ACCO,(JEMx),DISCOVERY,MANADR,PROTORD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Eastern Division − Riverside)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:18−cv−01399−JGB−JEM

Sigma Beta Xi, Inc. et al v. County of Riverside et al Assigned to: Judge Jesus G. Bernal Referred to: Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott Demand: $1,000 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 07/01/2018 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Sigma Beta Xi, Inc.

represented by Alexis Martin Piazza ACLU of Southern California 1313 West 8th Street Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−5225 Fax: 213−977−9500 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrea Feathers Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP 333 South Hope Street 43rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−620−1780 Fax: 213−620−1398 Email: afeathers@sheppardmullin.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John David Loy ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties P O Box 87131 San Diego, CA 92138−7131 619−398−4496 Fax: 619−232−0036 Email: davidloy@aclusandiego.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Linnea L Nelson ACLU of Northern California 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 415−621−2493 Email: lnelson@aclunc.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melissa Joyce Deleon ACLU Foundation of San Diego and Imperial Counties PO Box 87131 San Diego, CA 92138 619−232−2121 Fax: 619−232−0036 Email: mdeleon@aclusandiego.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Harris

National Center for Youth Law 1212 Broadway Suite 600 Oakland, CA 94612 510−899−6566 Fax: 510−839−8099 Email: mharris@youthlaw.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Moe Keshavarzi Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP 333 South Hope Street 43rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−620−1780 Fax: 213−620−1398 Email: mkeshavarzi@sheppardmullin.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor Leung ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 W. 8th Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−5219 Email: vleung@aclusocal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine P Sun ACLU of Northern California 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 415−621−2493 Email: csun@aclunc.org TERMINATED: 09/11/2019
Hannah Karin Comstock Immigrant Defenders Law Center 634 S. Spring Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 (213) 340−7676 Fax: (213) 282−3133 Email: hcomstock@immdef.org TERMINATED: 11/09/2018
Sarah A Hinger ACLU of New York 125 Broad Street 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 212−519−7882 Fax: 212−549−2654 Email: shinger@aclu.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sylvia Torres−Guillen ACLU of Southern California 1313 West Eighth Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−5220 Fax: 213−977−5297 Email: STorres−Guillen@aclusocal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Andrew M. by and through his next friend Denise M., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff Jacob T. by and through his next friend Heather T., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated

represented by Alexis Martin Piazza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrea Feathers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John David Loy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linnea L Nelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa Joyce Deleon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Harris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Moe Keshavarzi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor Leung (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine P Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2019
Hannah Karin Comstock (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2018
Sarah A Hinger (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sylvia Torres−Guillen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexis Martin Piazza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
J. F. by and through her next friend Cindy McConnell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated

Andrea Feathers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John David Loy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linnea L Nelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa Joyce Deleon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Harris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Moe Keshavarzi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor Leung (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine P Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2019
Hannah Karin Comstock (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2018
Sarah A Hinger (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sylvia Torres−Guillen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexis Martin Piazza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrea Feathers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant County of Riverside

John David Loy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linnea L Nelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa Joyce Deleon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Harris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Moe Keshavarzi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor Leung (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christine P Sun (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2019
Hannah Karin Comstock (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2018
Sarah A Hinger (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sylvia Torres−Guillen (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kelly Anne Moran Riverside County Counsel 3960 Orange Street Suite 500 Riverside, CA 92501 951−955−6300 Fax: 951−955−6363 Email: Kmoran@rivco.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James E Brown Office of County Counsel County of Riverside 3960 Orange Street Suite 500

Defendant Mark Hake Chief of the Riverside County Probation Department, in his official capacity
Defendant Bryce Hulstrom Chief Deputy of the Riverside County Probation Department, in his official capacity
Defendant DOES 1 through 10, inclusive

Riverside, CA 92501 951−955−6300 Fax: 951−955−6322 Email: jebbrown@rivco.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kelly Anne Moran (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James E Brown (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kelly Anne Moran (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James E Brown (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/01/2018
07/01/2018 07/01/2018 07/01/2018
07/01/2018 07/02/2018 07/02/2018 07/02/2018 07/02/2018

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT, filed by Plaintiffs Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., J. F., Jacob T., Andrew M.. (Attorney Sylvia Torres−Guillen added to party J. F.(pty:pla), Attorney Sylvia Torres−Guillen added to party Andrew M.(pty:pla), Attorney Sylvia Torres−Guillen added to party Sigma Beta Xi, Inc.(pty:pla), Attorney Sylvia Torres−Guillen added to party Jacob T.(pty:pla))(Torres−Guillen, Sylvia) (Entered: 07/01/2018)
2 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), 1 filed by Plaintiffs J. F., Andrew M., Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., Jacob T.. (Torres−Guillen, Sylvia) (Entered: 07/01/2018)
3 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiffs J. F., Andrew M., Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., Jacob T.. (Torres−Guillen, Sylvia) (Entered: 07/01/2018)
4 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs All Plaintiffs, identifying Sigma Beta Xi, Inc.; Andrew M. by and through his next friend Denise M.; Jacob T. by and through his next friend, Heather T.; J.F by and through her next friend, Cindy McConnell; County of Riverside; Mark Hake; Bryce Hulstrom. (Torres−Guillen, Sylvia) (Entered: 07/01/2018)
5 NOTICE of Constitutional Question filed by Plaintiffs J. F., Andrew M., Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., Jacob T.. (Torres−Guillen, Sylvia) (Entered: 07/01/2018)
(Torres−Guillen, Sylvia) (Entered: 07/02/2018)
FILING FEE PAID for new civil case. Receipt No. 0973−22020937 for $400 filing fee. (Torres−Guillen, Sylvia) (Entered: 07/02/2018)
6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Ronald S. W. Lew and Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott. (jtil) (Entered: 07/02/2018)
7 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT−DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jtil) (Entered: 07/02/2018)

07/03/2018
07/03/2018 07/03/2018 07/05/2018 07/06/2018
07/06/2018 07/10/2018 07/11/2018 07/12/2018 07/16/2018 07/17/2018 07/18/2018 07/20/2018

8 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Request to Issue Summons. The following error(s) was found: The caption of the summons must match the caption of the complaint verbatim. If the caption is too large to fit in the space provided, enter the name of the first party and then write see attached.Next, attach a face page of the complaint or a second page addendum to the Summons. The summons cannot be issued until this defect has been corrected. Please correct the defect and re−file your request. (jtil) (Entered: 07/03/2018)
9 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiffs J. F., Andrew M., Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., Jacob T., re Notice (Other) 5 UPON XAVIER BECERRA, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RE [DKT 5] NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION served on July 2, 2018. (Feathers, Andrea) (Entered: 07/03/2018)
10 ORDER RETURNING CASE FOR REASSIGNMENT by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. ORDER case returned to the Clerk for random reassignment pursuant to General Order 16−05. Case randomly reassigned from Judge Ronald S.W. Lew to Judge Manuel L. Real for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge 5:18−cv−01399 R(JEMx). (rn) (Entered: 07/03/2018)
11 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), 1 filed by Plaintiffs J. F., Andrew M., Jacob T.. (Torres−Guillen, Sylvia) (Entered: 07/05/2018)
12 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Request to Issue Summons RE: Complaint 1 . The following error(s) was found: The phrase "et. al," should not be used on the Summons form. Separate attachments should clearly identify which sections of the summons the attachments belong to. The summons cannot be issued until this defect has been corrected. Please correct the defect and re−file your request. (gk) (Entered: 07/06/2018)
13 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), 1 filed by Plaintiffs J. F., Andrew M., Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., Jacob T.. (Torres−Guillen, Sylvia) (Entered: 07/06/2018)
14 21−Day Summons Issued re Complaint 1 as to Defendants County of Riverside, Mark Hake, Chief of the Riverside County Probation Department, in his official capacity, and Bryce Hulstrom, Chief Deputy of the Riverside County Probation Department, in his official capacity. (gk) (Entered: 07/10/2018)
15 ORDER RE: NOTICE TO COUNSEL upon filing of the complaint by Judge Manuel L. Real. READ CAREFULLY − FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY LEAD TO SANCTIONS. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. (cch) (Entered: 07/11/2018)
16 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Sarah A. Hinger to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs J. F., Andrew M., Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., Jacob T. (Pro Hac Vice Fee − $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−22083064) filed by Plaintiffs J. F., Andrew M., Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., Jacob T.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Torres−Guillen, Sylvia) (Entered: 07/12/2018)
17 ORDER by Judge Manuel L. Real Granting Application of Non−Resident Attorney Sarah A. Hinger to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Sigma Beta SI, Inc., Andrew M., Jacob T. and J. F., designating Sylvia Torres−Guillen as local counsel 16 . (gk) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
18 ORDER TRANSFERRING CIVIL ACTION pursuant General Order 16−05. ORDER case transferred from Judge Manuel L. Real to the calendar of Judge Jesus G. Bernal for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge 5:18−cv−01399 JGB(JEMx). Signed by Judge Manuel L. Real and Judge Jesus G. Bernal. (rn) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
19 STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Jesus G. Bernal. (ima) (Entered: 07/18/2018)
20 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., J. F., Jacob T., Andrew M., upon Defendant County of Riverside served on 7/16/2018, answer due 8/6/2018. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Tammy Mae Lewis, Clerk Designated to Accept Service of Process for County of Riverside in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by service on a domestic

07/20/2018
07/20/2018
07/27/2018 07/31/2018 07/31/2018 08/02/2018 08/03/2018 08/06/2018 08/08/2018
09/05/2018 09/05/2018 09/10/2018

corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity.Original Summons NOT returned. (Feathers, Andrea) (Entered: 07/20/2018)
21 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., J. F., Jacob T., Andrew M., upon Defendant Mark Hake served on 7/16/2018, answer due 8/6/2018. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Tammy Mae Lewis, Clerk Designated to Accept Service of Process on behalf of MARK HAKE, Chief of Riverside County Probation Dept. in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Feathers, Andrea) (Entered: 07/20/2018)
22 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., J. F., Jacob T., Andrew M., upon Defendant Bryce Hulstrom served on 7/16/2018, answer due 8/6/2018. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Tammy Mae Lewis, Clerk Designated to Accept Service of Process on behalf of BRYCE HULSTROM, Chief Deputy of Riverside County Probation Department in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Feathers, Andrea) (Entered: 07/20/2018)
23 STIPULATION for Leave to Allow Plaintiffs Andrew M., Jacob T., and Their Next Friends to Proceed Pseudonymously filed by Plaintiffs J. F., Andrew M., Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., Jacob T.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Torres−Guillen, Sylvia) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
24 APPLICATION to file document (Petitions for Appointment of Next Friend for Plaintiffs Andrew M., Jacob T., and J.F.) under seal filed by Plaintiffs J. F., Andrew M., Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., Jacob T.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Redacted Document)(Torres−Guillen, Sylvia) (Entered: 07/31/2018)
25 SEALED DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION to file document (Petitions for Appointment of Next Friend for Plaintiffs Andrew M., Jacob T., and J.F.) under seal 24 filed by Plaintiffs J. F., Andrew M., Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., Jacob T.. (Attachments: # 1 Unredacted Document, # 2 Proof of Service)(Torres−Guillen, Sylvia) (Entered: 07/31/2018)
26 ORDER by Judge Jesus G. Bernal: granting 24 Plaintiffs' APPLICATION for Leave to File Petitions for Appointment of Next Friend for Plaintiffs Andrew M., Jacob T., and J.F. Under Seal. (twdb) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
27 SEALED PETITION for Appointment of Next Friend for Plaintiffs Andrew M., Jacob T., and J.F. re Order on Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal 26 filed by Plaintiffs J. F., Andrew M., Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., Jacob T.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proof of Service)(Torres−Guillen, Sylvia) (Entered: 08/03/2018)
28 SEALED ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO ALLOW PLAINTIFFS ANDREW M., JACOB T., AND THEIR NEXT FRIENDS TO PROCEED PSEUDONYMOUSLY by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, re Stipulation for Leave, 23 . (mrgo) (Entered: 08/08/2018)
29 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Mark Hake answer now due 9/5/2018; Bryce Hulstrom answer now due 9/5/2018; County of Riverside answer now due 9/5/2018, re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), 1 filed by defendant Mark Hake; Bryce Hulstrom; County of Riverside.(Attorney James E Brown added to party County of Riverside(pty:dft), Attorney James E Brown added to party Mark Hake(pty:dft), Attorney James E Brown added to party Bryce Hulstrom(pty:dft))(Brown, James) (Entered: 08/08/2018)
30 ANSWER to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), 1 filed by Defendants County of Riverside, Mark Hake, Bryce Hulstrom.(Brown, James) (Entered: 09/05/2018)
31 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Defendants County of Riverside, Mark Hake, Bryce Hulstrom, (Brown, James) (Entered: 09/05/2018)
32 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Jesus G. Bernal. Scheduling Conference set for 11/5/2018 at 11:00 AM before Judge Jesus G. Bernal. (ima) (Entered: 09/10/2018)

09/13/2018
09/13/2018 09/13/2018 09/14/2018
09/17/2018
09/26/2018 09/26/2018 09/26/2018 10/09/2018 10/10/2018 11/05/2018 11/09/2018

33 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class and Appointment of Class Counsel filed by Plaintiffs J. F., Andrew M., Jacob T.. Motion set for hearing on 10/29/2018 at 09:00 AM before Judge Jesus G. Bernal. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Moe Keshavarzi in Support Thereof, # 2 Declaration of Sylvia Torres−Guillen in Support Thereof, # 3 Declaration of Sarah Hinger in Support Thereof, # 4 Declaration of Michael Harris in Support Thereof, # 5 Declaration of Andrea N. Feathers in Support Thereof w/Exhibit A) (Feathers, Andrea) (Entered: 09/13/2018)
34 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class and Appointment of Class Counsel 33 filed by Plaintiffs J. F., Andrew M., Jacob T.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B, # 2 Exhibit C)(Feathers, Andrea) (Entered: 09/13/2018)
35 Joint STIPULATION to Certify Class filed by Plaintiffs J. F., Andrew M., Jacob T.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A ([Proposed] Order))(Feathers, Andrea) (Entered: 09/13/2018)
36 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class and Appointment of Class Counsel 33 . The following error(s) was/were found: Local Rule 11−8 Memorandum/brief exceeding 10 pages shall contain table of contents. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (ad) (Entered: 09/14/2018)
37 STIPULATED ORDER CERTIFYING CLASS AND APPOINTING CLASS COUNSEL 36 by Judge Jesus G. Bernal. THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS THAT: 1. The Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs have satisfied the elements of Federal Rule Civil Procedure Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2), including establishing numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, 23(b)(2) status. To the extent ascertainability is required for Rule 23(b)(2) class actions, the Court also finds the class is ascertainable. Refer to attached document for details. (lom) (Entered: 09/19/2018)
38 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendants County of Riverside, Mark Hake, Bryce Hulstrom amending Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), 1 , filed by Plaintiffs Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., J. F., Jacob T., Andrew M.(Torres−Guillen, Sylvia) (Entered: 09/26/2018)
39 Joint STIPULATION for Order Re Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint and Defendants' Answer filed by Plaintiffs J. F., Andrew M., Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., Jacob T.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Torres−Guillen, Sylvia) (Entered: 09/26/2018)
40 ORDER by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, re Stipulation RE: Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint and the Parties Pleadings 39 . All of the admissions, denials, allegations, affirmative defenses, and requests for relief presented in Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint shall apply equally to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. (twdb) (Entered: 09/27/2018)
41 Joint STIPULATION to Continue scheduling conference from 11/5/18 to 11/19/18 Re: Initial Order Setting R26 Scheduling Conference − form only 32 filed by defendants County of Riverside, Mark Hake, Bryce Hulstrom. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Brown, James) (Entered: 10/09/2018)
42 ORDER by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, Granting Stipulation to Continue 41 . Scheduling Conference continued to 11/19/2018 at 11:00 AM before Judge Jesus G. Bernal. (twdb) (Entered: 10/12/2018)
43 JOINT REPORT of Rule 26(f) filed by Defendants County of Riverside, Mark Hake, Bryce Hulstrom. (Brown, James) (Entered: 11/05/2018)
44 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Hannah Karin Comstock counsel for Plaintiffs J. F., Andrew M., Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., Jacob T.. Hannah Comstock is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Plaintiffs. (Comstock, Hannah) (Entered: 11/09/2018)

11/19/2018 11/19/2018 11/20/2018
11/20/2018 12/13/2018 01/02/2019 01/07/2019 01/31/2019
03/29/2019 04/26/2019 04/29/2019 06/28/2019
07/24/2019

