding appeals second circuit mistaken conclusion ndividual litigation practical impossibility periods detention short litigation mooted merits determined fact one juveniles case histories upon relied released pretrial detention writ habeas corpus issued state new york courts also adopted liberal view doctrine capable repetition yet evading review precisely order ensure pretrial detention orders unreviewable people ex rel wayburn schupf supra declined dismiss appeal grant writ habeas corpus despite technical mootness case situation likely recur substantial issue may otherwise never reached view predictably recurring happenstance however expeditiously appeal might prosecuted dispositional hearings normally held disposition made appeal reach us decline dismiss appeal ground mootness iii dissent apparently us strike new york preventive detention statute two grounds first preventive detention juveniles constitutes poor public policy balance harms outweighing positive benefits either society juveniles post second statute better drafted improve quality decisionmaking process post worth recalling neither legislature charged formulating public policy american bar association committee charged drafting model statute question us today solely whether preventive detention system chosen state new york applied new york family comports constitutional standards given regulatory purpose detention procedural protections precede imposition conclude new york fca invalid due process clause fourteenth amendment judgment appeals reversed footnotes initial appearance discretion may release respondent direct detention shall direct detention unless finds facts reasons finding unless respondent detained substantial probability appear return date serious risk may return date commit act committed adult constitute crime original challenge ii fca time commencement suit governed pretrial release detention alleged juvenile delinquents persons need supervision effective july new article act governs inter alia juvenile delinquency actions proceedings commenced upon effective date thereof appeals proceedings relating attaching thereto fca article applies proceedings concerning persons need supervision obviously must review judgment light statute stands hall beals since new article contains preventive detention section identical former ii see fca appeal moot brockington rhodes although pretrial detention class representatives long since ended see infra case moot reason class action gerstein pugh mooted termination claims named plaintiffs pretrial detention nature temporary unlikely given individual constitutional claim decided appeal either released convicted individual nonetheless suffer repeated deprivations certain persons similarly situated detained allegedly unconstitutional procedures claim short one distinctly capable repetition yet evading review new york child age less considered criminally responsible conduct fca commits act constitute crime committed adult comes exclusive jurisdiction family charged finding guilt affixing punishment bogart misc rather determining pursuing needs best interests child insofar consistent need protection community fca see craig app div juvenile proceedings thus civil rather criminal although restrictions may placed juvenile adjudged delinquent protections afforded accused adult criminals also applicable context cf fca juvenile arrested arresting officer must immediately notify parent person legally responsible child care fca ordinarily child released custody parent guardian issued appearance ticket requiring meet probation service specified day see infra however charged serious crime one several designated felonies see parent guardian reached juvenile may taken directly family family judge make preliminary determination jurisdiction appoint law guardian child advise child rights including right counsel right remain silent martin case family session special circumstances exist inability notify parents child taken directly arresting officer juvenile detention facility juvenile detained must brought family within hours next day session whichever sooner propriety detention prior juvenile initial appearance family issue case appellees challenged judicially ordered detention pursuant delinquency petition prepared presentment agency originates delinquency proceedings fca petition must contain inter alia precise statement crime charged factual allegations clearly apprise juvenile conduct subject accusation petition deemed sufficient unless allegations factual part petition together supporting depositions may accompany provide reasonable cause believe juvenile committed crime crimes charged also nonhearsay allegations petition supporting deposition must establish true every element crime charged juvenile commission thereof sufficiency petition may tested filing motion dismiss first proceeding family following filing petition known initial appearance even juvenile already brought immediately following arrest fca factfinding juvenile analogue trial earlier proceedings juvenile right counsel hearing see gault evidence may suppressed grounds criminal cases fca proof guilt based record evidence must beyond reasonable doubt see winship guilt established enters appropriate order schedules dispositional hearing dispositional hearing final important proceeding family juvenile committed designated felony must order probation investigation diagnostic assessment material relevant evidence may offered probation agency juvenile sides may call witnesses recommend specific dispositional alternatives must find based preponderance evidence juvenile delinquent requires supervision treatment confinement otherwise petition dismissed ibid juvenile found delinquent enters order disposition possible alternatives include conditional discharge probation two years nonsecure placement perhaps relative division youth transfer commissioner mental health secure placement unless juvenile committed one designated felonies must order least restrictive available alternative consistent needs best interests juvenile need protection community every accused juvenile interviewed member staff probation department process known probation intake see testimony benjamin supervisor new york dept probation app course interview lasts average minutes probation officer gather information nature case attitudes parties involved child past history current family circumstances sources information child parent guardian arresting officer records past contacts child family basis interview probation officer may attempt adjust informally resolve