California Youth Program Treats Kids Like Criminals, Class Action Says

The County of Riverside, Calif., and the Chief and Chief Deputy of the Riverside County Probation Department were hit with a class action lawsuit accusing them of implementing “an astonishingly punitive and ineffective law enforcement program” that allegedly places children under probation supervision for normal youthful behavior.

“By doing so, it systematically undermines our collective responsibility to give every child–regardless of race or ethnicity–the chance to stay in school and on track to succeed,” the Riverside youth probation class action lawsuit says.

According to the Riverside Probation class action lawsuit, Riverside County places children into six-month probation terms through its “Youth Accountability Team” for behaviors such as being “defiant,” using “inappropriate language,” being late to school, being “easily persuaded by peers,” and by engaging in behaviors that are normal for children who are grieving a parent’s death.

“Every day that this probation program remains in place, we jeopardize the potential of hundreds of young people who are diverted away from educational success and toward the criminal justice system,” the Riverside youth probation class action lawsuit says.

The plaintiffs, represented by a dozen lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union and other law firms, accuse the defendants of stripping children of their constitutional rights and treating them like criminals for behaving like normal children.

“This needs to stop,” the Riverside County Probation class action lawsuit says. “Riverside County cannot be permitted to continue to manipulate and financially benefit from this program on the backs of Riverside’s children, especially Black and Latinx children.”

The youth probation class action lawsuit claims that Riverside County has improperly swept tens of thousands of children in adolescents into its YAT program, imposing punitive probation supervision on them for engaging in childish behavior. Even first graders have been referred to the YAT program.

The plaintiffs accuse the defendants of setting children up to fail and increase their risk of becoming more deeply involved in the criminal justice system.

“Placing a child on YAT probation includes none of the safeguards of judicial process, such as access to appointed counsel, adequate notice of charges or the underlying facts, or any kind of impartial decision maker,” the ACLU youth probation class action lawsuit says. “At the same time, it imposes consequences that are often more severe than those that would be imposed by a court.”

Because probation places YAT officers in public schools within the county, the officers end up seeking referrals for issues that would normally be addressed by the school.

Further, Black and Latinx students are disproportionately referred to probation for “incorrigibility” based on what the ACLU class action lawsuit says is an “antiquated and unconstitutionally vague law.”

The Riverside Youth Accountability Team class action lawsuit asserts claims for violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, violation of the First Amendment, and violations of sections of the California constitution and other state laws.

The plaintiffs are represented by Sylvia Torres-Guillen and Hannah Comstock of American Civil Liberties Foundation of Southern California Inc.; Christine P. Sun and Linea L. Nelson of American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California Inc.; Sarah Hinger of American Civil Liberties Union Foundation; David Loy and Melissa Deleon of American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of San Diego and Imperial Counties; Moe Keshavarzi and Andrea N. Feathers of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP; Michael Harris of National Center for Youth Law; and by Victor Leung and Alexis Piazza of American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California.

The Riverside California Youth Program Class Action Lawsuit is Sigma Beta Xi Inc., et al. v. County of Riverside, et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-01399-RSWL-JEM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division.