47 MINUTES OF Scheduling Conference held on 11/19/2018 before Judge Jesus G. Bernal. Court Reporter: Adele C. Frazier. (mga) (Entered: 12/13/2018)
48 AMENDED MINUTES held before Judge Jesus G. Bernal re: Scheduling Conference 47 (mga) (Entered: 12/13/2018)
45 CIVIL TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Jesus G. Bernal. Amended Pleadings due by 4/29/2019. Discovery cut−off 7/8/2019. Motions due by 9/23/2019. Last date to conduct settlement conference is 8/5/2019 (Magistrate Judge). Final Pretrial Conference set for 11/4/2019 11:00 AM before Judge Jesus G. Bernal. Bench Trial set for 11/19/2019 09:00 AM before Judge Jesus G. Bernal. See Order for details. (ima) (Entered: 11/20/2018)
46 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS Scheduling Settlement Conference by Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott. [See document for details.] (san) (Entered: 11/20/2018)
49 ORDER/REFERRAL to ADR Procedure No 1 by Judge Jesus G. Bernal. Case ordered to Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott for Settlement Conference. ADR Proceeding to be held no later than 8/5/19. (twdb) (Entered: 12/13/2018)
50 STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by Plaintiffs J. F., Andrew M., Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., Jacob T..(Feathers, Andrea) (Entered: 01/02/2019)
51 STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott re Stipulation for Protective Order 50 . (See document for details.) (sbou) (Entered: 01/07/2019)
52 ORDER RE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott. IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a settlement conference on July 9, 2019, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 640, 6th Floor of the Roybal Federal Building and United States Courthouse, located at 255 E. Temple Street, Los Angeles, California. No later than noon, July 2, 2019, each party shall deliver a Confidential Settlement Statement by email to the Magistrate Judge's chambers email JEM_Chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov. (See document for details.) (sbou) (Entered: 01/31/2019)
53 ORDER GRANTING Petitions for Appointment of Next Friend for Plaintiffs Andrew M., Jacob T., and J.F. (Doc. 27) by Judge Jesus G. Bernal that Denise M. is appointed as Andrew M.'s next friend in this matter; Heather T. is appointed as Jacob T.'s next friend in this matter; and Cindy McConnell is appointed as J.F.'s next friend in this matter. (jp) (Entered: 03/29/2019)
54 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Scheduling Order Deadlines Re: Pretrial−Trial Scheduling Order − form only, 45 filed by Plaintiffs J. F., Andrew M., Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., Jacob T.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Torres−Guillen, Sylvia) (Entered: 04/26/2019)
55 ORDER by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, Granting Stipulation Modifying Scheduling Order Pursuant to Joint Stipulation 54 . Amended Pleadings due by 5/29/2019., Non Discovery Motions due by 10/28/2019., Last date to conduct settlement conference is 9/4/2019. SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. (twdb) (Entered: 04/29/2019)
56 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SET FOR JULY 9, 2019 by Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott. On the Court's own motion and pursuant to productive settlement negotiations thus far, the settlement conference set for July 9, 2019 is hereby off calendar. If this matter does not settle before the new cut−off date of September 4, 2019, counsel are directed to confer and agree on at least three possible dates at 10:00 a.m. for the settlement conference. Parties are advised that they should allow sufficient time for the court to schedule the settlement conference. (sbou) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
57 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Action (Preliminary) filed by Plaintiffs J. F., Andrew M., Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., Jacob T.. Motion set for hearing on 8/26/2019 at 09:00 AM before Judge Jesus G. Bernal. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Sylvia Torres−Guillen, # 2 Exhibit 1−Settlement Agreement (Signed), # 3 Exhibit 2−Declaration of Moe Keshavarazi, # 4 Exhibit 3−Declaration of Sylvia Torres−Guillen, # 5 Exhibit 4−Declaration of Sarah Hinger, #

07/26/2019
08/26/2019
09/05/2019 09/06/2019 09/09/2019 09/11/2019 09/19/2019 09/20/2019 09/20/2019 09/23/2019 11/08/2019 11/13/2019

6 Exhibit 5−Declaration of Michael Harris, # 7 Exhibit 6−Qualifications of Proposed Administrator, # 8 Proposed Order) (Torres−Guillen, Sylvia) (Entered: 07/24/2019)
58 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees MOTION AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES filed by Plaintiff J. F., Andrew M., Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., Jacob T.. Motion set for hearing on 8/26/2019 at 09:00 AM before Judge Jesus G. Bernal. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration SYLVIA TORRES−GUILLEN, # 2 Proposed Order) (Torres−Guillen, Sylvia) (Entered: 07/26/2019)
59 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Jesus G. Bernal: Order GRANTING Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (Dkt. No. 57 ). The Court thus ORDERS as follows: SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. The final approval hearing shall be scheduled for December 9, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division located at 3470 12th Street, Riverside, California 92501. Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys Fees (Dkt. No. 58 ) shall also be heard at that time. (twdb) (Entered: 08/27/2019)
60 STATUS REPORT filed by Defendants County of Riverside, Mark Hake, Bryce Hulstrom. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Moran, Kelly) (Entered: 09/05/2019)
61 ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF DATES PER THE COURT'S ORDER OF AUGUST 26, 2019, by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, re Status Report 60 . It is also hereby ordered that all other dates pursuant to the Court's Order of 8/26/19 (ECF 59 ) remain standing. SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. (twdb) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
62 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Alexis Martin Piazza counsel for Plaintiffs J. F., Andrew M., Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., Jacob T.. Alexis Martin Piazza is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs' Counsel Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., et al.. (Piazza, Alexis) (Entered: 09/09/2019)
63 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Linnea L Nelson counsel for Plaintiffs J. F., Andrew M., Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., Jacob T.. Christine Patricia Sun is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Attorney Linnea Nelson. (Nelson, Linnea) (Entered: 09/11/2019)
64 STATUS REPORT filed by Defendants County of Riverside, Mark Hake, Bryce Hulstrom. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Moran, Kelly) (Entered: 09/19/2019)
65 STATUS REPORT Plaintiffs' Position Re Status Report and Request for Continuance of Dates filed by Defendants County of Riverside, Mark Hake, Bryce Hulstrom. (Moran, Kelly) (Entered: 09/20/2019)
66 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs J. F., Andrew M., Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., Jacob T.to Status Report 65 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Re Continuance of Dates in Court's Sept. 6, 2019 Order (Dkt. No. 61))(Torres−Guillen, Sylvia) (Entered: 09/20/2019)
67 ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF DATES IN THE COURTS SEPTEMBER 6, 2019 ORDER (DKT. NO. 61 ) by Judge Jesus G. Bernal. The Courts Order of September 6, 2019, is hereby amended as to the following dates: re Response 66 . The Courts Order of September 6, 2019, is hereby amended as to the following dates: SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. (twdb) (Entered: 09/24/2019)
68 Joint STIPULATION for Hearing re Request for Status Conference Hearing filed by Plaintiffs J. F., Andrew M., Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., Jacob T.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Torres−Guillen, Sylvia) (Entered: 11/08/2019)
69 SCHEDULING NOTICE AND ORDER by Judge Jesus G. Bernal GRANTING Stipulation for Hearing 68 . A Status Conference is set for 11/19/2020 09:00 AM before Judge Jesus G. Bernal. IT IS SO ORDERED.THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (mga) TEXT ONLY ENTRY

11/14/2019 11/18/2019 11/19/2019 11/21/2019
12/12/2019 12/13/2019 12/17/2019 12/19/2019 01/08/2020 03/05/2020 03/09/2020
03/12/2020

(Entered: 11/13/2019)
70 **AMENDED** SCHEDULING NOTICE AND ORDER by Judge Jesus G. Bernal. GRANTING Stipulation for Hearing (Dkt No. 68). A Status Conference is set for **11/19/2019 09:00 AM before Judge Jesus G. Bernal. IT IS SO ORDERED.THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (mga) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 11/14/2019)
71 STATUS REPORT Re Class Action Settlement Plan filed by Plaintiffs J. F., Andrew M., Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., Jacob T.. (Torres−Guillen, Sylvia) (Entered: 11/18/2019)
74 MINUTES OF Status Conference held before Judge Jesus G. Bernal. A further status conference is set for December 16, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. Court Reporter: Phyllis A. Preston. (mga) (Entered: 12/13/2019)
72 Notice of Electronic Filing re Stipulation for Hearing 68 e−mailed to Alexis Piazza bounced due to No longer with firm. The primary e−mail address associated with the attorney record has been deleted. Pursuant to Local Rules it is the attorneys obligation to maintain all personal contact information including e−mail address in the CM/ECF system. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (lmh) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 11/21/2019)
73 STATUS REPORT : JOINT STATUS REPORT RE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT PLAN AND DEADLINES filed by Plaintiffs J. F., Andrew M., Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., Jacob T.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A thru E)(Torres−Guillen, Sylvia) (Entered: 12/12/2019)
75 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Judge Jesus G. Bernal Take notice that the Status Conference set for 12/16/2019 will be held at 11:00 AM before Judge Jesus G. Bernal. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (mga) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 12/13/2019)
76 NOTICE OF LODGING filed Notice of Lodging of [Proposed] Order Re Continuance of Dates in the Court's September 23, 2019 Order re Order, 67 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Torres−Guillen, Sylvia) (Entered: 12/17/2019)
77 ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF DATES IN THE COURT'S SEPTEMBER 23, 2019 ORDER (DKT. NO. 67 ) by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, re Notice of Lodging 76 . AB Data is directed to complete notice to the class no later than 1/3/2020. SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. (twdb) (Entered: 12/23/2019)
78 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information: for attorney Michael Harris counsel for Plaintiffs J. F., Andrew M., Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., Jacob T.. Changing Address to 1212 Broadway, Suite 600, Oakland, CA 94612. Filed by Plaintiffs J. F., Andrew M., Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., Jacob T.. (Harris, Michael) (Entered: 01/08/2020)
79 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Hearing on Final Approval and Attorneys' Fees from April 6, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. to April 20, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. filed by Plaintiffs J. F., Andrew M., Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., Jacob T.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Torres−Guillen, Sylvia) (Entered: 03/05/2020)
80 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Settlement Approval of Re Final Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by Plaintiffs J. F., Andrew M., Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., Jacob T.. Motion set for hearing on 4/6/2020 at 09:00 AM before Judge Jesus G. Bernal. (Attachments: # 1 Summary of Objections or Responses to Class Settlement Received from Class Members, # 2 Declaration of Sylvia Torres−Guillen in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Appoval of Class Action Settlement, # 3 Declaration of Linnea L. Nelson in Support of Summary of Objections or Responses to Class Settlement Received from Class Members, # 4 Declaration of Kelly Moran in Support of Summary of Objections or Responses to Class Settlement Received from Class Members, # 5 Proposed Order) (Feathers, Andrea) (Entered: 03/09/2020)
81 DECLARATION of Linnea L. Nelson −− SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION in Support of Summary of Objections or Responses to Class Settlement from Class Members NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Settlement Approval of Re Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 80 filed by Plaintiffs J. F., Andrew M., Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., Jacob T.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Feathers, Andrea) (Entered:

03/20/2020 04/17/2020

03/12/2020)
82 ORDER by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, Granting Stipulation to Continue 4/6/20 Hearing on Final Approval and Attorneys' Fees 79 .( Motion hearing continued to 4/20/2020 at 09:00 AM before Judge Jesus G. Bernal.) (twdb) (Entered: 03/23/2020)
83 SCHEDULING NOTICE AND ORDER by Judge Jesus G. Bernal. The hearing on the MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS [Dkt. No. 58] and the MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT [Dkt. No. 80] is hereby continued from 4/20/2020 to 6/20/2020 at 9:00 AM. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (npo) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/17/2020)

 
 Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 1 of 70 Page ID #:1

1 SYLVIA TORRES-GUILLÉN (SBN 164835) storres-guillen@aclusocal.org
2 HANNAH COMSTOCK (SBN 311680) hcomstock@aclusocal.org
3 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.
4 1313 W. 8th Street Los Angeles, CA 90017
5 Telephone: (213) 977-5220 Facsimile: (213) 977-5299
6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
7 Additional counsel on following page
8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

EASTERN DIVISION

12

13

SIGMA BETA XI, INC.; ANDREW M., by and through his next friend

14

DENISE M.; JACOB T., by and through his next friend HEATHER T.,

15

on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; J.F., by and through

16

her next friend CINDY MCCONNELL, on behalf of herself

17 and all others similarly situated,

18

Plaintiffs,

19

v.

20

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; MARK HAKE, Chief of the Riverside County

21

Probation Department, in his official capacity; BRYCE HULSTROM, Chief

22

Deputy of the Riverside County Probation Department, in his official

23 capacity,

24

Defendants.

CASE NO. 5:18-cv-01399 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, NOMINAL DAMAGES (Violation of: First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; Article 1 §§ 2a, 3, 7, and 13 of the California Constitution; California Government Code § 11135)

25

26

27

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 2 of 70 Page ID #:2

1 CHRISTINE P. SUN (SBN 218701) csun@aclunc.org
2 LINNEA L. NELSON (SBN 278960) lnelson@aclunc.org
3 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF
4 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. 39 Drumm St.
5 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 621-2493
6 SARAH HINGER*
7 shinger@aclu.org AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
8 UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad St., 18th Floor
9 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 519-7882
10 *Pro Hac Vice Motion to be submitted 11 DAVID LOY (SBN 229235)
davidloy@aclusandiego.org 12 MELISSA DELEON (SBN 272792)
mdeleon@aclusandiego.org 13 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION OF SAN 14 DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES
P.O. Box 87131 15 San Diego, CA 92138-7131
Telephone: (619) 398-4489 16 Facsimile: (619) 232-0036 17
18
19

SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations MOE KESHAVARZI (SBN 223759) mkeshavarzi@sheppardmullin.com ANDREA N. FEATHERS (SBN 287188) afeathers@sheppardmullin.com 333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-1422 Telephone: (213) 620-1780 Facsimile: (213) 620-1398 MICHAEL HARRIS (SBN 118234) mharris@youthlaw.org NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW 405 14th Street, 15th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 835-8098 Facsimile: (410) 835-8099 VICTOR LEUNG (SBN 268590) vleung@aclusocal.org ALEXIS PIAZZA (SBN 316047) apiazza@aclusocal.org AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. 1313 W. 8th Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 977-5219 Facsimile: (213) 977-5299 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 3 of 70 Page ID #:3

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1

2

1. In Riverside County, California, school administrators have

3 implemented an astonishingly punitive and ineffective law enforcement program. It

4 places children under probation supervision for normal, childish behavior. By doing

5 so, it systematically undermines our collective responsibility to give every child—

6 regardless of race or ethnicity—the chance to stay in school and on track to succeed.

7 Rather than supporting students to keep them engaged in school through mentorship

8 and counseling, the County sweeps children into six-month terms of probation

9 through its “Youth Accountability Team” (“YAT”) Program, for being “defiant,”

10 “easily persuaded by peers,” or tardy to school; using “inappropriate language”; and

11 behavior associated with grieving over the death of a parent. Every day that this

12 probation program remains in place, we jeopardize the potential of hundreds of

13 young people who are diverted away from educational success and toward the

14 criminal justice system.

15

2. Riverside County, through the Probation office and its allies, cannot be

16 permitted to target, ensnare, and discriminate against children in our schools in

17 Riverside County, by stripping them of their constitutional rights and treating them

18 like criminals. This needs to stop. Riverside County cannot be permitted to continue

19 to manipulate and financially benefit from this program on the backs of Riverside’s

20 children, especially Black and Latinx children.

21

3. Riverside County, through the collective efforts of its law enforcement

22 agencies, has subverted the purpose of the law under which the YAT program was

23 created by quietly sweeping tens of thousands of children and adolescents into

24 punitive probation supervision for the “offense” of childish behavior. These children

25 are put on contracts that impose a laundry list of onerous conditions that set young

26 people up to fail and also cause them to fall deeper into the criminal system. As

27 former Senior Probation Officer Debbie Waddell stated when describing the YAT

28

SMRH:227737035.1

-1-
COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 4 of 70 Page ID #:4

1 Program, “what we’re really doing is using this program to get them into the system

2 by fingerprinting and photographing them. We can search their homes any time we

3 want and work to obtain evidence against them so that when we can get ‘em, we can

4 really get ‘em!” Former Riverside County Deputy District Attorney Anthony

5 Villalobos followed these statements, explaining, “We can do all kinds of

6 surveillance, including wire taps on phones, without having to get permission from a 7 judge.”1

8

4. Many children have fallen prey and suffered the constitutional

9 violations and abuse that prevails in Riverside County’s YAT program. Plaintiffs

10 Andrew M., Jacob T., and J.F., are students in Riverside County who are or have

11 been placed on probation through the Riverside County YAT program for alleged

12 school misconduct. Plaintiff Sigma Beta Xi is a non-profit organization providing

13 mentoring services to children of color in Riverside County. Numerous Sigma Beta

14 Xi mentees are or have been placed on YAT probation. They are among the over

15 four hundred children placed on YAT probation each year. Between 2005 and 2016,

16 12,971 children across Riverside County have been placed on YAT probation,

17 including 3,219 for non-criminal offenses. Children as young as first graders have

18 been referred to YAT.

19

5. Riverside County’s Probation Department operates YAT probation as

20 an additional and more punitive and invasive layer of school discipline. Defendants

21 refer to YAT as a diversion program, in which “informal” probation purportedly

22 allows children to avoid the harsh penalties of being tried in court. Avoiding deeper

23 contact with the juvenile justice system would be an appropriate objective for a

24 diversion program. A substantial body of research shows that increased contact with

25 the juvenile justice system is counterproductive and harmful to child development

26

27 1 David L. Roberts, Psyche-Soul-ology, An Inspirational Approach to 28 Appreciating and Understanding Troubled Kids 67–69 (2007).

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 5 of 70 Page ID #:5

1 and rehabilitation. In practice, however, the “informal” nature of YAT probation

2 leaves children worse off. YAT probation keeps the harmful contacts with the

3 criminal system while eschewing procedural protections. Placing a child on YAT

4 probation includes none of the safeguards of judicial process, such as access to

5 appointed counsel, adequate notice of charges or the underlying facts, or any kind of

6 impartial decision maker. At the same time, it imposes consequences that are often

7 more severe than those that would be imposed by a court.

8

6. Rather than divert children, YAT draws more children into the criminal

9 system. Probation places YAT officers on site in public schools across Riverside

10 County and actively solicits referrals for things that would otherwise be addressed

11 routinely by the school and better resolved through supportive interventions.

12 Children are referred to Probation for alleged “behavior issues,” such as uttering

13 profanity, being easily influenced by peers, being late to class, and being

14 disrespectful. Defendants make use of an antiquated and unconstitutionally vague

15 law intended to regulate “incorrigible” children, Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 601, to

16 place children on terms of probation for these and other mundane school infractions.

17 In the absence of clear standards, enforcement of this law is both arbitrary and

18 discriminatory. Black and Latinx children in Riverside County are

19 disproportionately referred to probation for incorrigibility. One Black child was

20 placed on YAT probation for “pulling the race card.”

21

7. Placing children on probation under these circumstances is not only

22 counter-productive; it also violates their constitutional rights. Children subject to

23 YAT probation are required to comply with a long list of conditions, including

24 curfews and reporting absences to YAT, that set them up to fail. They are routinely

25 required to submit to drug testing and sign waivers permitting the search of their

26 home and persons in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. They are also

27 required to comply with broad requirements not to associate with anyone not

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 6 of 70 Page ID #:6

1 approved by Probation, infringing their First Amendment rights. Heavy-handed

2 supervision conditions like these have been shown to be ineffective and even

3 harmful.