case fca adjustment purely voluntary process complaining witness agrees press case juvenile given warning agrees counseling sessions perhaps referral community agency practice commentary cases involving designated felonies serious crimes adjustment permitted without written approval family case informally adjusted referred presentment agency see supra never decided whether federal rule civil procedure providing class actions applicable petitions habeas corpus relief see bell wolfish middendorf henry although appellants contested class certification district raise issue appeal urge therefore occasion reach question equal protection claim neither raised appeal decided second circuit us district gave three reasons conclusion first fca juvenile may held pretrial detention five days without judicial determination probable cause relying gerstein pugh district concluded pretrial detention without prior adjudication probable cause per se violation due process ex rel martin strasburg supp sdny second review pertinent scholarly literature noted diagnostic tools yet devised enable even highly trained criminologists predict reliably juveniles engage violent crime fortiori concluded family judge make reliable prediction based limited information available initial appearance moreover felt trial record replete examples arbitrary capricious detentions finally concluded preventive detention merely euphemism punishment imposed without adjudication guilt alleged purpose detention protect society juvenile criminal conduct indistinguishable purpose detention given inability trial judges predict juveniles commit crimes rational connection decision detain alleged purpose even purpose legitimate judge newman concurred separately convinced record supported majority statistical conclusions thought statute procedurally infirm granted unbridled discretion family judges make inherently uncertain prediction future criminal behavior juveniles accounted percent arrests violent crimes percent arrests serious property crime percent arrests violent serious property crimes combined dept justice federal bureau investigation crime violent crimes include murder nonnegligent manslaughter forcible rape robbery aggravated assault serious property crimes include burglary motor vehicle theft arson society recognizes juveniles general earlier stages emotional growth intellectual development incomplete limited practical experience value systems yet clearly identified firmly adopted reasons society hold juveniles adult standard responsibility conduct society may also conclude greater likelihood juvenile charged delinquency released commit another criminal act adult charged crime extent may expected constrain adults may expected operate equal force juveniles possibility juvenile delinquency treatment absence sentencing deterrent juvenile confronts adult perhaps significant fact consequence lack experience comprehension juvenile view commission criminal acts perspective adult element excitement getting away something powerful inducement peer pressures commonly acknowledged factors make commission criminal conduct part juveniles general likely case adults people ex rel wayburn schupf code alaska stat ann rule juv rules rev stat ann supp vol ark stat ann supp cal welf inst code ann west supp rev stat supp stat supp del fam rule code stat supp code ann haw rev stat supp idaho code supp rev ch ind code iowa code stat ann supp rev stat la code juv proc art west pamphlet rev stat tit supp md cts jud proc code ann mass laws ch west supp comp laws stat miss code ann mo juv rule mont code ann neb rev stat supp rev stat rev stat ann supp stat ann supp stat ann fca mckinney stat supp cent code ohio rev code ann okla tit supp rev stat cons stat laws code supp codified laws supp code ann tex fam code ann supp utah code ann supp stat tit code rev code code supp stat wyo stat see dept justice office juvenile justice delinquency prevention standards administration juvenile justice report national advisory committee juvenile justice delinquency prevention july uniform juvenile act standard juvenile act art iv proposed national council crime delinquency sheridan legislative guide drafting family juvenile acts dept hew children bureau pub see also standards juvenile family courts dept hew children bureau pub cf institute judicial bar association project juvenile justice standards relating interim status release control detention accused juvenile offenders arrest disposition tent draft detention limited reducing likelihood juvenile may inflict serious bodily harm others interim appellees argue limit must placed categories crimes detained juveniles must accused committed likely commit discretion delimit categories crimes justifying detention like discretion define criminal offenses prescribe punishments resides wholly state legislatures whalen rochin california see also rummel estelle presence absence violence always affect strength society interest deterring particular crime fundamentally sort attack criminal statute must made basis raines sift entire class determine whether statute constitutionally applied case outside limited first amendment context criminal statute may attacked overbroad see new york ferber good cause shown may adjourn hearing three additional days fca either case may adjourn hearing three days good cause shown fca must state record reason adjournment example appeals admits statistical study relied mingles indiscriminately detentions detentions latter provision applies juveniles likely appear return date detained appellees concede juveniles may lawfully detained brief appellees furthermore case histories relied handpicked appellees counsel period compare petitioners exhibit detention geraldo delgado march petitioners exhibit detention james ancrum august appeals stated appellants contest representativeness case histories appellants argue however occasion contest representativeness case histories even offered appellees representative sample evaluated appellees expert statistician district light see brief appellant pp need resolve controversy judge quinones testified detention disposition considered harsh solution dispositional hearing family judge usually much complete picture youngster tries tailor least restrictive dispositional order compatible picture testimony judge quinones app several amici argue similar statistics obtain throughout country see brief american bar association amicus curiae brief association children new jersey amicus curiae brief youth law center et al amici curiae even new york experience duplicated national