4

8. Compounding the problems with YAT, Defendants place children on

5 YAT probation contracts through an entirely informal process that is void of basic

6 safeguards of procedural due process. Children ostensibly agree to submit to

7 conditions of probation that interfere with fundamental liberty under coercive

8 circumstances that preclude knowing, voluntary, or intelligent consent. Families also

9 ostensibly agree to comply under the same coercive conditions. The Defendants fail

10 to provide children and families with any formal notice of what children are charged

11 with or the underlying allegations, their legal rights, or the juvenile court process.

12 Instead, referral to YAT is communicated through a brief, informal, and inadequate

13 conversation by phone or in person at school, in which Defendants sometimes

14 blatantly misrepresent the nature of the YAT program and the consequences of not

15 acquiescing to YAT probation.

16

9. Knowing little except that they purportedly face charges in the criminal

17 system, children and their families enter a meeting with members of the YAT team,

18 which include probation officers and law enforcement, often armed, and can include

19 members of the prosecutor’s office, without the information needed to refute the

20 allegations or otherwise advocate for themselves. These meetings are held in YAT

21 offices or local police stations. No semblance of an impartial decision maker is

22 present. Children are not informed of their rights, including the right to remain silent

23 or to speak with a lawyer. Instead they are led to believe that if they do not agree to

24 enter the YAT program, they may be referred to the District Attorney’s office, even

25 when they are not accused of a criminal offense. Without their own advocate, and

26 facing their first involvement with the criminal system, children, as well as their

27 parents, are pressed to agree to a YAT probation contract. In these circumstances,

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 7 of 70 Page ID #:7

1 children who often stand accused of as little as violating school rules are not able to

2 make voluntary, knowing, and intelligent decisions to accept YAT probation’s

3 onerous conditions.

4

10. Beyond these constitutional violations, the injuries to children and their

5 families arising from YAT probation far outlive the child’s six-month probation

6 contract. Through YAT, law enforcement officials compile and exchange a vast

7 amount of information about a child, including their school records, which may

8 include special education records, counseling records, details about their family

9 history including contact with the justice system, substance abuse, domestic

10 violence, and history with other social service agencies, and individual family

11 member information. This includes information that law enforcement would have

12 been prohibited from obtaining under the Fourth Amendment. Defendants retain and

13 use this vast quantity of sensitive information even after the successful completion

14 of a YAT contract. Indeed, even though Defendants claim that the YAT program is

15 informal and intended to keep children out of the juvenile justice system,

16 information obtained about a child through YAT may be used against them in future

17 juvenile court proceedings. Once a child has been involved with YAT, no matter the

18 basis, he or she is statutorily ineligible for any other diversion opportunity in the

19 future.

20

11. Plaintiffs Jacob T. and J.F. bring this action on behalf of themselves

21 and on behalf of a class of similarly situated children in Riverside County who have

22 been placed on YAT probation or who have been referred to YAT but not yet placed

23 on YAT probation. Defendants’ operation of YAT infringes Plaintiffs’ constitutional

24 and civil rights under California and federal law, including their rights under the

25 First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the California

26 Constitution Article 1, sections 2a, 3, 7, and 13, and California Government Code

27 § 11135. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief from the ongoing injury to

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 8 of 70 Page ID #:8

1 their rights. Plaintiff Sigma Beta Xi brings this action as an organization whose

2 mission has been frustrated by the operation of YAT. Plaintiff Andrew M. brings

3 this action on behalf of himself seeking nominal damages because Defendants

4 violated his constitutional rights by placing him on YAT probation and injunctive

5 relief against Defendants because they retained records collected or created in

6 relation to Andrew’s placement on YAT probation.

7

II. PARTIES

8

12. Plaintiff Andrew M. is a fifteen-year-old Black male who resides in

9 Moreno Valley, in Riverside County, California, and attends Valley View High

10 School in the Moreno Valley Unified School District. He appears in this action by

11 and through his mother and next friend, Denise M., and will submit a motion to

12 appear under a fictitious name. Denise M. resides with Andrew M. in Moreno

13 Valley, California, and is a competent and reasonable person who is dedicated to

14 acting in Andrew M.’s best interests and fairly and adequately representing him in

15 this litigation. Denise M. is willing to act as Andrew M.’s next friend in this

16 litigation and is sufficiently familiar with the facts of his situation.

17

13. Plaintiff Jacob T. is a sixteen-year-old white male who resides in

18 Moreno Valley, in Riverside County, California, and attends the Riverside County

19 Education Academy, a military academy associated with the Riverside County

20 Office of Education. He appears in this action by and through his mother and next

21 friend, Heather T., and will submit a motion to appear under a fictitious name.

22 Heather T. resides with Jacob in Moreno Valley, California, and is a competent and

23 reasonable person who is dedicated to acting in Jacob T.’s best interests and fairly

24 and adequately representing him in this litigation. Heather T. is willing to act as

25 Jacob T.’s next friend in this litigation and is sufficiently familiar with the facts of

26 his situation.

27

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 9 of 70 Page ID #:9

1

14. Plaintiff J.F. is a seventeen-year-old Black female who resides in

2 Moreno Valley, in Riverside County, California and attends Val Verde High School,

3 a continuation school in the Val Verde Unified School District. She previously

4 attended Rancho Verde High School. She appears in this action by and through her

5 grandmother and next friend, Cindy McConnell. Cindy McConnell resides with J.F.

6 in Moreno Valley, California, and is a competent and reasonable person who is

7 dedicated to acting in J.F.’s best interests. Cindy McConnell is willing to act as

8 J.F.’s next friend in this litigation and is sufficiently familiar with the facts of her

9 situation.

10

15. Plaintiff Sigma Beta Xi, Inc. (“Sigma Beta Xi”), is a non-profit

11 community-based organization located in Moreno Valley, California, that provides

12 mentoring and leadership development services to approximately 220 children of

13 color in Riverside County who are struggling in school. These mentoring services

14 further Sigma Beta Xi’s mission “to establish strong families and communities by

15 building an organization of diverse men and women who will exemplify leadership

16 and professionalism based upon the principles of brotherhood, sisterhood,

17 excellence, endurance, wisdom, service, and unity.”

18

16. Defendant Riverside County (“County”) is a municipality within the

19 State of California, with capacity to sue and be sued. Riverside County Board of

20 Supervisors (“Board of Supervisors”) is the governing body of the County. The

21 Board of Supervisors is responsible for supervising all county officers, including all

22 agencies and departments responsible for implementing and administering the

23 Youth Accountability Program. Cal. Gov’t Code § 2530. The Riverside County

24 Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (“Council”), led by the County Chief

25 Probation Officer, is responsible for developing a “comprehensive multiagency

26 juvenile justice plan” (“JJCPA Plan”), pursuant to California Government Code §

27 30061, through which it developed and continues to reauthorize and expand the

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 10 of 70 Page ID #:10

1 operation of the Youth Accountability Program. The Board of Supervisors is

2 responsible for approving the Council’s plan each year.

3

17. Defendant Mark Hake, sued in his official capacity, is the Chief

4 Probation Officer for the Riverside County Department of Probation. Defendant

5 Hake is also the Chair of the Riverside County Juvenile Justice Coordinating

6 Council.

7

18. Defendant Bryce Hulstrom, sued in his official capacity, is the Deputy

8 Chief Probation Officer for the Riverside County Department of Probation.

9

19. Defendants are the officials responsible for operating the Youth

10 Accountability Program, enforcing California Welfare & Institutions Code sections

11 601 and 654, and implementing the policies, practices, and customs challenged in

12 this Complaint.

13

20. Defendants, acting under color of state law, performed, participated in,

14 aided and/or abetted the acts and omissions averred herein, proximately caused the

15 damages averred below, and are liable to Plaintiffs for the damages, injunctive, and

16 declaratory relief sought herein.

17

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

18

21. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations

19 of rights secured under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

20 States Constitution. Plaintiffs also bring state claims under Article I, sections 2a, 3,

21 7, and 13 of the California Constitution, and California Government Code

22 section 11135.

23

22. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

24 1331 and 1343, because the matters in controversy arise under the Constitution of

25 the United States. Additionally, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court has

26 supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims made under the California

27

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 11 of 70 Page ID #:11

1 Constitution and the California Government Code because such claims stem from

2 the same case or controversy arising from a common nucleus of operative fact.

3

23. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they

4 operate within this district, and because Defendants’ acts and omissions took place

5 within this district.

6

24. Venue is proper in this federal district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

7 Defendants are located in the Central District of California and all of the acts and/or

8 omissions complained of herein have occurred or will occur in this district.

9 Additionally, Plaintiffs reside in this district.

10

IV. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

11 A. Adolescent Development and Ineffective and Effective Interventions Across

12

the Education and Juvenile Justice Systems

13

25. In recent decades, emerging research on adolescent development has

14 prompted numerous reforms in juvenile justice and school-based approaches to

15 children’s behavior. Research documents the process of adolescent development as

16 marked by important changes in brain systems involving cognitive and behavioral 17 control and socioemotional functioning.2 As the Supreme Court recognized, the

18 scientific research confirms “what any parent knows,” that children “are more

19 vulnerable or susceptible to outside pressures,” and, in in the context of interaction

20 with law enforcement, can be easily “overawe[d] and overwhelm[ed].” J.D.B. v.

21 North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261, 272–73 (2011) (internal alterations, quotations, and

22 citations omitted). Through adolescent development, children are unlikely to be

23

24

25

26

27 2 National Research Council, Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental 28 Approach 2 (Richard J. Bonnie et al. eds. 2013), https://doi.org/10.17226/14685.

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 12 of 70 Page ID #:12

1 motivated by sanctions and deterrent strategies, whereas individualized supports and 2 positive incentives are more likely to help children to develop positive life skills.3

3

26. Recognizing these facets of adolescent development has important

4 implications for responding to children’s behaviors.4 Across education and juvenile

5 justice systems, it was once thought that harsher responses to children’s misconduct

6 were necessary to correct wayward children before they became hardened criminals 7 and to prevent a wave of “super predators.”5 Today, researchers and policy makers

8 recognize not only that this fear was misplaced, but also that these zero-tolerance

9 approaches actually fail to prevent future recidivism or disciplinary issues and can 10 have substantial negative impacts for children.6 As the Government Accountability

11 Office observes: “Students who face certain types of discipline in school may be

12 affected in profound ways that influence their lives as adults. . . . Research has

13 shown that students who are suspended from school lose important instructional

14 time, are less likely to graduate on time, and are more likely to repeat a grade, drop

15 out of school, and become involved in the juvenile justice system. The effects of

16 certain discipline events, such as dropping out, can linger throughout an individual’s 17 lifetime and lead to individual and societal costs.”7 Recognizing this, many states

18

19

20

3

Richard A. Mendel, Annie E. Casey Foundation, Transforming Juvenile Probation: A Vision for Getting It Right 10 (2018),

21 http://www.aecf.org/resources/transforming-juvenile-probation/.

22 4 National Research Council, supra note 2, at 2 (concluding that “[m]uch adolescent involvement in illegal activity is an extension of the kind of risk
23 taking that is part of the developmental process of identity formation, and most
24 adolescents mature out of these tendencies”).

25 5 Id. at 38–41.

26 6 See, e.g., id. at 43–47.

27

7

U.S. Government Accountability Office, K-12 Education: Discipline Disparities for Black Students, Boys, and Students with Disabilities 1 (March 2018),

28 https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/690828.pdf.

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 13 of 70 Page ID #:13

1 and school districts are moving to reduce reliance on suspensions, expulsions, and

2 referrals to the justice system, relying more on supportive interventions and changes 3 to school culture with demonstrated positive effects.8

4

27. Within the juvenile justice system, research also demonstrates the need

5 to reassess prior approaches. Many interventions previously adopted in an effort to

6 get tough on juveniles were not only misguided but ineffective and harmful to

7 children. “Research shows that juvenile justice systems can do more harm than good 8 by actively intervening with children who are low risk of reoffending.”9

9 Summarizing the research, the Counsel of State Governments (“CSG”) identifies a

10 number of “generally ineffective” juvenile justice programs, including: overcrowded

11 detention facilities, boot camps, curfews, and “scared straight and other ‘shock 12 therapy’ programs.”10 As with ineffective responses in the education system, these

13 forms of intervention focus on control, discipline, fear and surveillance. Instead,

14 CSG highlights successful approaches including the use of cognitive behavioral

15 therapy, engaging families and supportive mentors, focusing resources on promoting

16 positive behavioral change, and using developmentally informed means of holding

17

18

19 8 See National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, What
20 Works Clearing House: Behavior,
21 https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/FWW/Results?filters=,Behavior (last visited June 25, 2018).
22 9 Elizabeth Siegle, et al., Counsel of State Governments Justice Center, Core
23 Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in
24 the Juvenile Justice System 9 (2014), https://csgjusticecenter.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/07/Core-Principles-for-Reducing-Recidivism-and-
25 Improving-Other-Outcomes-for-Youth-in-the-Juvenile-Justice-System.pdf.

26 10 Id. at 17 (citing Mark Lipsey, et al., Improving the Effectiveness of Juvenile

27

Justice Programs: A New Perspective on Evidence-Based Practice (2010), https://cjjr.georgetown.edu/wp-

28 content/uploads/2015/03/ImprovingEffectiveness_December2010.pdf).

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 14 of 70 Page ID #:14

1 children accountable.11 Recognizing the potential to do more harm than good, many

2 states and localities are adopting reforms to limit children’s contact with the system.

3

28. Juvenile probation programs have not received the same level of

4 attention as other facets of juvenile and criminal justice reform. However, as the

5 Annie E. Casey Foundation recently reported, “the research indicates that

6 surveillance-oriented probation is not an effective strategy for reversing delinquent

7 behavior, with insignificant effects on reoffending and especially poor results with 8 youth at low risk of re-arrest.”12 Moreover, as Casey Foundation researchers

9 summarize:

10

Studies dating back decades have found that many or most diversion

program participants are accused of minor misbehaviors, which would

11

be handled more appropriately with a warning—despite a large body of

research showing that this “net-widening” dynamic of diversion

12

programs sometimes does more harm than good.13

13 Instead, students accused of school misbehavior or accused of low-level offenses

14 should be referred to appropriate service providers.14 Probation officers should have

15 no role in overseeing diverted children and rather should carry smaller caseloads of

16 children convicted of crimes, and focus on positive behavior change for these 17 children.15

18

29. The use of counterproductive and harmful interventions has greater

19 consequence for children of color, who are more likely to be subject to punitive

20 school discipline and overrepresented across the juvenile justice system. Research

21 evidences substantial racial disparities in school discipline that are “not explained by

22

23

24 11 Siegle et al., supra note 9, at 18, 36–40. 25 12 Mendel, supra note 3, at 7. 26 13 Id. at 13. 27 14 Id. at 27.
28 15 Id. at 31.

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 15 of 70 Page ID #:15

1 more serious or more frequent misbehavior by children of color.”16 Disparities in

2 school discipline are most pronounced for offenses like “defiance” or “disrespect,”

3 where school staff must rely on their own subjective interpretations to enforce 4 school rules.17 Racial disparities carry over to and persist within the juvenile justice

5 system. For example, one study of the narrative reports of probation officers found

6 that “probation officers describe black and white youths differently, referring to

7 negative personality traits for black youths and more to negative environmental

8 influences for whites,” and that “black youths were judged to have a higher risk of 9 reoffending.”18 Similarly, white youth are more likely to use marijuana, but Black 10 youth are more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession.19 To address racial

11 disparities in the juvenile criminal system, CSG recommends practices that

12 “promote objective decision making,” such as improving the quality of and access to

13 defense attorneys, training on recognizing and overcoming explicit and implicit bias 14 and becoming more culturally competent and continued oversight of the system.20

15

16

17

18 16 Siegle et al., supra note 9, at 4 & n.7. 19 17 Russell J. Skiba et al., Race is Not Neutral: A National Investigation of African 20 American and Latino Disproportionality in School Discipline, 40 School Psych.
Rev. 1, 101 (2011), 21 http://www.indiana.edu/~equity/docs/Skiba%20et%20al%20Race%20is%20Not 22 %20Neutral%202011.pdf.
23 18 George S. Bridges & Sarah Steen, Racial disparities in official assessments of juvenile offenders: Attributional stereotypes as mediating mechanisms, 63 Am.
24 Soc. Rev., 554, 561 (1998).
25 19 Cylan Matthews, The Black/White Marijuana Arrest Gap, In Nine Charts, 26 WASHINGTON POST (June 4, 2013),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/04/the-blackwhite27 marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/?utm_term=.1efda39c3684.
28 20 Siegle et al., supra note 9, at 41.

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 16 of 70 Page ID #:16

1 B. History and Structure of the Youth Accountability Team Program

2

30. The California Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (“JJCPA”) was

3 passed in 2000 to provide funding for programs “demonstrated to be effective in

4 reducing delinquency . . . including prevention, intervention, suppression, and 5 incapacitation.”21 When the JJCPA was passed, California, like much of the country,

6 was focused on increasing criminal penalties and expanding law enforcement

7 surveillance and control over children. Today, however, state and local actors

8 recognize that their “tough on crime” approach left California hemorrhaging money

9 on ineffective and counterproductive programs while ignoring the needs and

10 characteristics unique to children and failing to provide them the tools, resources,

11 and education they needed to succeed. The legislature has since passed a number of

12 bills to reform the juvenile justice system to promote rehabilitation and protect 13 children’s constitutional rights.22

14

31. The JJCPA, which requires county programs to be “demonstrated to be

15 effective” and include a “continuum of responses,” Cal. Gov’t Code §

16 30061(b)(4)(A)(iii), (b)(4)(B)(i), provides sufficient flexibility to permit local

17 governments to similarly reform their juvenile justice practices in light of

18 developing research and evolving best practices and to better protect juvenile rights.

19 However, Riverside County continues to use millions of dollars in JJCPA funds to

20 operate a program employing tactics shown to be counterproductive and even

21 harmful to children.

22

23 21 The Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act, Cal. Gov’t Code, §30061(b)(4)(B)(i)
24 (2000). The Act was originally named the Schiff-Cardena Crime Prevention Act of 2000. See http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/asm/ab_1901-
25 1950/ab_1913_bill_20000908_chaptered.html.

26 22 See California Legislature Approves Juvenile Justice Bills to Update Miranda

27

Rights, Allow Parole for Youthful Offenders, CAL. STATE SENATE (Sept. 15, 2017), http://sd33.senate.ca.gov/news/2017-09-15-california-legislature-

28 approves-juvenile-justice-bills-update-miranda-rights-allow.

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 17 of 70 Page ID #:17

1

32. In 2001, the County adopted a Juvenile Justice Plan that included the

2 creation of the “Youth Accountability Team” Program run by the Department of

3 Probation. The Youth Accountability Team Program has operated consistently since

4 2001 as the most substantial component of the County JJCPA Plan. The Department

5 of Probation runs YAT probation. Law enforcement agencies across the county as

6 well as the District Attorney’s Office are also parties to a joint MOU setting out

7 their roles in operating YAT.

8

33. YAT purports to operate pursuant to California Welfare & Institutions

9 Code section 654, which provides:

10

In any case in which a probation officer, after [an investigation]

concludes that a minor is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court or

11

will probably soon be within that jurisdiction, the probation officer

may, in lieu of filing a petition to declare a minor a dependent child of

12

the court or a minor or a ward of the court under Section 601 . . . and

with consent of the minor and the minor’s parent or guardian, delineate

13

specific programs of supervision for the minor, for not to exceed six

months . . . . 14

15

34. Section 654 permits the creation of a program of diversion from formal

16 adjudication and the presumably more serious consequences applicable therein. A

17 child is only eligible for a program of supervision under Section 654 for a first-time

18 offense, and is ineligible if she has already participated in a program under Section

19 654. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 654.3. Children accused of certain offenses are

20 presumed ineligible. Id.

21

35. YAT targets children “ages 12-17 years old who are purportedly

22 displaying pre-delinquent and delinquent behavior” (emphasis added). This

23 effectively brings more children, not fewer, into the juvenile justice system, relying

24 on probation supervision to take the place of school-based interventions.

25

36. YAT officers aggressively solicit referrals for children considered to be

26 “at risk,” which YAT broadly defines to include “family conflict, mental health,

27 school adjustment, or gang involvement.” As one school district explained in

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 18 of 70 Page ID #:18

1 responding to a public records request, “YAT . . . look[s] for students who have

2 been involved in the first stages of school discipline, might have poor or failing

3 grades, and are showing initial signs of moving toward more at-risk behaviors.”

4 These children, who have not committed any criminal offense, are then placed on a

5 regimented probation contract.

6

37. As Defendants have described in presenting the YAT probation

7 program to school districts, YAT probation contracts “contain terms and conditions

8 similar to those issued by the Courts to juveniles placed on formal probation,” such

9 as curfew, weekly check-ins, home searches, and community service, and last for six

10 months. “Cases may be terminated and forwarded to the YAT District Attorney at

11 any time for possible adjudication in Juvenile Court due to non-compliance or

12 violations,” and “[w]arnings, community restriction, and increased or additional

13 terms may be added to an existing YAT contract at any time for non-compliance.”

14 These terms mean that a school rule violation can be viewed by Defendants as cause

15 to prosecute a child. The YAT probation contract likewise ominously states that

16 “any violation of the terms and conditions may be grounds for referring the matter to

17 the District Attorney’s Office for prosecution,” even when the underlying alleged

18 conduct is not criminal.

19

38. Each year, most of the County’s JJCPA funds are allocated to YAT.

20 For fiscal year 2017–2018, the County proposed budget allocated $10,627,404 to

21 YAT, ninety-seven percent of the County’s JJCPA budget. The vast majority of

22 these funds are allocated to pay the salaries of Probation officers, law enforcement,

23 and District Attorneys’ office employees assigned to work with the YAT program.

24 Over a span of eight years, between fiscal years 2009–2010 and 2016–2017, the

25 average percentage of JJCPA funds allocated to salaries and benefits was 82.64%,

26 while community-based organizations received an average of 8.10% of funds.

27

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 19 of 70 Page ID #:19

1 According to the terms of the MOU’s, school districts also donate office space and

2 supplies, like telephones, to YAT officers operating within their schools.

3

39. YAT is currently established in seventeen school districts in Riverside

4 County. In 2015, the most recent year of complete data available to Plaintiffs, 1,505

5 children were referred to YAT and 915 were placed on probation. Defendants have

6 actively sought to expand the number of young people placed on YAT probation,

7 including by expanding their presence from high schools into middle schools in

8 Riverside County. In 2016, the Department of Probation itself reported that it had

9 launched an effort to increase referrals, “resulting in a 189% increase in the referrals

10 received monthly.”

11 C. Defendants Use an Unconstitutionally Vague Law and Vague Referral

12

Criteria to Funnel Children into YAT Probation for Common School

13

Disobedience and Symptoms of Trauma

14

40. Through YAT, Defendants actively solicit and facilitate referrals from

15 schools, including for non-criminal behaviors, and rely on the vague terms of an

16 antiquated incorrigibility law and an informal process to place children on terms of

17 probation supervision that infringe their constitutional rights, frequently exceed the

18 maximum penalties contemplated by the legislature, and come with other harmful

19 direct consequences.

20

41. Defendants frequently place children under onerous probation

21 supervision not on the basis of the commission of any criminal offense, but merely

22 adolescent misbehavior. A review of the first five years of YAT’s operation found

23 that at least seventy-six percent of referrals to YAT were made for status offenses—

24 things that are only offenses because of a person’s age—and recognized that “[i]n

25 the past, the [Juvenile Justice] system or the community did not actively engage

26 these youth.”

27

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 20 of 70 Page ID #:20

1

42. Defendants hide behind the vague terms of California Welfare &

2 Institutions Code section 601 (“Section 601”) to inveigle children as young as

3 eleven years old into YAT and the criminal system for a wide range of typical

4 school misbehavior and even for reasons that have nothing to do with accusations of

5 misconduct. For example, some children have been referred to YAT because they

6 have identifiable mental health needs, are exhibiting symptoms of trauma, or are

7 simply showing signs of adolescent immaturity.

8

43. Section 601 makes it an offense for a juvenile to “persistent[ly] or

9 habitual[ly] refuse[] to obey the reasonable and proper orders or directions of school

10 authorities.” This antiquated provision dates to the earliest codification of California

11 law, and to a time when legislative drafters presumed the state’s wide latitude to

12 regulate the lives of juveniles, standing in the stead of their parents. The Supreme

13 Court has since made clear that juveniles have constitutional rights, including the

14 right to due process, which the state must respect. See In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1

15 (1967). The terms of Section 601 cannot, therefore, remain unchanged and open-

16 ended.

17

44. Section 601 provides no further definition of the term “persistently or

18 habitually,” leaving the average child or adult to guess at how many instances, or

19 how long a period of disobedience, might trigger the law’s invocation. Moreover,

20 the law provides no further guidance in interpreting the term “reasonable and proper

21 orders or directions.” Instead, enforcement authority is delegated to school staff,

22 meaning that a teacher can elevate a violation of school rules to a justice system

23 referral on the basis of his or her subjective judgment. The vague terms of these

24 laws invite arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. The discretion to interpret

25 these vague terms invites implicit and explicit bias in referrals and outcomes

26 impermissibly based on the race and disability status of the child.

27

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 21 of 70 Page ID #:21

1

45. Probation takes full advantage, assuming an unfettered grant of

2 authority. It actively solicits and requires referrals to YAT from school staff

3 pointing to the terms of an MOU they created. Probation encourages referrals for

4 non-criminal, mundane childhood behavior, including: “failure/refusal to follow

5 directives (actively or passively): at school (e.g. talking back to security guard) or at

6 home (e.g. curfew, chores, telephone use)”; “general and repetitive disrespect

7 toward family or school authority figures (incorrigible)”; and “anti-social behavior

8 that disrupts classroom activity—talking during class, refusal to do work,

9 prohibiting others from learning, walking out of class, talking back to the teacher,

10 etc.—as reported by the teacher.”

11

46. A 2015 YAT Technical Report identifies possible “charges” for YAT

12 referrals to include, inter alia, truancy, defiance/incorrigibility, and “mental issues.”

13 “Mental issues” is further defined in YAT’s template entry assessment form to

14 include “suicide attempts” and “treatment/problems.” The standard referral form

15 created by YAT includes similar though not entirely consistent “problem areas” and

16 “mental health issues” that school staff or other referrers can select for Riverside

17 County to then funnel children in crisis into the YAT program and the criminal

18 system.

19

47. Conflating childhood behavior with criminal conduct, Defendants fast-

20 track and reroute children into criminal supervision who are processing deep grief or

21 trauma, displaying signs of disability, or simply having an off day focusing and

22 following directions. Indeed, children have been referred to YAT for:

23

• “behavior issues” (Cambodian elementary school student);

24

• “student behavior modification” (Latino seventh grader);

25

• “is easily persuaded by peers, is often late to school and classes”

26

(Latina eighth grader);

27

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 22 of 70 Page ID #:22

1

• “engaged in profanity and willfully defied authority” (Black eighth

2

grader);

3

• “caus[ing] daily disruptions by arriving late to nearly all of her classes”

4

(Latina seventh grader);

5

• “poor attendance/grades. Lack of motivation. Mother has not been

6

involved” (Native American eighth grader);

7

• “disrespectful towards peers and staff. Habitual foul language, refuses

8

to follow rules” (Latino seventh grader with likely disability); and

9

• “caused daily classroom disruptions. Uses inappropriate language and

10

refuses to do classwork” (Black sixth grader).

11

48. As these referrals demonstrate, an alleged violation of Section 601 is

12 assessed not by any specific metric, but by an indeterminate and wholly subjective

13 assessment of a student’s behavior. The citations included on Probation contracts are

14 no clearer. For example, Defendants have placed children on probation contracts for

15 such vague and innocuous reasons as:

16

• “incorrigible minor” (Latina eighth grader from Mountain View Middle

17

School, Beaumont Unified School District);

18

• “Suspension, Defiance, Disruptive Behavior, Previous MH

19

Intervention” (white eighth grader from Riverside Unified School

20

District);

21

• “601 (Defiance and Disruptive Behavior)” (Latino eighth grader from

22

Mira Loma Middle School, Jurupa Unified School District); and

23

• “school discipline” (Latino fifth grader from Dr. Carreon Jr. Academy,

24

Desert Sands Unified School District).

25

49. Often, Probation merely cites the catch-all phrase “601 WIC,” with no

26 further specification, as the basis for placing children on YAT probation. Other

27 times, Probation omits any reference to Section 601 or any other code section and

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 23 of 70 Page ID #:23

1 instead cites “school discipline,” “grades / behavior,” “disruptive school behavior

2 and bullying,” and other school-related behavior on a YAT probation contract,

3 adding to the uncertainty. Since 2005, Probation has swept into its supervision more

4 than 12,971 children who had no previous history of court or probation involvement

5 merely because Probation deemed the child to be “at risk” for future misbehavior

6 and thus “soon to be within the [juvenile court’s] jurisdiction” under Section 654.

7

50. The terms of Sections 601 permit not only an arbitrary, but also a

8 racially discriminatory exercise of law enforcement power. For example, one

9 referral to YAT for an eleven-year-old sixth grader was in part based on the child’s

10 perceived “use [of] ‘race card’ against [school] staff,” suggesting that students who

11 challenge racial discrimination by school staff may be deemed offenders and “at

12 risk” of becoming criminals. In Riverside County, and across the state, Black

13 children are more likely than others to be charged with violating Section 601.

14 Between 2003 and 2016, Black children in Riverside County were two and a half

15 times more likely than their white counterparts to be referred to YAT under Section

16 601. Latinx children were also almost one and half times more likely than their

17 white peers to be referred to YAT under Section 601. Riverside County’s racial

18 discrimination and abuse parallels findings in the context of school discipline, where

19 racial disparities are most prevalent in discipline for subjectively-defined offenses,

20 such as “disrespect.”

21

51. During the 2015–16 school year, Black children were referred to YAT

22 at nearly three times their rate of enrollment countywide, and Black boys in

23 particular were referred to YAT at over three times their rate of enrollment. About

24 thirty-two percent of Riverside County students are Latinx, but Latinx students were

25 more than thirty-nine percent of all YAT referrals during the 2015–16 school year.

26 A significantly greater proportion (thirty percent) of referrals for Latinx students

27

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 24 of 70 Page ID #:24

1 were for the lowest-level, Section 601 offenses (defiance, incorrigibility, curfew and

2 truancy), as compared to students in other racial groups.

3

52. Riverside County persistently abuses Section 601, ensnaring children

4 experiencing grief, trauma, mental health issues, or behavioral disabilities and

5 subjecting them to probation supervision and the criminal system. For example, one

6 sixth grader was targeted for YAT after a conversation between an administrator and

7 the student’s parent revealed that the child was experiencing “[a]nger/grief issues[,

8 is s]eparated from his father[, and] his [u]ncle died last year.” A Black seventh

9 grader who was experiencing “grief over loss of [her] baby sister” was similarly

10 referred to YAT probation for “grief, bullying, and instigation.” A middle school

11 principal who knew that an eleven-year-old boy was homeless nonetheless sent the

12 child to Probation because he was “frequently absent from school.” Under the vague

13 terms of the law, the trauma and hardship associated with death and experiencing

14 homelessness can be cited to sweep children into an unconstitutional program that

15 turns their normal, age-appropriate reaction to difficult circumstances into

16 “offenses,” sending them into a pipeline to the criminal justice system.

17 D. Defendants Disregard Fundamental Due Process Protections in Placing

18

Children on Probation

19

53. Defendants have targeted and funneled thousands of children who

20 would not otherwise be drawn into contact with the juvenile system, imposed

21 onerous demands, and abused outmoded and vague statutory provisions. Further,

22 Defendants, as a policy, practice, or custom, operate YAT in a manner that violates

23 fundamental tenets of procedural due process, inducing “consent” that is not

24 voluntary, knowing, or intelligent and is instead made without adequate notice or the

25 advice of counsel and absent oversight or a meaningful opportunity to be heard by

26 an independent arbitrator.

27

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 25 of 70 Page ID #:25

1

54. Defendants authorize, approve, and encourage officers to use as little as

2 a phone call to notify children and their families of referral to YAT. This practice

3 fails to ensure that children have sufficient notice of the allegations against them and

4 the consequences they face. A child’s referral to the YAT program initiates a one-

5 sided process controlled by Probation that operates without procedural safeguards

6 that are fundamental to a lawful and credible justice system.

7

55. Even the most substantial form of notice contemplated by Defendants,

8 a letter, falls far short of what due process requires. The letter is printed on

9 Probation letterhead and indicates that the child was referred to YAT probation,

10 which is described as a “diversion program.” Because a referral can be made by

11 anyone, for any reason, this may be the first time that a child and her family learn

12 that she is accused of committing an offense or being vaguely “at risk” of

13 committing a criminal offense. Information describing the reason for referral is

14 limited to at most a legal code citation and a police report number, if one exists. The

15 letter fails to provide the text describing the law the child allegedly violated, or any

16 description of the conduct the child allegedly engaged in. This complete failure of

17 notice places the burden on children and their families to figure out why they are

18 required to meet with Probation.

19

56. Probation’s letter also fails to provide any explanation of the child’s

20 rights, the juvenile court process, an explanation of the requirements of YAT

21 probation, or the consequences that follow from being placed on YAT probation.

22 Noticeably absent from the letter is any statement informing the child and the

23 child’s family that YAT probation is entirely voluntary. Instead, the terms of the

24 letter indicate that compliance is required. The letter sometimes includes language

25 indicating either that an appointment has been scheduled for a particular date and

26 time, or that the parent “must contact [the probation officer] as soon as possible” to

27 schedule an appointment. Both of these provisions convey that meeting with the

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 26 of 70 Page ID #:26

1 probation officer is required. The probation officer may also include a warning in

2 the letter that if a family fails to meet the appointment or response deadline, “the

3 matter may be referred to the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office for the

4 filing of criminal charges in Juvenile Court.”

5

57. Moreover, the notice letter is written in English. Apparently

6 recognizing that many families in Riverside County speak Spanish as a first

7 language, the letters also state in Spanish: “If you do not speak English, please bring

8 a member of your family or a friend to be your interpreter.” The letter does not offer

9 to provide a translation of the letter or to provide an interpreter for the appointment.

10 The failure to provide translation only adds to the power imbalance and the inability

11 of the child, and the family, to comprehend the circumstances and make an informed

12 choice regarding YAT probation.

13

58. In other instances, and consistent with policy, practice, and custom,

14 Probation fails to provide any formal written notification to a child and the child’s

15 family indicating that the child has been referred to YAT. Instead, Defendants

16 inform the family by phone or other informal means. When notice is provided

17 during a phone call or by other informal means, it fails to provide the most basic

18 assurances of fair process. There are serious consequences if a family does not

19 understand or fails to remember details communicated solely over the phone.

20 According to Defendants, failure to attend a meeting could result in criminal charges

21 or a determination that the family is ineligible for diversion. At this critical juncture,

22 notice by phone is wholly insufficient.

23

59. Children and their families thus arrive at the YAT probation meeting

24 misled and believing that they face criminal charges and that they are required to

25 meet with a probation officer, but without information about the charges, the

26 juvenile court process, the terms and consequences of YAT probation, or their legal

27 rights. In addition to the informational asymmetry, children who have never been in

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 27 of 70 Page ID #:27

1 trouble with the law before walk into a law enforcement setting and are surrounded

2 by several experienced, sometimes armed, law enforcement officers. These meetings

3 are held at YAT offices or police departments and are attended by probation officers

4 and police officers, who may be visibly armed. Representatives of the District

5 Attorney’s Office are also actively involved in preparing for YAT contract meetings

6 and can attend. In addition to the lack of adequate notice, children are also without

7 appointed counsel to advise them.