scale fact lead us amici urge conclude every state illicitly punishing juveniles prior trial contrary statistics obtain nationwide conclusion strengthened existence statistics cases sufficient ground striking new york statute already noted fact practice followed large number conclusive decision whether practice accords due process plainly worth considering determining whether practice offends principle justice rooted traditions conscience people ranked fundamental snyder massachusetts leland oregon appellees urge alleged lack procedural safeguards alternative ground upholding judgment appeals brief appellees intimated reach result ground judge newman concurrence relied expressly perceived procedural flaws statute accordingly deem necessary consider question juvenile parent guardian fails appear reasonable substantial efforts made notify person must appoint law guardian child fca child chooses remain silent assumed deny charges fca consent presentment agency child may admit lesser charge wishes admit charges lesser charge must accepting admission advise child right factfinding hearing possible specific dispositional orders may result admission ibid must also satisfy child actually commit acts admits ibid consent victim complainant juvenile may also refer case probation service adjustment case subsequently adjusted petition dismissed given gerstein hearing may informal nonadversarial family judge make finding probable cause initial appearance required circumstances amount deprivation due process appellees fail point single example probable cause found decision made detain child gerstein indicated approval pretrial detention procedures supplied hearing within five days initial detention brief delay hearing may actually work advantage juvenile since gives counsel usually appointed initial appearance pursuant fca time prepare judge newman concurrence offered list statutory improvements suggested changes included limitations crimes juvenile arrested likely commit released determination likelihood juvenile committed crime assessment juvenile background specific standard proof first second suggestions already considered see nn supra need add discussion indication delimiting category crimes justifying detention improve accuracy determination respect third fourth suggestions discussed text infra see jurek texas death sentence imposed jury greenholtz nebraska penal inmates grant parole morrissey brewer parole revocation prediction future criminal conduct may also form basis increased sentence dangerous special offender statute dangerous offender defined individual period confinement longer provided underlying felony required protection public criminal conduct defendant statute challenged numerous times grounds standards unconstitutionally vague every appeals considering question rejected claim davis cert denied schell williamson bowdach neary cert denied stewart cert denied justice marshall justice brennan justice stevens join dissenting new york family act governs treatment persons years age alleged committed acts committed adults constitute crimes act contains two provisions authorize detention juveniles arrested offenses covered act days pending adjudication guilt section empowers judge new york family order detention juvenile finds substantial probability juvenile appear return date section provision issue cases authorizes detention judge finds serious risk juvenile may return date commit act committed adult constitute crime limitations detention need predicated finding probable cause believe child committed offense arrested provision applies juveniles regardless prior records severity offenses accused provision limited prevention dangerous crimes prediction juvenile released may commit minor misdemeanor sufficient justify detention aside reference serious risk requisite likelihood juvenile misbehave trial specified statute today holds preventive detention juvenile pursuant violate due process clause two rulings essential decision provision promotes legitimate government objectives important enough justify abridgment detained juveniles liberty interests ante provision incorporates procedural safeguards sufficient prevent unnecessary arbitrary impairment constitutionally protected rights ante disagree rulings dissent district made detailed findings appeals left undisturbed regarding manner applied practice unless clearly erroneous findings binding upon us see fed rule civ proc must guide analysis constitutional questions presented cases first step process leads detention known probation intake juvenile may arrive intake one three routes may brought directly arresting officer may detained brief period arrest taken intake may released upon arrest directed appear designated time ex rel martin strasburg supp sdny heart intake procedure interview juvenile arresting officer sometimes juvenile parent guardian objectives probation officer conducting interview determine nature offense child may committed obtain background information ibid basis information derived interview examination juvenile record probation officer decides whether case disposed informally adjusted whether referred family latter officer makes additional recommendation regarding whether juvenile detained appear governing criteria must followed probation officer choosing proposing detention parole ibid actual decision whether detain juvenile made family judge called initial appearance brief hearing resembling arraignment information judge makes determination limited petition delinquency prepared state agency charging juvenile offense accompanied one affidavits attesting juvenile involvement ordinarily judge addition written report recommendation probation officer however probation officer prepared report rarely attends hearing ibid complainant likely appear consequently ften one present personal knowledge happened ibid typical case judge appoints counsel juvenile time case called thus lawyer opportunity make independent inquiry juvenile background character minutes prepare arguments child behalf judge ordinarily interview juvenile makes inquiry truth allegations petition determine whether probable cause believe juvenile committed offense typical hearing lasts minutes judge renders decision immediately afterward ibid neither statute body rules guides efforts judge determine whether given juvenile likely commit crime trial making detention decisions judge must rely subjective judgment based limited information available intake whatever personal standards developed exercising discretionary authority statute ibid family judges