8

60. During the meeting, probation officers present children and their

9 families with a YAT probation contract requiring compliance with numerous

10 conditions to purportedly avoid the possibility of prosecution. Riverside County,

11 however, does not prosecute Section 601 petitions, meaning that acquiescence to

12 YAT in exchange for an agreement not to prosecute is entirely misleading, if not

13 outright false. Moreover, children, and families, are not informed that the conditions

14 of YAT probation are often more onerous than those they would face if they did not

15 agree to YAT probation. For example, a first time possession of marijuana at school,

16 if pursued, is punishable under California law by four hours of counseling and ten

17 hours of community service, and no form of probationary supervision is authorized

18 by the law. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11357(d). However, children have been

19 placed on probation supervision with many additional onerous terms for the same

20 offense.

21

61. Surrounded by law enforcement, and lacking basic information and

22 advice of counsel, a child is presented in this meeting with a critical decision: if she

23 declines to accept probation supervision at this moment, according to Defendants,

24 she may be required to go to court and may not be offered diversion again. If she

25 accepts YAT probation, she submits to onerous terms of supervision. The decision

26 carries consequences of which the child will likely be unaware, seriously impairing

27 her ability to evaluate her options.

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 28 of 70 Page ID #:28

1

62. In these circumstances, a child cannot voluntarily, knowingly, or

2 intelligently agree to YAT probation. Nor could their families or any adult.

3 Defendant officers obtain acquiescence to YAT probation through a process marked

4 by a complete lack of procedural safeguards and a coercive and intimidating

5 environment.

6

63. Under these conditions, the likelihood that Plaintiffs’ constitutional

7 rights will be violated is clear. Federal and state constitutional laws, as well as state

8 statutory laws, protect various children’s rights implicated by the YAT probation

9 placement procedures and the determination of whether to choose YAT probation or

10 defend against allegations in court. These include liberty and privacy interests as

11 well as the right to a speedy trial and the right to remain silent. The right to counsel

12 is also afforded to California Juveniles in all proceedings under California Welfare

13 & Institutions Code sections 601 and 602. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 634. Despite

14 the clear implications of a decision to accept YAT probation on these firmly

15 established rights, Probation has no policies in place to ensure that officers respect

16 these rights or advise children regarding their rights.

17 E. YAT Contract Conditions Exceed Statutorily Authorized Consequences and

18

Unconstitutionally Intrude on Constitutional Rights

19

64. When a child acquiesces to participate in YAT, she receives a six-

20 month probation contract memorialized on a standard, pre-filled form, which

21 includes a checklist of default terms of YAT probation supervision. Additional

22 terms may be checked or amendments made during the meeting. The terms of YAT

23 probation are numerous, including required compliance with curfew, weekly check-

24 ins with probation, attendance at weekly classes, requirements to obey parents,

25 probation, and school authorities, notifications of any absence or late arrival at

26 school, drug testing, requirements to attend a corrections facility tour, and other

27 terms. These terms are not drawn based on a nexus with the underlying offense.

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 29 of 70 Page ID #:29

1

65. Pursuant to policy, practice, and custom, YAT probation imposes terms

2 that are often more onerous and invasive than even court-ordered probation for

3 similar offenses. The standard YAT probation contract permits YAT officers to

4 impose broad search conditions stating: “I will submit to search/test of my

5 person/vehicle/premises upon request of the Probation Officer or YAT member.”

6 While this term encompasses testing, in some cases, a drug testing requirement is

7 also included as a separate line. Children, and their families, are not informed that

8 this term constitutes a waiver of their Fourth Amendment Rights. This term thus

9 allows Defendants to assert broad authority to search and surveille children and their

10 families, without even a determination of probable cause and without judicial

11 oversight at any point in the process.

12

66. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the imposition of such broad search

13 conditions without a conviction or adjudication of delinquency. California Welfare

14 & Institutions Code section 654, cited by Defendants, does not extend authority to

15 impose search conditions. However, a blanket search term is included in

16 Defendants’ standard YAT probation contract. Defendants have no standard advisals

17 of children’s Fourth Amendment rights. Children are presented with these terms, in

18 the context of the highly imbalanced YAT contract meeting, and purportedly

19 broadly waive their Fourth Amendment rights by signing the probation contract.

20 Waiver in these circumstances is not and cannot be voluntary, knowing, or

21 intelligent.

22

67. Pursuant to policy, practice, and custom, YAT team members also

23 regularly remove children from classes to conduct “check-ins” during the school

24 day. These check-ins interfere with a child’s school engagement and are not

25 scheduled around the student’s or school’s needs, but on the basis of the YAT team

26 members’ schedule. During these impromptu check-ins, YAT team members

27 question children about topics including their social life, grades, and classroom

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 30 of 70 Page ID #:30

1 subjects. While check-ins occur on a weekly basis, children do not always see the

2 same YAT officer and have little understanding of the function of these check-ins.

3

68. The standard YAT probation contract also includes overbroad

4 directives that chill and infringe upon the child’s First Amendment rights to

5 expressive association, including prohibiting association with anyone “not approved

6 of by YAT” and requiring that the child “have no negative contact with anyone,”

7 with no further definition of the nebulous term “negative contact.”

8

69. YAT probation terms also commonly require a child to write an

9 apology letter about the alleged reason for referral. These letters are likely to include

10 admissions and other statements that could be used against a child in court.

11 However, Defendants do not advise children of their rights. Nor do they provide any

12 explanation of how these letters will be stored or used, and no assurance regarding

13 whether the letters will be treated as confidential. YAT officers obtain a substantial

14 amount of additional personal and sensitive information about the child and their

15 families and provide no assurance regarding how they will use and store this

16 information or under what circumstances the information may be disclosed to

17 others.

18 F. Privacy Implications

19

70. YAT probation interferes with children’s privacy. Defendants collect a

20 wide array of private information about a child, such as: education records,

21 counseling records, risk assessments, letters of apology, photographs, records of

22 supervision contacts and home searches, and drug tests. YAT officers including law

23 enforcement and the District Attorney’s office engage in “an ongoing sharing of

24 information” compiled about children through the course of YAT probation.

25 Information may also be shared with other law enforcement agencies, such as gang

26 task force officers.

27

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 31 of 70 Page ID #:31

1

71. YAT requests that schools making referrals provide “Discipline

2 Records; Transcripts/Grades; and Attendance Records.” These records are supplied

3 without parent or student consent, despite the fact that these records are subject to

4 close confidentiality rules under the Family Educational Records and Privacy Act,

5 20 U.S.C. § 1232g. In Murrieta, for example, YAT officers are given direct access

6 to the school student records database. Information is also compiled from other law

7 enforcement and social services data sources.

8

72. During the YAT probation contract meeting, YAT officers ask families

9 questions about “[w]ho lives in the home” including “names and date of birth or

10 age,” drug/alcohol abuse, domestic violence, probation or parole, weapons and

11 ammunition, and any criminal history. They also conduct a risk assessment, using a

12 standardized form asking questions about “[l]ack of knowledge by parents or

13 guardians of minor’s friends and activities” and a lack of age-appropriate rule-

14 setting; whether there are “chronic discipline problems”; whether the minor has

15 engaged in “substance abuse multiple times, beyond experimentation”; whether

16 “any relative with whom the minor associates with [sic] has . . . a prison record” or

17 “pending an adult or juvenile adjudication”; and whether the minor “associates with

18 a gang or tagging crew.” Children are also required to sign a release granting YAT

19 officers access to highly personal counseling records.

20

73. Children referred to YAT probation are assigned a Central Intake

21 Division (“CID”) number, which is used to track information about the child in

22 Probation’s Juvenile Adult Management (“JAMs”) database. Upon information and

23 belief, other agencies associated with YAT probation also record and maintain

24 information about children in their own databases, using the same CID number or

25 another unique identifier for the child. The files associated with a child’s CID

26 number remain even if the child is not ultimately placed on YAT probation.

27

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 32 of 70 Page ID #:32

1 Probation and other YAT officers create field contact notes describing their contacts

2 with children through YAT. These notes are then entered into the child’s case file.

3

74. Defendants provide no explanation of the types of information gathered

4 and retained on children who are placed on YAT probation. Nor do they provide

5 information about how it will be stored, and what if any confidentiality protections

6 are provided.

7

75. Defendants do not uniformly provide children placed on YAT

8 probation with information about sealing records, or inform children of the

9 possibility that records will be maintained by Probation and other agencies

10 associated with YAT probation.

11 G. Future Consequences of Placement on YAT Probation

12

76. Beyond the immediate and gross violation of children’s constitutional

13 and civil rights, probation supervision through YAT produces numerous additional

14 injuries. Entry into a YAT probation contract fast-tracks future contact with the

15 criminal system and increases the severity of consequences. Once a child has gone

16 through the YAT probation, she is presumed ineligible for diversion programs in the

17 future. Children are deprived of the “second chance” that the Welfare and

18 Institutions Code contemplates for first-time, low-level offenders, and are instead

19 diverted into the justice system for non-criminal behavior through YAT probation.

20 Failure to complete YAT successfully can also be used against the juvenile in 21 sentencing in any future juvenile court proceeding.23

22 H. The YAT Probation Program Has a Significant Adverse Impact on Black and

23

Latinx Children

24

77. The racist design of the YAT probation program ensures that Black and

25 Latinx youth are overrepresented in and disproportionately impacted by the

26

27

23

See, e.g., In re C.Z., 165 Cal. Rptr. 3d 409, 411 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (affirming denial of deferred sentence on basis of unsuccessful completion of Section 654

28 program).

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 33 of 70 Page ID #:33

1 program’s constitutional deficiencies. In YAT, “risk” is fundamentally related to

2 race and ethnicity.

3

78. Defendants’ association of Black and Latinx youth with “risk” and

4 delinquency is epitomized by the Neighborhood Toxicity Formula, a metric

5 designed to guide where the YAT program focuses its operation. The Neighborhood

6 Toxicity Formula labels neighborhoods as more or less “toxic” based in part on their

7 racial, ethnic, and socio-economic demographics. Under this formula, a

8 neighborhood’s toxicity increases when it has a large “non-white population,” and is

9 largely populated by residents who are “Hispanic/Latino,” “recent immigrants,” or

10 “immigrants/temporary residents.” The “Neighborhood Toxicity Calculation”

11 further codifies racial bias by measuring “toxicity” through variables that are

12 recognized code words for racial animus, including “dense multi-family housing,”

13 “concentration of crime-prone age groups,” and “family size.” See, e.g., Mhany

14 Mgmt. Inc., v. Cnty. Of Nassau, 819 F.3d 581, 608 (2d Cir. 2016) (holding that

15 concerns from white community members that a proposed development would bring

16 “full families living in one bedroom townhouses, two bedroom co-ops,” and “four

17 people or ten people in an apartment” suggested implicit racial bias via code words;

18 and referencing empirical evidence that opponents to affordable housing often

19 subtly reference immigrant families under the guise of fears that the proposed

20 development “will bring in ‘families with lots of kids’”). The Neighborhood

21 Toxicity formula is set out in a 2005 program evaluation commissioned by

22 Defendants from California State University, San Bernardino and used to make

23 recommendations on the communities within Riverside County where Defendants

24 should focus in operating the YAT program.

25

79. The racist assumption that a person’s race or ethnicity makes them

26 more or less “at risk” of future criminal behavior carries through to the day-to-day

27 implementation of the YAT program. Probation uses a Risk Assessment Form to

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 34 of 70 Page ID #:34

1 evaluate children referred and eligible for a YAT probation contract. The Risk

2 Assessment Form used by Defendants is a four-point metric that purports to predict

3 a child’s risk of delinquency. The questions used to assign a risk score are broadly

4 drafted, invite bias, and incorporate factors that are beyond individual control and

5 perpetuate disparities and discrimination occurring elsewhere in the justice system

6 and in school discipline. The risk assessment is not validated and the “risk” it

7 purports to identify is generalized. The questions a YAT officer evaluates include

8 whether: there is “[l]ack of knowledge by parents or guardians of minor’s friends

9 and activities” and a lack of age-appropriate rule-setting; whether there are “chronic

10 discipline problems”; whether the minor has engaged in “substance abuse multiple

11 times, beyond experimentation”; whether “any relative with whom the minor

12 associates with has . . . a prison record” or “pending an adult or juvenile

13 adjudication”; and whether the minor “associates with a gang or tagging crew.”

14 Based on these questions, a YAT officer assigns children a score between zero and

15 four. This score is purportedly used to inform the decision to place a child on YAT

16 probation.

17

80. Defendants’ Risk Assessment Form has a significantly adverse and

18 disparate impact on Black and Latinx children. The broadly drafted criteria of the

19 Risk Assessment Form result in higher risk scores for Black and Latinx children

20 when compared to similarly situated white children. Excluding any referrals to YAT

21 deemed ineligible, over twenty-four percent of white youth evaluated received a

22 score of 0 or 1. In contrast, only seventeen percent of Latinx children and sixteen

23 percent of Black children received a score of 0 or 1. White children are more than

24 twice as likely as Black children (three percent and seven percent, respectively) and

25 1.6 times as likely as Latinx children to receive a risk score of 0. Similarly, when

26 looking at the scores of 3 or 4, fifty-one percent of Black and Latinx youth were

27

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 35 of 70 Page ID #:35

1 assigned scores of either 3 or 4 points, where only forty-two percent of all white

2 youth referred received a score of 3 or 4 points.

3

81. Defendants’ policy, practice, and custom of disproportionately placing

4 Black and Latinx youth on YAT probation contracts creates an additional layer of

5 significantly adverse and disparate impact. Black and Latinx youth are less likely to

6 be scored a risk factor of zero or one. When they do receive a risk score of zero or

7 one, they are still more likely than white children with the same risk score to be

8 placed on probation. A full sixty percent of Latinx youth, and fifty percent of Black

9 youth who are evaluated as presenting no risk are nonetheless placed on probation.

10 In contrast, forty-five percent of white youth scoring zero are placed on probation.

11 Amongst youth scoring a 1 on the risk assessment, sixty-one percent of Black youth

12 and fifty-seven percent of Latinx youth are still assigned a probation contract, while

13 only fifty-two percent of white youth are assigned probation. At all levels, the Risk

14 Assessment Form favors white children and criminalizes Black and Latinx children.

15

82. The racially disparate impact of Defendants’ risk assessment and

16 assignment of YAT probation contracts are in keeping with the YAT probation

17 program’s overarching approach to “toxicity” in the communities that make up

18 Riverside County. The racially discriminatory operation of the YAT program means

19 that Black and Latinx children are also disparately subjected to violations of their

20 constitutional rights, including their due process rights, their First Amendment

21 rights, and their Fourth Amendment rights.

22 I. Allegations of Named Plaintiffs

23 Andrew M.

24

83. Andrew M. was placed on YAT probation after goofing around with

25 friends was met with a series of escalating and improper law enforcement responses.

26 In the spring of 2017, Andrew was a thirteen-year-old eighth grader at Mountain

27 View Middle School in Riverside County. Andrew’s school was patrolled by Officer

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 36 of 70 Page ID #:36

1 Lee, of the Moreno Valley Police Department. On February 9, 2017, during the

2 lunch period, Andrew. was kicking an orange back and forth with friends in a

3 makeshift game of soccer when he misdirected a kick and the orange rolled between

4 Officer Lee’s legs.

5

84. Officer Lee approached Andrew from behind, placed him in handcuffs,

6 and led him to the office.

7

85. At the principal’s office, Andrew saw Officer Lee whisper something

8 to the assistant principal, Dr. Harris, before leaving the room. Thereafter, Dr. Harris

9 turned to Andrew and stated “let me see your bag.” Andrew handed over his

10 backpack, which Dr. Harris then searched. She retrieved a small amount of

11 marijuana. Following the search, Officer Lee issued Andrew a citation under

12 California Health and Safety Code section 11357(d), a civil infraction for possession

13 of marijuana.

14

86. The next morning, Andrew’s mother, Denise M., went to the school to

15 pick up a copy of Andrew’s discipline notice. Dr. Harris also gave her a copy of a

16 YAT probation contract with Andrew’s identifying information entered into the top

17 portion. Based on her communications with Dr. Harris, Denise understood that

18 Andrew would be required to submit to YAT probation to avoid being expelled

19 from school.

20

87. Several weeks later, on or about March 13, 2017, Andrew’s mother

21 received a phone call from Riverside County Probation Officer Natalie Holden,

22 informing her that Andrew had been referred to YAT. Officer Holden informed

23 Denise of some of the terms of YAT, including weekly check-ins and required

24 community service hours. Denise requested a written confirmation of Andrew’s

25 referral and the required appointment details. In response, Officer Holden sent

26 Denise an email confirming the date and time of Andrew’s required appointment,

27

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 37 of 70 Page ID #:37

1 Tuesday, March 21, at 8:00 am, and the address of the police station where the

2 meeting would occur.

3

88. On the date of the required meeting, Andrew arrived at the police

4 station with his father, uncle, and grandmother. They were met by a female, who on

5 information and belief was a plainclothes police officer, who escorted them to a

6 small windowless office. As the female officer led them to the room, a male, who on

7 information and belief was a plainclothes police officer, joined. The male officer

8 was armed with a gun. Andrew felt alarmed and intimidated at the police station.

9 Seeing the police officer’s gun exacerbated his fears. Sitting at the conference room

10 table, the female officer questioned Andrew and his family members about Andrew

11 and his family, including about the friends Andrew M. hangs out with and whether

12 anyone in Andrew’s family has been involved with the criminal justice system.

13

89. The female officer then gave Andrew a contract for informal probation.

14 Andrew’s probation contract mirrored the standard probation contract used to train

15 YAT officers. The contract indicated that a program of probation supervision under

16 Section 654 was undertaken in lieu of filing a petition in Juvenile Court. Where the

17 contract stated “You have been accused of the crime of ____” the female officer

18 wrote “n/a. WIC 601/citation (infr.),” and included a nine-digit citation number. The

19 contract included a number of pre-selected terms of supervision, including the

20 requirements to abide by an 8:00 pm curfew, attend school and notify YAT officers

21 of any absence before 9:00 am, “obey directives of the Probation Officer and YAT

22 members,” report to probation as directed, have “no negative contact with anyone,”

23 complete twenty-five hours of community service, write an essay, attend counseling

24 as directed, check in with YAT every Thursday, attend a tour of a correctional

25 facility, attend programming at the Moreno Valley Police Department every

26 Tuesday afternoon, and maintain good grades. The contract indicated that probation

27 supervision would last for a term of six months and that “any violation of the terms

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 38 of 70 Page ID #:38

1 and conditions may be grounds for referring the matter to the District Attorney’s

2 Office for prosecution.” The prohibition on associating with anyone not approved

3 was crossed out for Andrew’s contract, and the blanket search term was not checked

4 off.

5

90. The numerous requirements of Andrew’s informal probation contract

6 exceeded the consequences contemplated by the legislature under Health and Safety

7 Code section 11357(d), which permits a maximum penalty of four hours of drug

8 education or counseling and up to ten hours of community service for a first offense,

9 and does not authorize any additional conditions of probation supervision.

10

91. Although the contract included language stating that probation

11 supervision was undertaken with Andrew’s consent, and that Andrew “understood

12 and agreed to comply” with the probation terms, Andrew did not believe he had a

13 choice in submitting to YAT probation and did not understand fully the terms of the

14 contract or the decision he purportedly made. Andrew, a thirteen-year-old boy who

15 had never come in contact with the criminal justice system before, found himself

16 pressured in a confining room with law enforcement at the police station. Across the

17 table from Andrew were two authority figures he believed to be police officers, one

18 of them visibly armed. In these circumstances, Andrew felt scared and intimidated.

19 Beyond the ticket he received from Officer Lee, Andrew and his family had no

20 information about the offense or offenses of which he was accused or the underlying

21 factual allegations. No one provided Andrew with the information that would have

22 allowed him to weigh the costs and benefits of opting to go to court or to accept

23 informal probation. He had no information about his legal rights, including his right

24 to counsel, which California law provides for any child petitioned under Section

25 601, see Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 634, or his right to remain silent.

26

92. Andrew had no legal counsel who could have offered him guidance on

27 the considerations he faced in this critical stage. A defense attorney could have

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 39 of 70 Page ID #:39

1 advised Andrew that the terms of informal probation offered were in many ways

2 more onerous than those a court could order under Section 11357(d). Counsel also

3 could have warned Andrew that acquiescing to informal probation here, where he

4 faced no criminal charges, would preclude the possibility of diversion in any future

5 juvenile delinquency case and could be held against him in any future sentencing.

6 So too, defense counsel could have probed the legal sufficiency of the alleged

7 violation of Section 601, recognized that Section 601 cases are not heard by courts

8 in Riverside County, and advised Andrew and his family of the possible defense

9 based on the unlawful search of his backpack. In these circumstances—given the

10 lack of adequate notice, the misleading information, and the coercive environment—

11 Andrew could not have provided voluntary, knowing, and intelligent consent to

12 submit to YAT probation.

13

93. Although the YAT probation contract states that YAT probation is

14 entered in lieu of prosecution, this did not hold true for Andrew. Shortly after being

15 placed on YAT probation, Andrew also received a court summons for violation of

16 California Health and Safety Code section 11357(d). Andrew appeared in Riverside

17 County Superior Court on April 3, 2017 with his mother, his grandmother, and a

18 Sigma Beta Xi mentor. Andrew had participated in Sigma Beta Xi’s mentoring

19 program since the sixth grade, and Sigma Beta Xi presented a letter on his behalf,

20 attesting to his good character and his participation in a community service program.

21 The court accepted Andrew’s guilty plea and sentenced him to a suspended fine on

22 the condition that he submit to one drug test and to complete ten hours of

23 community services, which Andrew could complete with the Sigma Beta Xi

24 program. Andrew subsequently completed these terms. Notably, these court-ordered

25 conditions were less onerous than those specified in the YAT probation contract that

26 was supposed to divert children like Andrew from harmful contact with the juvenile

27 justice system.

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 40 of 70 Page ID #:40

1

94. During the six-month term of YAT probation extending into Andrew’s

2 ninth-grade year, Andrew was pulled out of class to check in with YAT officers

3 multiple times. The officers were not always the same. These check-ins caused

4 Andrew to be tardy to his fourth-period class so frequently that his school called his

5 grandmother, who then worried that Andrew would face school discipline for

6 truancy.

7

95. On one occasion, YAT officers removed Andrew from his fifth-period

8 Spanish class even though he was taking a test that period. Andrew was then taken

9 to another room and told to complete a fifty-question survey about how comfortable

10 he felt with YAT. Andrew again told the officer that he was going to miss his

11 Spanish quiz, but the officer still did not permit him to return to class. When

12 Andrew was finally allowed to return to his Spanish class, he only had enough time

13 to write his name, the date, and answer maybe just one question on the vocabulary

14 test before class ended.

15

96. In addition to school time check-ins, YAT officers visited Andrew’s

16 home multiple times to inquire about his whereabouts and activities. During one

17 visit, an officer told Andrew’s mother that he must attend a mandatory YAT

18 programming meeting at the Moreno Valley Police Department, or else face severe

19 consequences.

20

97. According to the terms of the contract, Andrew’s probation was set to

21 end on September 21, 2017. Since that date, Andrew’s mother has made several

22 telephonic and in person requests for confirmation that Andrew successfully

23 completed YAT probation and is no longer subject to probation terms. At one point,

24 she was told that a confirmation letter was sent by mail and that another letter would

25 be sent by mail. She never received a letter in the mail.

26

27

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 41 of 70 Page ID #:41

1 Jacob T.

2

98. Jacob T. was placed on YAT probation following a disputed altercation

3 he had with a female classmate on March 5, 2018. On that day, Jacob was a sixteen-

4 year-old, ninth-grade student at Canyon Springs High School in Moreno Valley.

5

99. Ten days later, on March 15, 2018, a Canyon Springs High School

6 administrator called Jacob into his office to discuss the female student’s allegations.

7 When Jacob arrived, the administrator and an armed police officer were waiting in

8 the office. The administrator called Jacob’s mother, who insisted that they wait until

9 she arrived to begin questioning Jacob. When Jacob’s mother arrived, the

10 administrator recounted the other student’s allegations, which Jacob denied. The

11 administrator suspended Jacob from Friday, March 16, 2018 to Thursday, March 22,

12 2018. The administrator did not discuss YAT with Jacob or his mother during this

13 meeting.

14

100. On March 19, 2018, four days after Jacob and his mother’s meeting

15 with the administrator, a probation officer called Jacob’s mother. The officer told

16 her that an assistant principal at Jacob’s school had referred him to YAT. The

17 probation officer provided only very minimal information about the program on the

18 call, explaining that it was a probation program for “at-risk” teens with a number of

19 requirements. The probation officer told Jacob’s mother that Jacob. and his parents

20 needed to go to the Moreno Valley police department station for a meeting.

21

101. On March 22, 2018, Jacob and both of his biological parents arrived at

22 the Moreno Valley Police Department as they had been directed. A probation officer

23 escorted the family to a small, windowless room. Once in the room, a second

24 officer, who on information and belief was a law enforcement officer, joined

25 carrying a YAT probation contract. The second officer was armed with pepper spray

26 and handcuffs. The police officer stated her name and began checking off the terms

27 of the probation contract.

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 42 of 70 Page ID #:42

1

102. During the meeting, the officers repeatedly told Jacob and his family

2 that Jacob would be “a failure in life” and likely would end up in prison if he did not

3 agree to participate in and successfully complete YAT. The officers failed to

4 provide Jacob or his family time to consider the decision, failed to give them space

5 to discuss their options, failed to provide any information about their legal rights,

6 and failed to indicate that they could consult an attorney or have one present. The

7 officers also failed to explain specifically why Jacob was referred to YAT. Jacob’s

8 probation contract, moreover, merely stated “601 WIC” as the offense for which

9 Jacob is on YAT probation. Critically, the officers failed to explain that Jacob faced

10 no criminal charges and that agreeing to informal probation would preclude Jacob’s

11 participation in any future diversion program. Without understanding the scope of

12 the surveillance and believing that they had no choice in the matter, Jacob and his

13 mother felt compelled to sign the YAT probation contract.

14

103. After the family signed the contract, the officers revealed for the first

15 time that YAT community service requirements were mandatory and that Jacob’s

16 room would be subject to unannounced searches.

17

104. The terms of Jacob’s YAT probation contract mirror those in the

18 standard probation contract, including the requirements to abide by an 8:00 pm

19 curfew, attend school and notify YAT officers of any absence before 9:00 am, “obey

20 directives of the Probation Officer and YAT members,” report to probation as

21 directed, have “no negative contact [with] anyone,” complete twenty-five hours of

22 community service, write an essay, attend counseling as directed, check in with

23 YAT every Thursday before 4:30 pm, attend a tour of a correctional facility, attend

24 programming at the Moreno Valley Police Department every Tuesday afternoon,

25 and maintain good grades. Among a long list of conditions, Jacob’s probation terms

26 also include a prohibition on association “with anyone not approved” by YAT: a

27 term allegedly authorizing “search/test of my person/vehicle/premises upon request

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 43 of 70 Page ID #:43

1 of the Probation Officer or YAT member;” and an additional term requiring drug

2 testing. The probation contract indicates that supervision will last for a term of six

3 months and that “any violation of the terms and conditions may be grounds for

4 referring the matter to the District Attorney’s Office for prosecution.”

5

105. Jacob is still required to comply with all of the terms of YAT

6 probation. In the three months since he was placed on probation, Jacob has been

7 subjected to at least five home visits and has been interrogated by police officers,

8 probation officers, and deputy district attorneys, all YAT members.

9

106. Jacob currently attends Riverside County Education Academy. In or

10 around May 2018, a probation officer pulled Jacob out of his fifth-period class to

11 question him. Jacob was escorted into a conference room where he met with a

12 probation officer alone. The officer interrogated Jacob for an extended period,

13 causing Jacob T. to lose instruction time. Jacob and his parents are concerned that

14 probation officers will continue pulling him out of class to interrogate him and

15 interfere with his ability to perform well in school.

16

107. Probation officers have told Jacob that he will be subjected to at least

17 one mandatory drug test within the six-month probation term. During a mandatory

18 YAT programming meeting in or about April 2018, a YAT officer pulled Jacob

19 from the meeting, followed Jacob into the restroom, and demanded that Jacob

20 provide a urine sample.

21

108. Jacob and his family remain strongly dissatisfied with YAT, do not

22 believe it has had or will have a positive impact on Jacob, and do not believe that

23 Jacob T. has learned any new skills. In contrast, Jacob and his family believe that

24 programs such as Sigma Beta Xi—in which Jacob is currently enrolled as a

25 mentee—are much more effective in supporting Jacob and keeping him on track to

26 graduate. Jacob’s YAT probation is set to expire on September 22, 2018. However,

27 a YAT officer told Jacob that his probation supervision period could restart.

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 44 of 70 Page ID #:44

1 J.F.

2

109. J.F., a Black female, was sixteen years old when she enrolled as a

3 sophomore in Rancho Verde High School in Riverside County in the fall of 2017.

4 J.F. had moved from her grandfather’s home in Arizona to live with her

5 grandmother, Cindy McConnell. J.F. struggled coping with her Oppositional Defiant

6 Disorder and had extreme difficulty waking up early in time for school, where her

7 first class started at 7:30 am. The school’s and Defendants’ response to J.F.’s

8 struggles and late arrivals—placing her on YAT probation—failed to help J.F. and

9 instead violated her rights.

10

110. Defendants placed J.F. on YAT probation on February 23, 2018, less

11 than twenty-four hours after first meeting with officials from Val Verde Unified

12 School District and two law enforcement officers regarding J.F.’s late arrivals. The

13 officials implied that J.F. would be involuntarily transferred to a county continuation

14 school, and her grandmother would face criminal charges, if J.F. did not acquiesce

15 to YAT probation. Pressured, cornered, and concerned, J.F. felt she had no

16 alternative but to submit to YAT. Defendants did not provide J.F. with notice of the

17 violation she was accused of committing, information about the juvenile court

18 process and the consequences and terms of YAT probation, or advise her of her

19 legal rights. J.F. did not have the benefit of counsel or an impartial decision maker.

20 In these circumstances, J.F. could not give voluntary, knowing, or informed consent

21 to subject herself to YAT probation.

22

111. J.F. first met with a School Attendance Review Board (“SARB”)

23 official on or about late December 2017 or early January 2018. During that meeting,

24 the SARB official told J.F. and her grandmother, Cindy McConnell, that the school

25 district would help J.F. solve her attendance issues through a series of graduated

26 responses. When Cindy received notice of a mandatory meeting scheduled for

27

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 45 of 70 Page ID #:45

1 February 22, 2018, she and J.F. expected the meeting would be similar to the prior

2 meeting with the SARB official.

3

112. Instead, when they arrived on February 22, J.F. and Cindy quickly

4 realized that it was unlike the previous meeting. J.F. and Cindy were escorted into a

5 conference room where multiple District officials, including a Val Verde Unified

6 School District School Board Member, Riverside County Probation Officer German

7 Regin and an officer, who on information and belief is a law enforcement officer,

8 and a woman typing formal meeting notes were waiting. During that meeting, the

9 SARB panel chastised J.F. for her absences and poor grades, implied that the

10 District could involuntarily transfer her to Val Verde Continuation School, and

11 suggested that Cindy could face criminal charges if J.F.’s attendance did not

12 improve. J.F. tried to explain her difficulty waking up early enough to make her first

13 class at 7:30 am. The SARB panel told J.F. that if she wanted to improve her

14 attendance and avoid involuntary transfer, she would have to submit to YAT

15 probation. The SARB panel informed J.F. and Cindy that a mandatory YAT meeting

16 was scheduled for 9:00 am the following day, February 23, 2018.

17

113. At 9:00 am on February 23, 2018, less than twenty-four hours after the

18 SARB hearing, J.F. and Cindy arrived for the mandatory YAT meeting at Val Verde

19 High School. There, they were met by Probation Officer Regin, of the Riverside

20 County Probation Department, who escorted them to his office. Though they

21 believed YAT probation was the only way to prevent J.F. from being pushed out of

22 her school and Cindy from facing criminal charges, as the SARB panel suggested,

23 neither J.F. nor Cindy knew exactly why J.F. was being put on probation.

24

114. After extensive questioning by Officer Regin, another officer briefly

25 entered the room, stated his name, and plainly stated that he would be conducting

26 visits to J.F. and Cindy’s home. After that officer left, Officer Regin

27 unapologetically gave J.F. and Cindy the probation contract that included

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 46 of 70 Page ID #:46

1 preselected terms, consistent with the standard YAT probation contract, spent no

2 more than a few minutes describing the YAT probation program, and instructed J.F.

3 to read the contract herself, without providing any explanation of the probation

4 contract’s terms.

5

115. J.F.’s probation contract reflects that she is charged with the crime of

6 “601 WIC,” but no YAT officer explained what this means. The contract also

7 indicates that YAT probation was proposed “[i]n lieu of filing a Petition with the

8 Juvenile Court.” J.F. and Cindy are uncertain but believe J.F. was placed on YAT

9 probation either for attendance issues or for bad grades, both of which were

10 mentioned by the SARB panel and Officer Regin. Looking at the term “601 WIC,”

11 written on J.F.’s probation contract, Cindy wondered whether YAT was for low-

12 income families that would qualify for the federal nutrition and health program for

13 Women, Infants, and Children, commonly referred to as “WIC.”

14

116. All but one condition—mandatory check-ins—were preselected on

15 J.F.’s YAT probation contract. As terms of her probation, J.F. is required to:

16

• Obey all laws and ordinances,

17

• adhere to a 10:00 pm curfew,

18

• “obey parents or guardian and keep them informed of [ ]

19

whereabouts and associates,”

20

• attend school every period of every day and notify YAT officers

21

of any absence before 9:00 am,

22

• “obey school officials/rules,”

23

• report to probation as directed,

24

• “obey directives of the Probation Officer and YAT members,”

25

• “not associate with anyone not approved by parent, YAT”;

26

• have “no association with negative influences,”

27

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 47 of 70 Page ID #:47

1

• have “no negative contact with anyone, including, parent, school

2

staff, peers, YAT members, or law enforcement,”

3

• submit a letter of apology,

4

• complete “20+” community service hours,

5

• write an essay,

6

• attend counseling as directed and continue receiving therapy

7

services from the County,

8

• attend a tour of a correctional facility,

9

• attend programming every Tuesday afternoon,

10

• “improve and maintain good grades and attendance,”

11

• maintain “good behavior at home and school,”

12

• “submit to search/tests of [her] person/vehicle/premises upon

13

request of the Probation Officer of YAT member,” and

14

• “attend any awareness classes deemed necessary. Parent(s) to

15

attend parenting if recommended.”

16

117. The probation contract also reflects that J.F. “understand[s that] home

17 visits will be conducted by the team on an as needed basis,” and threatens that “any

18 violation of these terms and conditions may be grounds for referring the matter to

19 the District Attorney’s Office for prosecution.”

20

118. The numerous conditions in J.F.’s YAT probation contract conflict

21 with the response to school attendance problems contemplated by the legislature

22 which created SARBs to “[d]ivert pupils with serious attendance and behavioral

23 problems from the juvenile justice system to agencies more directly related to the

24 state public school system,” namely, “community-based and school-based

25 programs.” Cal. Educ. Code § 48325.