provided information regarding behavior juveniles whose cases presided judge way refining standards employs making detention decisions examining study sample cases juveniles detained along various statistical studies pretrial detention juveniles new york district made findings regarding circumstances provision habitually invoked three findings especially germane appellees challenge statute first substantial number first offenders detained pursuant example least juveniles sample prior contact family detained least prior adjudications delinquency second many juveniles released periods ranging five days several weeks arrests detained despite absence evidence misconduct time arrests initial appearances sixteen cases sample fit pattern third overwhelming majority juveniles detained released either immediately trials either unconditionally parole least juveniles sample fell category martin strasburg see finally district made significant findings concerning conditions associated secure detention pursuant secure facility juveniles subjected wear institutional clothing follow institutional regimen spofford juvenile detention center secure facility juveniles dispositional determinations awaiting placement long term care commingle pretrial detention short term care backdrop findings contentions parties must examined ii majority concedes ante fact applies juveniles insulate provision review due process clause either fourteenth amendment bill rights adults alone gault examination provision must course informed recognition juveniles different needs capacities adults see mckeiver pennsylvania provision still must measure essentials due process fair treatment kent comport fundamental fairness must satisfy two requirements first must advance goals commensurate burdens imposes constitutionally protected interests second must punish juveniles applies majority grudgingly incompletely acknowledges applicability first tests grip cases us undeniable manifest impinges upon fundamental rights liberty protected due process clause means anything means freedom physical restraint ingraham wright board regents roth important government interest justify deprivation liberty basic sense majority seeks evade force principle discounting impact child incarceration pursuant curtailment liberty consequent upon detention juvenile majority contends mitigated fact juvenile unlike adults always form custody ante event majority argues conditions confinement associated secure detention unduly burdensome ante contentions enable majority suggest need advance legitimate state objective satisfy strictures due process clause ante majority arguments survive scrutiny characterization preventive detention merely transfer custody parent guardian state difficult take seriously surely qualitative difference imprisonment condition subject supervision control adult one best interests heart majority depiction nature confinement insupportable record noted district found secure detention entails incarceration facility closely resembling jail pretrial detainees sometimes mixed juveniles found delinquent supra evidence adduced trial reinforces findings example judge quinones family judge eight years experience described conditions detention follows juvenile center much might try pleasant place world put detention liable exposing youngsters sorts things liable exposed assault liable exposed sexual assaults taking risk putting together youngster might much worse possibly might might bad effect respect app short fairly viewed pretrial detention juvenile pursuant gives rise injuries comparable associated imprisonment adult situations detainee suffers stigmatization severe limitation freedom movement see winship gault indeed impressionability juveniles may make experience incarceration injurious adults quickly juveniles subjected preventive detention come see society large hostile oppressive regard irremediably delinquent serious injuries presumptively innocent persons encompassing curtailment constitutional rights liberty justified weighty public interest substantially advanced statute applicability second two tests admitted even majority bell wolfish held adult may punished prior determination guilty crime majority concedes must principle applies juveniles ante thus purpose substantially advanced punishment provision must struck related reasons satisfy either requirements discussed together define fundamental fairness context pretrial detention appellants majority contend advances pair intertwined government objectives protecting community crime ante protecting juvenile consequences criminal activity ante specifically majority argues detaining juvenile period days prior trial two desirable effects protects society large crimes might committed period released protects juvenile potential physical injury may suffered victim fights back policeman attempts make arrest downward spiral criminal activity peer pressure may lead child ante appellees amici argue public purposes sort never justify incarceration person adjudicated guilty crime least absence determination exists probable cause believe committed criminal offense need reach categorial argument cases even purposes identified majority conceded compelling sufficiently promoted detention pursuant justify concomitant impairment juveniles liberty interests state case precisely two circumstances combination render invalid toto large majority cases provision invoked asserted objectives either advanced minimally promoted provision written administered state courts cases asserted ends significantly advanced practicably distinguished cases courts concluded occasionally accidentally pretrial detention juvenile prevent commission crime three subsidiary findings undergird conclusion first family judges incapable determining juveniles appear commit offenses trials left large part incapacity derives limitations current knowledge concerning dynamics human behavior basis evidence adduced trial supplemented thorough review secondary literature see nn district found diagnostic tools yet devised enable even highly trained criminologists predict reliably juveniles engage violent crime evidence supportive finding overwhelming independent impediment identification defendants misbehave released paucity data available initial appearance judge must make decision whether detain juvenile basis set allegations regarding child alleged offense cursory review background criminal record recommendation probation officer typical case seen child view scarcity relevant information district credited testimony appellees expert witness stated surprised recommendations based intake interviews better chance assessed judge subjective prognosis probability future crime better chance virtually wholly unpredictable second limited classes juveniles whose past conduct suggests substantially likely average juveniles misbehave immediate future provision authorizes detention persons arrested trivial offenses persons without prior contacts juvenile even finding probable cause believe juvenile committed offense charged prerequisite detention see supra third courts concluded circumstances surrounding cases invoked strongly suggest detainee committed crime period trial released significant proportion cases juvenile released arrest committed reported crimes large see supra apparent juvenile likely misbehave initial appearance trial arrest initial appearance even telling fact vast majority persons detained released either immediately trials see inference powerful detainees examined carefully initial appearances deemed insufficiently dangerous warrant incarceration rarity invocation results detention juvenile otherwise committed crime fatally undercuts two public purposes assigned statute state majority argument serves state parens patriae interest preserving promoting welfare child ante citation omitted appears particularly hollow juveniles detained pursuant provision benefited thereby committed crimes left devices thus exposed risk physical injury perils cycle recidivism see ante contrary juveniles suffer several serious harms deprivation liberty stigmatization delinquent dangerous well impairment ability prepare legal defenses benefits even juveniles committed crimes released unalloyed gains partially offset aforementioned injuries view configuration benefits harms surprising judge quinones repudiated suggestion detention serves interests detainees app argument protects welfare community fares little better certainly public reaps benefit incarceration majority detainees committed crimes released prevention minor offenses committed small proportion persons detained confers slight benefit community occasional cases incarceration juvenile pending trial serve prevent crime violence thereby significantly promote public interest infrequent haphazard gain insufficient justify curtailment liberty interests presumptively innocent juveniles obeyed law pending trials given chance majority seeks deflect appellees attack constitutionality contending framed argument broadly possible majority acknowledges circumstances detention juvenile pursuant pass constitutional muster validity detentions must determined basis ante see ante majority thus implies even due process clause violated detentions detainees committed crimes released statute nevertheless invalid face detention persons committed serious crime comports constitution separation properly detained juveniles improperly detained juveniles must achieved adjudication obvious practical impediments adoption majority proposal juvenile may incarcerated days impracticable particular detainee secure freedom challenging constitutional basis detention time suit considered rendered moot juvenile release detention pursuant delinquency adjudication individual detainee avoid problem mootness filing suit damages injunctive relief declaration unconstitutional face almost certainly preclude finding detention juvenile pursuant statute violated clearly established constitutional rights absence finding state officials immune liability damages see harlow fitzgerald current doctrine pertaining standing individual victim allegedly unconstitutional conduct obtain injunction repetition behavior far clear individual detainee able obtain equitable remedy compare ins delgado los angeles lyons even practical difficulties surmounted majority proposal inadequate precisely unreliability determination whether particular juvenile likely commit crime arrest trial see supra individual detainee able demonstrate abided law released words configuration circumstances enable juvenile establish fell category persons unconstitutionally detained rather category constitutionally detained thus protect rights majority juveniles whose incarceration advances legitimate state interest must held unconstitutional face findings reviewed preceding section lend credence conclusion reached courts utilized principally preventive purposes impose punishment unadjudicated criminal acts see majority contends many factors considered trying determine whether particular sanction constitutes punishment see kennedy useful whether alternative purpose sanction may rationally connected assignable whether appears excessive relation alternative purpose assigned ibid footnotes omitted see ante assuming arguendo test appropriate cf bell wolfish marshall dissenting requires affirmance case alternative purpose assigned state prevention crime detained juveniles shown objective advanced best sporadically provision moreover frequently invoked circumstances extremely unlikely juvenile question commit crime awaiting trial striking cases involve juveniles large without mishap substantial period time prior initial appearances see supra detainees adjudged delinquent nevertheless released community short administered new york courts surely appears excessive relation putatively legitimate objectives assigned inference punitive nature supported additional materials record example judge quinones even appellants counsel acknowledged one reasons juveniles detained pursuant usually released determination guilt judge decides pretrial detention constitutes sufficient punishment nn another family judge admitted using preventive detention punish one juveniles sample summary application litmus test recently used identify punitive sanctions supports finding lower courts preventive detention constitutes punishment punishment juveniles adjudication guilt violates due process clause see supra provision stand iii record establish impossibility basis evidence available family judge hearing reliably predicting whether given juvenile commit crime trial purposes relied upon state promoted sufficiently justify deprivations liberty effected provision nevertheless still strike absence procedural safeguards provision judge newman concurring appeals observed new york statute unconstitutional permits liberty denied prior adjudication guilt exercise unfettered discretion issue considerable uncertainty likelihood future criminal behavior appellees point lacks two crucial procedural constraints first new york family judge given guidance regarding kinds evidence consider weight accord different sorts