26

119. Beyond the SARB meeting on February 22, 2018, and Officers Regin’s

27 vague references to attendance and grades, J.F. and her grandmother Cindy had no

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 48 of 70 Page ID #:48

1 information about the offense of which she was accused. Without knowing the

2 direct consequences of accepting YAT probation, that she had the right to reject

3 probation or particular terms, and without an understanding or advisement of the

4 rights she waived, J.F. and Cindy had no opportunity to meaningfully weigh the

5 costs and benefits of opting to go to court or to accept this purported informal

6 probation. J.F. had no information about her legal rights, including her right to

7 consult with counsel and her right to remain silent. Nor was there an impartial

8 decision maker present.

9

120. J.F. had no legal counsel who could have offered her much-needed

10 guidance on the considerations she faced in this critical stage. A defense attorney

11 could have advised J.F. that the terms of informal probation offered were excessive

12 and inappropriate under California law and warned J.F. that acquiescing to informal

13 probation here, where she faced no criminal charges, would preclude the possibility

14 of diversion in any future case and could be held against her in any future

15 sentencing. So too, defense counsel could have probed the legal sufficiency of the

16 alleged violation of Section 601 and recognized that Section 601 cases are not heard

17 by courts in Riverside County. In these circumstances, J.F. could not have provided

18 voluntary, knowing, or intelligent consent to submit to YAT probation.

19

121. Following J.F.’s entry into YAT probation on February 23, 2018,

20 Officers Regin and a second officer have conducted at least five unannounced home

21 visits to Cindy and J.F.’s home. During each visit, one officer has entered the home,

22 observed the general areas, and stood at J.F.’s bedroom door to observe her room

23 while asking J.F. about personal matters, including how J.F. treats Cindy, maintains

24 cleanliness in her room, and conducts herself in romantic relationships.

25

122. A different YAT officer whose name J.F. does not know has also

26 removed J.F. from class on several occasions for extensive meetings, interfering

27 with her learning time. These visits typically occur during J.F.’s fifth-period History

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 49 of 70 Page ID #:49

1 class, or sixth-period PE class. In addition to officers removing J.F. from class, Ms.

2 Estrada, a woman identified as a YAT counselor, pulls J.F. out of school about once

3 a week for about one hour. The meetings begin during J.F.’s second-period English

4 class. Ms. Estrada is abrasive, judgmental, and undermines the progress that J.F. and

5 Cindy have made with J.F.’s therapist.

6

123. J.F. is enrolled in summer school at Val Verde High School, a

7 continuation school. Her classes take place directly across the hall from the

8 designated YAT office. Due to the compressed timeframe, a single day of summer

9 school covers an entire week’s worth of class content. Despite the valuable

10 instructional time, YAT officers have continued to pull J.F. from class during

11 summer school. J.F., who is deficient in school credits, is fearful that YAT officers

12 will continue removing her from class time during summer school, causing her to

13 miss valuable educational time and compromising her ability to complete the

14 summer school credits she needs.

15

124. J.F. finds the required YAT class topics—including murder and felony

16 murder—completely unrelated to the reason she was placed on YAT probation. The

17 meetings are also burdensome, beginning at the Perris Sheriff’s Station less than one

18 hour after J.F.’s regular school day ends in Val Verde, making it more difficult to

19 complete her school homework.

20

125. J.F. is subject to her YAT probation contract and the attendant

21 probation supervision until August 23, 2018.

22 Sigma Beta Xi

23

126. Sigma Beta Xi is a non-profit organization providing mentoring

24 services primarily to Riverside County children of color, including children with

25 disabilities, whose educational success is at risk due to poor grades, discipline, or

26 other factors. Sigma Beta Xi contracts with public schools within Riverside County,

27 who refer children to receive mentoring and support from Sigma Beta Xi. Sigma

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 50 of 70 Page ID #:50

1 Beta Xi’s mission is to establish strong families and communities by building an

2 organization of diverse young men and women who will exemplify leadership and

3 professionalism based upon the principles of brotherhood, sisterhood, excellence,

4 endurance, wisdom, service, and unity.

5

127. Mentoring is central to Sigma Beta Xi’s mission. Sigma Beta Xi

6 employs twelve mentors who work to understand the environment from which the

7 child comes to school, provide one-on-one mentoring and leadership development,

8 and ultimately find ways to bring the child to her full potential. Sigma Beta Xi

9 creates an individualized plan for each mentee that responds to the child’s unique

10 needs. Sigma Beta Xi offers more intensive mentoring services for mentees with

11 greater needs, including additional mentoring hours, more support coordinating with

12 caretakers and other service providers, more referrals to outside counseling, and

13 additional extracurricular activities and field trips designed to foster leadership

14 skills. Sigma Beta Xi also enrolls a select number of students in two enhanced

15 programs. The first is its Rites of Passage Program, a resource-intensive support

16 program that provides counseling services for students and their families and helps

17 them deal with trauma, anger, anxiety, and depression. The second is its Positive

18 Youth Justice Initiative Program, a leadership development program that trains and

19 empowers youth to engage in community organizing and transform the criminal

20 justice system.

21

128. Sigma Beta Xi offers a continuum of engagement and leadership

22 opportunities for mentees as their involvement in the organization increases. All

23 mentees receive one-on-one mentoring each week. Once mentees are

24 developmentally ready for sharing in a group setting, mentees join Sigma Beta Xi’s

25 weekly group mentoring sessions. After sustained involvement with Sigma Beta Xi,

26 mentees are given additional opportunities to develop their leadership and help

27 shape the organization, such as by interviewing prospective mentors. A growing

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 51 of 70 Page ID #:51

1 number of mentees also join Sigma Beta Xi’s student fraternity, which operates

2 under the Sigma Beta Xi name and provides additional opportunities for leadership

3 and community service.

4

129. Numerous Sigma Beta Xi mentees, including Andrew M. and Jacob T.,

5 have been placed on YAT probation.

6

130. As a result of mentees’ experiences with YAT, Sigma Beta Xi’s

7 mission of building a diverse group of young professional leaders has been

8 significantly frustrated. Mentees who currently are or have been on YAT probation

9 are often more distrustful of adults, including their Sigma Beta Xi mentors. As a

10 result, these mentees make slower progress in their mentoring sessions and take

11 longer to advance, or do not fully advance, through Sigma Beta Xi’s continuum of

12 engagement and leadership opportunities.

13

131. To address its frustrated mission, Sigma Beta Xi has been forced to

14 divert its limited resources in various ways. Sigma Beta Xi has assigned mentees

15 who are or were on YAT probation to additional and more intensive services to

16 ensure mentees can build trusting and effective relationships with mentors despite

17 the mentees’ experience with YAT probation. Mentors also engage in extra work to

18 ensure that mentees involved with YAT are not prohibited from participating in

19 Sigma Beta Xi activities and do not face additional consequences for participating in

20 activities designed to provide opportunities for positive development. For example,

21 Sigma Beta Xi had to intervene when Probation accused a mentee of violating the

22 terms of her YAT probation by traveling to a student leadership summit in Los

23 Angeles with Sigma Beta Xi. In other circumstances, Sigma Beta Xi mentors

24 transport mentees to comply with onerous YAT probation supervision requirements.

25 Additionally, Sigma Beta Xi mentors now require more training about YAT to

26 ensure they can effectively support mentees whose lives are made more difficult by

27 the program.

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 52 of 70 Page ID #:52

1

132. If Sigma Beta Xi were not required to spend these additional resources

2 to address the frustration of mission created by Defendants’ operation of YAT, it

3 would be able to devote these resources to activities that further its mission. Sigma

4 Beta Xi would be able to spend more time with individual mentees on positive

5 leadership building activities, rather than addressing needs tied to complying with

6 probation supervision. It could also use these resources to, for example, provide

7 mentoring services to additional children in Riverside County, such as enrolling

8 more children in its Rites of Passage and Positive Youth Justice Initiative programs.

9

V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

10

133. Jacob T. and J.F. (“Class Plaintiffs”) bring this class action on behalf of

11 themselves and all others similarly situated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

12 Procedure 23(b)(2).

13

134. Class Plaintiffs seek to certify a class defined as follows:

14

All children in Riverside County who have been referred to the Riverside County Youth Accountability Team (“YAT”)

15

program pursuant to Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 601, and who have either been placed on a YAT probation contract or

16

have been referred but not yet placed on a YAT probation contract.

17

18 Those within the class are referred to herein as the “Class Members.”

19

135. The Class Members are so numerous that individual joinder of their

20 members is impractical. Each year, thousands of children are referred to YAT.

21 According to public records obtained from the Probation Department, in 2015, YAT

22 received 1505 referrals. Each year, probation places between 400 and 500 children

23 on YAT probation contracts. Of those, hundreds are referred to or placed on YAT

24 pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 601. The number of

25 unnamed future class members who will be referred and subject to YAT probation

26 through the policies, practices, and customs alleged herein is unknown and

27 unknowable.

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 53 of 70 Page ID #:53

1

136. There exist questions of law and fact common to the entire class. These

2 common questions of fact and law include, without limitation:

3

a) Whether Defendants are required to provide adequate notice to

4

children who are referred to YAT of the basis and circumstances

5

of their referral.

6

b) Whether Defendants are required to provide adequate notice to

7

children who are referred to YAT of any statutes, other laws or

8

rules they are alleged to have violated in connection with their

9

YAT referral.

10

c) Whether Defendants are required to provide adequate

11

explanation to children who are referred to YAT of the

12

requirements of the YAT program and any consequences of

13

participating in the YAT program.

14

d) Whether Defendants are required to provide adequate notice to

15

children who are referred to YAT that participation in YAT will

16

preclude them from participating in other diversionary programs

17

in the future.

18

e) Whether Defendants are required to adequately advise children

19

of their right to consult with legal counsel before the child

20

decides whether to agree to a YAT probation contract.

21

f) Whether Defendants are required to provide adequate notice to

22

children who are referred to YAT that agreeing to YAT may

23

require them to submit to searches of their homes or persons.

24

g) Whether Defendants are required to provide adequate notice to

25

children who are referred to YAT that agreeing to YAT may

26

require them to waive their rights to associate with “anyone not

27

approved” by YAT.

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 54 of 70 Page ID #:54

1

h) Whether Defendants are required to provide adequate notice to

2

children who are referred to YAT that agreeing to YAT may

3

prohibit them from having “negative contact with anyone,” in

4

violation of their expressive association rights.

5

i) Whether California Welfare & Institutions Code § 601 is

6

unconstitutionally vague.

7

j) Whether Defendants are required to operate the YAT program in

8

a non-discriminatory manner that does not have a

9

disproportionate effect on different racial or ethnic groups of

10

children.

11

k) Whether Defendants may use a risk assessment instrument that

12

scores Black and Latinx children as having a higher risk of

13

criminality as a basis for YAT placement.

14

137. Class Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the Class members in

15 that they are children in Riverside County who were each referred to and placed on

16 a YAT probation contract, and suffer the resulting violations of their civil rights

17 under Constitutional and statutory laws due to Defendants’ implementation of the

18 YAT probation program.

19

138. Class Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the

20 Class Members. The Class Plaintiffs have a personal interest in the subject matter of

21 this litigation and have no interests antagonistic to the interests of the class. Class

22 Plaintiffs are represented by competent and experienced counsel in class action, civil

23 rights, and constitutional litigation.

24

139. Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally

25 applicable to the Class Members, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief

26 and/or corresponding declarative relief with respect to the class and the subclasses

27 as a whole. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 55 of 70 Page ID #:55

1

140. The prosecution of individual actions against Defendants by individual

2 class members would create a risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications and the

3 establishment of incompatible standards of conduct across the Plaintiff Class. Fed.

4 R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1).

5

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

6

Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

to the U.S. Constitution

7

42 U.S.C. § 1983

(Deprivation of the Right to Procedural Due Process)

8

(All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)

9

141. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations of Paragraphs

10 1 through 140 as though fully set forth herein.

11

142. This claim is brought by Plaintiffs Andrew M. and Sigma Beta Xi on

12 behalf of themselves and by Plaintiffs Jacob T. and J.F. on behalf of themselves and

13 the members of the proposed class.

14

143. The Procedural Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

15 provides that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without

16 due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

17

144. Plaintiffs have a fundamental interest in their liberty to be free from the

18 constraints of probationary supervision imposed by Defendants’ YAT probation

19 program. Defendants deprive Plaintiffs of their liberty interests without adequate

20 procedural protections.

21

145. Defendants have a policy, practice, and custom of placing children on

22 YAT probation through unfair procedures that deny Plaintiffs the ability to act in

23 their own best interest and to make a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent decision

24 regarding whether to accept YAT probation.

25

146. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate Plaintiffs’ rights

26 under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and cause

27

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 56 of 70 Page ID #:56

1 serious, irreparable, and lasting harm to these children, which they will continue to

2 suffer in the absence of relief.

3

147. The mission of Sigma Beta Xi is also frustrated by the unlawful policy,

4 practice, and custom of Defendants, and Sigma Beta Xi continues to divert resources

5 as a result.

6

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

7

Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

to the U.S. Constitution

8

42 U.S.C. § 1983

(Welf. & Inst. Code § 601 is Overly Vague on Its Face in

9

Violation of Due Process)

10

(All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)

11

148. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations of Paragraphs

12 1 through 140 as though fully set forth herein.

13

149. This claim is brought by Plaintiffs Andrew M. and Sigma Beta Xi on

14 behalf of themselves and by Plaintiffs Jacob T. and J.F. on behalf of themselves and

15 the members of the proposed class.

16

150. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against

17 the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

18

151. The terms of Section 601(b)—prohibiting “persistent or habitual refusal

19 to obey the reasonable and proper orders or directions of school authorities”—are

20 vague on their face. These terms fail to define the offense sufficiently to provide

21 notice to the average child who is expected to comply with its terms of what conduct

22 is prohibited or to provide sufficient guidance to those charged with its enforcement,

23 authorizing and encouraging arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

24

152. Section 601 is the basis for Plaintiffs’ referral to and their placement on

25 YAT probation.

26

27

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 57 of 70 Page ID #:57

1

153. Defendants’ enforcement of Section 601(b) causes serious, irreparable,

2 and lasting harm to Plaintiffs, and they will continue to suffer irreparable harm in

3 the absence of relief.

4

154. The mission of Sigma Beta Xi is also frustrated by Defendants’

5 enforcement of Section 601(b), and Sigma Beta Xi continues to divert resources as a

6 result.

7

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

8

Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

to the U.S. Constitution

9

42 U.S.C. § 1983

(Welf. & Inst. Code § 601 is Vague as Applied in Violation of Due Process)

10

(All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)

11

155. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations of Paragraphs

12 1 through 140 as though fully set forth herein.

13

156. This claim is brought by Plaintiffs Andrew M. and Sigma Beta Xi on

14 behalf of themselves and by Plaintiffs Jacob T. and J.F. on behalf of themselves and

15 the members of the proposed class.

16

157. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against

17 the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

18

158. Defendants apply Section 601, inter alia, through their criteria for

19 referral and in their citation of Section 601 to place children on YAT probation.

20 Defendants, as a matter of policy, practice, and custom, apply Section 601 in a

21 manner that is overly vague. As applied by Defendants, Section 601 fails to define

22 the offense sufficiently to provide notice to the average child of what conduct is

23 prohibited or to provide sufficient guidance to those charged with its enforcement,

24 authorizing and encouraging arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

25

159. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate Plaintiffs’ rights

26 under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and cause

27

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 58 of 70 Page ID #:58

1 serious, irreparable, and lasting harm to these children, which they will continue to

2 suffer in the absence of relief.

3

160. The mission of Sigma Beta Xi is also frustrated by Defendants’ policy,

4 practice, and customs, and Sigma Beta Xi continues to divert resources as a result.

5

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

6

Violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

42 U.S.C. § 1983

7

(Unreasonable Search And Seizure)

(Plaintiffs Sigma Beta Xi., Jacob T., and J.F. Against All Defendants)

8

9

161. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations of Paragraphs

10 1 through 140 as though fully set forth herein.

11

162. This claim is brought by Plaintiff Sigma Beta Xi on behalf of itself and

12 by Plaintiffs Jacob T. and J.F. on behalf themselves and the members of the

13 proposed class.

14

163. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the

15 right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

16

164. Defendants, as a matter of policy, practice, and custom, inter alia,

17 impose blanket search terms as a condition of YAT probation. These terms, as

18 incorporated in YAT probation contracts, purport to authorize search of a child’s

19 person—including through drug testing—property, and premises. Defendants rely

20 on these terms of YAT probation contracts to conduct drug testing and home

21 searches of Plaintiffs without a warrant.

22

165. As a matter of policy, practice, and custom, Plaintiffs are not informed

23 that these terms constitute a waiver of their rights under the Fourth Amendment. The

24 terms are presented in a context that is coercive and in which Plaintiffs, children

25 facing their first encounter with the justice system, are utterly lacking in relevant

26 information. Any purported waiver or blanket consent to searches of their person,

27 home, and property is not voluntary, knowing, or intelligent and is thus invalid.

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 59 of 70 Page ID #:59

1

166. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate Plaintiffs’ rights

2 under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and cause serious,

3 irreparable, and lasting harm to these children, which they will continue to suffer in

4 the absence of relief.

5

167. The mission of Sigma Beta Xi is also frustrated by Defendants’

6 policies, practices, and customs, and Sigma Beta Xi continues to divert resources as

7 a result.

8

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

9

Violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

42 U.S.C. § 1983

10

(Overbreadth, Violation of Freedom of Expressive Association)

(Plaintiffs Sigma Beta Xi, Jacob T., and J.F. Against All Defendants) 11

12

168. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations of Paragraphs

13 1 through 140 as though fully set forth herein.

14

169. This claim is brought by Plaintiffs Sigma Beta Xi on behalf of itself

15 and by Plaintiffs Jacob T. and J.F. on behalf of themselves and the members of the

16 proposed class.

17

170. The First Amendment protects against overly broad laws that abridge

18 the freedom of speech and the fundamental right to freedom of expressive

19 association.