material deciding whether detain juvenile example requirement statute judge take account juvenile background current living situation judge obliged attach significance nature juvenile criminal record severity crime arrested second specify likely must juvenile commit crime trial warrant detention provision indicates must serious risk commit offense prescribe standard proof govern judge determination issue surprisingly view lack directions provided statute different judges adopted different ways estimating chances whether juvenile misbehave near future judge follows individual approach detention determination see app testimony judge quinones discretion exercised family judges making detention decisions gives rise two related constitutional problems first creates excessive risk juveniles detained erroneously circumstances public interest served incarceration second fosters arbitrariness inequality decisionmaking process impinges upon fundamental rights one purposes imposing procedural constraints decisions affecting life liberty property reduce incidence error see fuentes shevin mathews eldridge identified complex considerations proved helpful determining protections constitutionally required particular contexts achieve end dentification specific dictates due process generally requires consideration three distinct factors first private interest affected official action second risk erroneous deprivation interest procedures used probable value additional substitute procedural safeguards finally government interest including function involved fiscal administrative burdens additional substitute procedural requirement entail second dispute serious risk present statute juvenile detained erroneously despite fact commit crime released findings fact reviewed preceding sections make apparent vast majority detentions pursuant advance state interest rarely statute operate prevent crime see supra high incidence demonstrated error induce reviewing exercise utmost care ensuring procedures devised improve accuracy decisionmaking process opportunities improvement extant regime apparent even casual observer obviously measure guidance family judges regarding evidence consider standard proof use making determinations surely contribute quality detention determinations majority purports see value additional safeguards contending activity estimating likelihood given juvenile commit crime near future involves subtle assessment host variables precise weight determined advance ante review hearings resulted detention juveniles included sample cases reveals majority depiction decisionmaking process hopelessly idealized example operative portion initial appearance tyrone parson monte player consisted following officer identify tyrone parson tyrone parson age miss brown many times tyrone known miss brown seven times remand respondent petitioners exhibit third finally imposition constraints deliberations family judges adverse effect state interest detaining dangerous juveniles give rise insubstantial administrative burdens example simple directive family judges state record significance give seriousness offense juvenile accused nature juvenile background contribute materially quality decisionmaking process without significantly increasing duration initial appearances summary three factors enumerated mathews combination incline overwhelmingly favor imposition stringent constraints detention determinations especially view impracticability correcting erroneous decisions judicial review see supra absence meaningful procedural safeguards provision renders invalid see santosky kramer principle underlying many prior decisions various doctrinal settings government officials may accorded unfettered discretion making decisions impinge upon fundamental rights two concerns underlie principle excessive discretion fosters inequality distribution entitlements harms inequality especially troublesome benefits burdens great discretion mask use officials illegitimate criteria allocating important goods rights striking vagueness grounds vagrancy ordinance emphasized unfettered discretion places hands police papachristou city jacksonville flexibility deemed constitutionally offensive permits encourages arbitrary discriminatory enforcement law partly similar reasons consistently held violative first amendment ordinances make ability engage constitutionally protected speech contingent upon uncontrolled official requiring permit license may granted withheld discretion official staub city baxley accord shuttlesworth city birmingham analogous considerations inform understanding dictates due process clause concurring judgment zablocki redhail striking statute conditioned right marry upon satisfaction obligations justice powell aptly observed quite apart impact truly indigent statute appears confer upon judge license arbitrary procedure determination whether applicant children likely thereafter become public charges serious question procedural due process raised feature standardless discretion particularly light hazards prediction area quoting kent iv majority acknowledges indeed founds much argument upon principle state power responsibility protect interests children within jurisdiction see santosky kramer supra yet majority today upholds statute whose net impact juveniles come within purview overwhelmingly detrimental persons detained provision reap benefit suffer serious injuries thereby welfare minority detainees even arguably enhanced inequity regime combined arbitrariness administered bound disillusion victims regarding virtues system criminal justice see majority pointed public purpose advanced statute sufficient justify harm works respectfully dissent jud law mckinney hereinafter family act fca children aged accused murder children aged accused kidnaping arson rape serious crimes exempted coverage act instead prosecuted juvenile offenders adult criminal courts penal law mckinney supp sake simplicity offenses covered family act well serious offenses enumerated hereinafter referred generically crimes ironically juveniles arrested serious offenses see supra subject preventive detention provision strictly speaking guilt never adjudicated act juvenile ever given trial rather whether juvenile committed offense ascertained factfinding hearing respects however hearing functional equivalent ordinary criminal trial example juvenile entitled counsel state bears burden demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt juvenile committed offense accused see fca cf winship gault establishing constitutional limitations form proceedings recognition severity impact upon juveniles convenience ensuing discussion use terminology associated adult criminal proceedings describing treatment juveniles new york time appellees first brought suit pertinent portions fca embodied fca agree majority reenactment crucial provision different numerical heading render case moot see ante juvenile detained upon arrest hearing must held next day within hours whichever comes first fca majority admits family judge required make finding probable cause initial appearance contends juvenile option challenge sufficiency petition delinquency ground fails establish probable cause ante none courts considered constitutionality new york system suggested juvenile statutory right determination detained provisions cited majority novel reading statute provide shaky support contention fca empowers juvenile move dismiss petition lacking allegations sufficient satisfy provides motion dismiss section must made within time provided section section turn provides pretrial motions shall made within days initial appearance factfinding hearing juvenile detained judge instructed hear determine motions expedited basis required rule upon motions peremptorily sum statutory scheme seems contemplate motion dismiss petition lack probable cause accompanied supporting affidavits exhibits memoranda law filed sometime juvenile detained reason expect ruling motion rendered juvenile event entitled hearing counsel juvenile ordinarily even appointed minutes prior initial appearance see supra page confirms interpretation lesson foray tangled provisions new york family act majority adhere usual policy relying whenever possible interpretation state statute upon courts better acquainted terms applications majority refuses consider circumstances cases dismissing unrepresentative ante focuses instead lurid facts associated cases three named appellees agree sample entitled little weight uncontested testimony trial effect cases typical app testimony steven hiltz attorney years experience family point litigation appellants offered alternative selection instances invoked importantly despite fact district relied heavily sample assessing manner statute applied see appellants dispute appeals representativeness cases see martin strasburg defendants plaintiff class action challenge appeal neither certification class see ante plaintiffs depiction character class analyze case comes us try construct new version facts basis independent selective review record appeals acknowledged defects available statistical studies importantly none studies distinguishes persons detained persons detained however flaws disable courts making meaningful albeit rough generalizations regarding incidence detention latter provision especially conjoined sample cases submitted appellees see supra studies sufficient support three findings enumerated text even majority though chastises appellees failing assemble better data ante suggest findings clearly erroneous figures text taken district summary cases sample review transcripts hearings cases reveals actual number respectively see petitioners exhibits state director detention services testified approximately six times many juveniles admitted secure facilities facilities see figures broken persons detained persons detained seems dispute however juveniles held latter provision subjected secure detention principle underlies prior decisions involving various constitutional provisions relate pretrial detention gerstein pugh relied part severity consequences prolonged detention construing fourth amendment forbid pretrial incarceration suspect extended period time without judicial determination probable cause stack boyle stressed importance person right freedom proved guilty construing eighth amendment proscribe setting bail figure higher amount reasonably calculated assure presence accused trial cf baker mccollan stevens dissenting phrase legitimate governmental objective appears several points opinion bell wolfish majority may relying implicitly decision standard applies cases reliance misplaced wolfish exclusively concerned constitutionality conditions pretrial incarceration circumstances legitimacy incarceration undisputed avoided discussion showing state must make order justify pretrial detention first instance see standard employed wolfish thus bearing problem us juveniles sample detained spofford juvenile center detention facility new york city numerous studies facility attested unsavory characteristics see citizens committee children new york juvenile detention problems new york city stone ruskin goff inquiry juvenile centers operated office probation conditions spofford successfully challenged constitutional grounds group inmates different type see martarella kelley supp sdny nevertheless remain grim see mayor task force spofford first report june surprisingly former new york city deputy mayor criminal justice averred spofford many ways indistinguishable prison petitioners exhibit affidavit herbert sturz june cf aubry nature scope significance detention juveniles california black standard might refined one two ways first might argued impinges upon iberty bodily restraint long recognized core liberty protected due process clause greenholtz nebraska penal inmates powell concurring part dissenting part provision pass constitutional muster promotes compelling government interest see people ex rel wayburn schupf requiring showing compelling state interest uphold cf shapiro thompson alternatively might argued comparatively brief period incarceration permissible provision warrants slight lowering constitutional bar applying principle strength state interest needed legitimate statute depends upon degree statute encroaches upon fundamental rights see williams illinois harlan concurring result might held important quite compelling objective necessary sustain present context need choose doctrinal options fail either test see also ingraham wright gregory chicago thompson louisville cf sellers ed black chambers questioning whether defendant dangerousness ever justify denial bail additional reason reaching appellees categorical objection purposes relied upon state appeals pass upon validity objectives see generally chary deciding important constitutional questions reached lower see american psychiatric association clinical aspects violent individual cocozza steadman failure psychiatric predictions dangerousness clear convincing evidence rutgers rev diamond psychiatric prediction dangerousness rev ennis litwack psychiatry presumption expertise flipping coins courtroom rev schlesinger prediction dangerousness juveniles replication crime delinquency steadman cocozza psychiatry dangerousness repetitively violent offender crim wenk robison smith violence predicted crime delinquency preventive detention empirical analysis harv civ rights civ lib rev majority brushes aside district findings issue remark prediction future criminal conduct forms important element many decisions specifically rejected contention impossible predict future behavior question vague meaningless ante citation omitted whatever merits decisions upon majority relies barefoot estelle marshall dissenting control problem us cases countenanced reliance upon prediction future conduct decisionmaking process impinging upon life liberty affected person already convicted crime see greenholtz nebraska penal inmates grant parole jurek texas death sentence morrissey brewer parole revocation constitutional limitations upon kinds factors may relied making decisions significantly looser upon decisionmaking processes abridge liberty presumptively innocent persons cf tucker trial judge federal judicial system generally wide discretion determining sentence impose efore making determination judge may appropriately conduct inquiry broad scope largely unlimited either kind information may consider source may come example tyrone parson aged one members sample arrested enticing others play monte petitioners exhibit detained five days petition dismissed ground offense alleged come within provisions penal law contrast breadth coverage family act district columbia adult statute upheld edwards cert denied authorizes detention persons charged one prescribed set dangerous crime crime violence code prediction whether given person commit crime future especially difficult committed minor crimes past cf baldasar illinois powell dissenting predict confidence whether misdemeanor defendant likely become recidivist contrast district columbia statute see supra judge obliged ordering detention find inter alia substantial probability defendant committed serious crime arrested code courts made inference see indeed new york appeals upholding statute disagree explanation incidence application people ex rel wayburn schupf release trial juveniles detained may well due different factor evidence may insufficient support finding guilt conceivable persons committed offense detained even majority suggest persons convicted crimes may nevertheless imprisoned protection public see testimony steven hiltz app describing detrimental effects pretrial detention juvenile upon preparation presentation defense cf barker wingo bitter per curiam stack boyle miller preventive detention guide eradication individual rights cf tribe ounce detention preventive justice world john mitchell rev statute proposed attorney general trivial property offenses may deemed sufficiently threatening warrant preventive imprisonment tenable concept due process condone balance gives little weight accused interest pretrial liberty amici contend statute unlike covered specific categories juveniles embodied stringent procedural safeguards result incarceration juveniles likely commit crimes violence near future brief american bar association amicus curiae argued even though statute unavoidably result detention juveniles committed offenses released impossibility reliably predicting behavior individual persons see supra gains consequent upon detention large proportion committed crimes sufficient justify injuries detainees decide cases us need consider either feasibility scheme constitutionality district whose knowledge new york procedural law surely exceeds concluded short span pretrial detention makes effective review impossible majority dismisses finding along comparable finding appeals see mistaken ante neither circumstances relied upon majority supports confident judgment point new york courts suspended usual rules mootness order consider attack constitutionality statute whole see people ex rel wayburn schupf way suggests willing individual detainee challenged constitutionality applied majority cites one case detainee obtain release securing writ habeas corpus however case involved juvenile given hearing within six days detention patent violation state statute see writ habeas corpus obtained short notice remedy glaring statutory violation provides support majority suggestion individual detainees effectively petition release challenging constitutionality detentions problem exacerbated fact family judges making findings justifying detention pursuant specify whether risk juvenile commit serious crime whether risk commit petty offense finding latter sort sufficient due process clause justify juvenile detention see supra particular detainee way ascertaining grounds incarceration see transcript initial appearance ramon ramos judge heller presiding petitioners exhibit business able get guns completely proportion living jungle living jungle time youths brought know allegations true going pay penalty reasons state record remand ing respondent commissioner juvenile justice secure detention absence limitations sorts reasons may support determination child likely commit crime released means statutory requirement judge state reasons record see ante meaningfully constrain decisionmaking process see whether juvenile first offender prior conduct whether advised juvenile obedient son needed home whether probation intake recommended parole case histories record disclose unusual discount considerations order remand based minute evaluation cf addington texas clear convincing proof constitutionally required justify civil commitment mental hospital judge newman concurring pointed three protections lacking statute places limits crimes person subject detention arrested judge ordering detention required make evaluation degree likelihood person committed crime accused statute places limits type crimes judge believes detained juvenile might commit released view absence constraints relevant question whether ends served statute justify broad reach see part supra however judge newman observed also considered procedural flaws certainly narrowing categories persons covered along lines sketched judge newman reduce incidence error application provision see supra parson case unique hearings accorded juan santiago daniel nelson example though somewhat longer duration nearly cavalier undiscriminating see petitioners exhibits see supra see clear judge decides pretrial detention variety reasons means protecting community policy judge remand express punitive device serious nature charge among others citations omitted