20

171. Defendants, as a matter of policy, practice, or custom, impose YAT

21 probation conditions that prohibit association with “anyone not approved” by

22 Defendants and prohibit children from having “any negative contact with anyone.”

23 These terms are overbroad on their face because they reach a substantial amount of

24 First Amendment protected activity. Any purported waiver or consent to such

25 conditions is not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent and is thus invalid.

26

172. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate Plaintiffs’ rights

27 under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and cause serious,

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 60 of 70 Page ID #:60

1 irreparable, and lasting harm to these children, which they will continue to suffer in

2 the absence of relief.

3

173. The mission of Sigma Beta Xi is also frustrated by Defendants’ policy,

4 practice, and customs, and Sigma Beta Xi continues to divert resources as a result.

5

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

6

Violation of Art. I, § 7 of the California Constitution

(Deprivation of the Right to Procedural Due Process)

7

(All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)

8

174. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations of Paragraphs

9 1 through 140 as though fully set forth herein.

10

175. This claim is brought by Plaintiffs Andrew M. and Sigma Beta Xi on

11 behalf of themselves and by Plaintiffs Jacob T. and J.F. on behalf of themselves and

12 the members of the proposed class.

13

176. The California Constitution, Article I, section 7 provides that “a person

14 may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”

15

177. Plaintiffs have a fundamental interest in their liberty to be free from the

16 constraints of probationary supervision imposed by Defendants’ YAT probation

17 program. Defendants deprive Plaintiffs of their liberty interests without adequate

18 procedural protections.

19

178. Defendants have a policy, practice, and custom of placing children on

20 YAT probation through unfair procedures that deny Plaintiffs the ability to act in

21 their own best interest and to make a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent decision

22 regarding whether to accept YAT probation.

23

179. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate Plaintiffs’ rights

24 under Article I § 7 of the California Constitution and cause serious, irreparable, and

25 lasting harm to these children, which they will continue to suffer in the absence of

26 relief.

27

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 61 of 70 Page ID #:61

1

180. The mission of Sigma Beta Xi is also frustrated by the unlawful policy,

2 practice, and custom of Defendants, and Sigma Beta Xi continues to divert resources

3 as a result.

4

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

5

Violation of Art. I, § 13 of the California Constitution

(Unreasonable Search And Seizure)

6

(Plaintiffs Sigma Beta Xi, Jacob T., and J.F. Against All Defendants)

7

181. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations of Paragraphs

8 1 through 140 as though fully set forth herein.

9

182. This claim is brought by Plaintiff Sigma Beta Xi on behalf of itself and

10 by Plaintiffs Jacob T. and J.F. on behalf of themselves and the members of the

11 proposed class.

12

183. Article I, section 13 of the California Constitution protects the right to

13 be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

14

184. Defendants, as a matter of policy, practice, and custom, impose blanket

15 search terms as a condition of YAT probation. These terms, as incorporated in YAT

16 probation contracts, purport to authorize search of a child’s person—including

17 through drug testing—property, and premises. Defendants rely on these terms of

18 YAT probation contracts to conduct drug testing and home searches of Plaintiffs

19 without a warrant.

20

185. As a matter of policy, practice, and custom, Plaintiffs are not informed

21 that these terms constitute a waiver of their rights under the Fourth Amendment. The

22 terms are presented in a context that is coercive and in which Plaintiffs, children

23 facing their first encounter with the justice system, are utterly lacking in relevant

24 information. Any purported waiver or blanket consent to searches of their person,

25 home, and property is not voluntary, knowing, or intelligent and is thus invalid.

26

186. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate Plaintiffs’ rights

27 under the Article I, section 13 of the California Constitution and cause serious,

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 62 of 70 Page ID #:62

1 irreparable, and lasting harm to these children, which they will continue to suffer in

2 the absence of relief.

3

187. The mission of Sigma Beta Xi is also frustrated by Defendants policy,

4 practice, and customs, and Sigma Beta Xi continues to divert resources as a result.

5

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

6

Violation of Art. I, §§ 2a, 3 of the California Constitution

(Overbreadth, Violation of Freedom of Expressive Association)

7

(Plaintiffs Sigma Beta Xi, Jacob T., and J.F. Against All Defendants)

8

188. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations of Paragraphs

9 1 through 140 as though fully set forth herein.

10

189. This claim is brought by Plaintiffs Sigma Beta Xi on behalf of itself

11 and by Plaintiffs Jacob T. and J.F. on behalf of themselves and the members of the

12 proposed class.

13

190. Article I, sections 2a and 3 of the California Constitution protect

14 against overly broad laws that abridge the freedom of speech and the fundamental

15 right to freedom of expressive association.

16

191. Defendants, as a matter of policy, practice, or custom, impose YAT

17 probation conditions that prohibit association with “anyone not approved” by

18 Defendants and prohibit children from having “any negative contact with anyone.”

19 These terms are overbroad on their face because they reach a substantial amount of

20 protected speech and expressive activity. Any purported waiver or consent to such

21 conditions is not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent and is thus invalid.

22

192. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate Plaintiffs’ rights

23 under Article I, sections 2a and 3 of the California Constitution and cause serious,

24 irreparable, and lasting harm to these children, which they will continue to suffer in

25 the absence of relief.

26

193. The mission of Sigma Beta Xi is also frustrated by Defendants’ policy,

27 practice, and customs, and Sigma Beta Xi continues to divert resources as a result.

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 63 of 70 Page ID #:63

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 1

Violation of Art. I, § 7 of the California Constitution

2

(Welf. & Inst. Code § 601 is Overly Vague on Its Face

in Violation of Due Process)

3

(All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)

4

194. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations of Paragraphs

5 1 through 140 as though fully set forth herein.

6

195. This claim is brought by Plaintiffs Andrew M. and Sigma Beta Xi on

7 behalf of themselves and by Plaintiffs Jacob T. and J.F. on behalf of themselves and

8 the members of the proposed class.

9

196. Article I § 7 of the California Constitution protects against the

10 deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

11

197. The terms of Section 601(b)—prohibiting “persistent or habitual refusal

12 to obey the reasonable and proper orders or directions of school authorities”—are

13 vague on their face. These terms fail to define the offense sufficiently to provide

14 notice to the average child who is expected to comply with its terms of what conduct

15 is prohibited or to provide sufficient guidance to those charged with its enforcement,

16 authorizing and encouraging arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

17

198. Section 601 is the basis for Plaintiffs’ referral to and their placement on

18 YAT probation.

19

199. Defendants’ enforcement of Section 601(b) causes serious, irreparable,

20 and lasting harm to Plaintiffs, and they will continue to suffer irreparable harm in

21 the absence of relief.

22

200. The mission of Sigma Beta Xi is also frustrated by Defendants’

23 enforcement of Section 601(b), and Sigma Beta Xi continues to divert resources as a

24 result.

25

26

27

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 64 of 70 Page ID #:64

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 1
Violation of Art. I, § 7 of the California Constitution 2 (Welf. & Inst. Code § 601 is Vague as Applied in Violation of Due Process)
(All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 3

4

201. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations of Paragraphs

5 1 through 140 as though fully set forth herein.

6

202. This claim is brought by Plaintiffs Andrew M. and Sigma Beta Xi on

7 behalf of themselves and by Plaintiffs Jacob T. and J.F. on behalf of themselves and

8 the members of the proposed class.

9

203. Article I, section 7 of the California Constitution protects against the

10 deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

11

204. Defendants apply Section 601 through their criteria for referral and in

12 their citation of Section 601 to place children on YAT probation. Defendants, as a

13 matter of policy, practice, and custom, apply Section 601 in a manner that is overly

14 vague. As applied by Defendants, Section 601 fails to define the offense sufficiently

15 to provide notice to the average child of what conduct is prohibited or to provide

16 sufficient guidance to those charged with its enforcement, authorizing and

17 encouraging arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

18

205. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate Plaintiffs’ rights

19 under the California Constitution and cause serious, irreparable, and lasting harm to

20 these children, which they will continue to suffer in the absence of relief.

21

206. The mission of Sigma Beta Xi is also frustrated by Defendants’

22 policies, practices, and customs, and Sigma Beta Xi continues to divert resources as

23 a result.

24

25

26

27

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 65 of 70 Page ID #:65

ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 1

Violation of California Government Code § 11135

2 (The YAT probation program has a significantly adverse impact on Black and

Latinx children)

3

(Plaintiffs Andrew M., Sigma Beta Xi, and J.F. against All Defendants)

4

207. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations of Paragraphs

5 1 through 140 as though fully set forth herein.

6

208. This claim is brought by Plaintiffs Andrew M. and Sigma Beta Xi on

7 behalf of themselves and by Plaintiff J.F. on behalf of herself and the members of

8 the proposed class.

9

209. California Government Code section 11135 prohibits discrimination

10 “under any program or activity that . . . receives any financial assistance from the

11 state.”

12

210. Defendants’ operation of the YAT probation program has a

13 significantly adverse and disproportionate impact on Black and Latinx children,

14 including Plaintiffs Andrew M. and J.F. and the mentees of Plaintiff Sigma Beta Xi.

15

211. Defendants use a risk assessment instrument that results in Black and

16 Latinx children being scored as having a higher risk of future criminality, an

17 undefined concept, based upon broadly drafted questions that invite bias, and

18 perpetuate disparities and discrimination occurring elsewhere in the criminal system

19 and in school discipline. Black and Latinx children are scored as having higher risk

20 than similarly situated white children under Defendants’ formula.

21

212. Defendants’ policy, practice, and custom of placing children on YAT

22 probation contracts has an additional adverse and disparate impact on Black and

23 Latinx children. Even among children who score as having no risk, Black and

24 Latinx children are more likely than white children to be placed on YAT program

25 contracts.

26

213. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate Plaintiffs’ rights

27 under California Government Code section 11135 and cause serious, irreparable,

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 66 of 70 Page ID #:66

1 and lasting harm to these children, which they will continue to suffer in the absence

2 of relief.

3

214. The mission of Sigma Beta Xi is also frustrated by Defendants’

4 policies, practices, and customs, and Sigma Beta Xi continues to divert resources as

5 a result.

6

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

7

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court:

8

I. Assume jurisdiction of this matter;

9

II. Certify a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (or other analogous procedures)

10

as described above, pursuant to the forthcoming motion for class

11

certification;

12

III. Appoint the individual Plaintiffs as Class Representatives;

13

IV. Appoint Plaintiffs’ counsel as Class Counsel;

14

V. Issue a declaratory judgment that:

15

A. California Welfare & Institutions Code section 601(b)’s

16

prohibition of “persistent or habitual refusal to obey the

17

reasonable and proper orders or directions of school authorities”

18

is unconstitutionally vague;

19

B. Defendants’ application of California Welfare & Institutions

20

Code section 601 through the policies, practices, and customs of

21

YAT is unconstitutionally vague;

22

C. Defendants’ policy, practice, and custom of placing children in

23

the YAT program under the circumstances described above,

24

without adequate notice of (a) the charges against them or the

25

underlying facts supporting the allegation, (b) their legal rights,

26

including the right to consult with counsel, or (c) the possible

27

consequences, and (d) under conditions that are coercive,

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 67 of 70 Page ID #:67

1

misleading, and otherwise do not permit voluntary, knowing, and

2

intelligent consent violates Plaintiffs’ rights under the Due

3

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.

4

Constitution;

5

D. Defendants’ policy, practice, and custom of searching the homes,

6

belongings, and persons of children placed on YAT probation,

7

including through drug testing, under the circumstances

8

described above, violates Plaintiffs’ rights to be free from

9

unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S.

10

Constitution and Article I, section 13 of the California

11

Constitution;

12

E. Defendants’ policy, practice, and custom of prohibiting children

13

placed on YAT probation from associating with anyone not

14

approved of by Defendants is overbroad and violates Plaintiffs’

15

rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.

16

Constitution, and violates Plaintiffs right to freedom of

17

expressive association protected by the First Amendment of the

18

U.S. Constitution; and

19

F. Defendants’ policy, practice, and custom of operating the YAT

20

probation program, including through utilizing its Risk

21

Assessment Form and the placement of children on YAT

22

probation, has a significant adverse impact on Black and Latinx

23

children in violation of California Government Code section

24

11135;

25

VI. Issue an Order for injunctive relief enjoining Defendant from:

26

27

28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 68 of 70 Page ID #:68

1

A.

2

3

4

B.

5

6

7

8

C.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

D.

26

27

28

SMRH:227737035.1

Enforcing California Welfare & Institutions Code section 601(b)’s prohibition of “persistent or habitual refusal to obey the reasonable and proper orders or directions of school authorities”; Continuing their policy, practice, and custom of applying California Welfare & Institutions Code section 601 in an unconstitutionally vague manner including through its referral criteria and in placing children on YAT probation contracts; Placing children on informal probation contracts, as described above, or any other form of supervision by Defendant without due process of law, including, but not limited to: 1. Notice containing, at a minimum: (a) an explanation of the
charges against a child and the specific conduct alleged to violate the law; (b) an explanation of the juvenile court process and of YAT probation sufficient for a child to make an informed decision regarding participation in YAT probation; (c) a statement of the child’s rights, including the right to consult with an attorney, the right to be free from unreasonable searches, and the right to freedom of association; and (d) a statement of the consequences a court would be authorized to issue based on the specific facts of the offense, and all the consequences resulting from YAT; 2. Access to an attorney who can advise a child in deciding whether accepting YAT probation is in their best interest; Searching the homes, property, or persons of children placed on YAT probation on the basis of an informal probation contract, as
COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 69 of 70 Page ID #:69

1

described above, and without a warrant or a specific exception

2

under the Fourth Amendment;

3

E. Prohibiting children placed on YAT from associating with others

4

“not approved of” by Defendants or others;

5

F. Continuing to maintain or make use of any records generated

6

through referral and placement of Named Plaintiffs and class

7

members on YAT probation; and

8

G. Operating the YAT probation program in a manner that has a

9

significant adverse impact on Black and Latinx children,

10

including but not limited to, the use of the Risk assessment form;

11

VII. Award Plaintiffs Andrew M., Jacob T., and J.F. nominal damages in

12

the amount of one dollar each for violations by Defendants of their

13

constitutional rights;

14

VIII. Award Plaintiffs’ costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

15

1988; and

16

IX. Grant such equitable, further, and different relief as the Court deems

17

just and proper.

18

X. The declaratory and injunctive relief requested in this action is sought

19

against each Defendant; against each Defendant’s officers, employees,

20

and agents; and against all persons acting in active concert or

21

participation with any Defendant, or under any Defendant’s

22

supervision, direction, or control.

23 Dated: July 1, 2018
24

Respectfully submitted,

25

/s/ Sylvia Torres-Guillén

26

Sylvia Torres-Guillén

ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN

27

CALIFORNIA

Hannah Comstock 28

SMRH:227737035.1

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 1 Filed 07/01/18 Page 70 of 70 Page ID #:70

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
SMRH:227737035.1

Victor Leung Alexis Piazza ACLU FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA Christine P. Sun Linnea L. Nelson AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION Sarah Hinger* ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES David Loy Melissa Deleon SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Moe Keshavarzi Andrea N. Feathers NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW Michael Harris Attorneys for Plaintiffs *Pro Hac Vice Motion to be submitted
COMPLAINT

 
 Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 37 Filed 09/17/18 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:388







(term Dkt No. 33-moot)













81,7('67$7(6',675,&7&2857



&(175$/',675,&72)&$/,)251,$



($67(51',9,6,21



 6,*0$%(7$;,,1&$1'5(: &DVH1RFY-*%-(0[



0E\DQGWKURXJKKLVQH[WIULHQG '(1,6(0-$&2%7E\DQG

&/$66$&7,21



WKURXJKKLVQH[WIULHQG+($7+(57 RQEHKDOIRIKLPVHOIDQGDOORWKHUV

67,38/$7('25'(5



VLPLODUO\VLWXDWHG-)E\DQGWKURXJK KHUQH[WIULHQG&,1'<

&(57,)<,1*&/$66$1' $332,17,1*&/$66&2816(/



0&&211(//RQEHKDOIRIKHUVHOI DQGDOORWKHUVVLPLODUO\VLWXDWHG

&RPSODLQW)LOHG -XO\



3ODLQWLIIV

7ULDO'DWH

1RQH6HW



Y

 &2817<2)5,9(56,'(0$5.



+$.(&KLHIRIWKH5LYHUVLGH&RXQW\ 3UREDWLRQ'HSDUWPHQWLQKLVRIILFLDO



FDSDFLW\%5<&(+8/67520&KLHI 'HSXW\RIWKH5LYHUVLGH&RXQW\



3UREDWLRQ'HSDUWPHQWLQKLVRIILFLDO FDSDFLW\



'HIHQGDQWV









605+

67,38/$7('25'(5&(57,)<,1*&/$66$1' $332,17,1*&/$66&2816(/

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 37 Filed 09/17/18 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:389



25'(5



3ODLQWLIIV¶XQRSSRVHG0RWLRQIRU&ODVV&HUWLILFDWLRQDQG$SSRLQWPHQWRI

 &ODVV&RXQVHOWKH³0RWLRQ´ZDVILOHGRQ6HSWHPEHULQWKLVDFWLRQEHIRUH

 WKH+RQRUDEOH-XGJH-HVXV*%HUQDOLQ&RXUWURRPRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW

 &RXUWIRUWKH&HQWUDO'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD7ZHOIWK6WUHHW5LYHUVLGH

 &DOLIRUQLD



3ODLQWLIIVVRXJKWFHUWLILFDWLRQRIDQG'HIHQGDQWVDJUHHGWRVWLSXODWHWR

 FHUWLILFDWLRQRIWKHIROORZLQJFODVVWKH³&ODVV´³$OOFKLOGUHQLQ5LYHUVLGH&RXQW\

 ZKRKDYHEHHQUHIHUUHGWRWKH5LYHUVLGH&RXQW\<RXWK$FFRXQWDELOLW\7HDP

 ³<$7´SURJUDPSXUVXDQWWR&DO:HOI ,QVW&RGHDQGZKRKDYHHLWKHU

 EHHQSODFHGRQD<$7SUREDWLRQFRQWUDFWRUKDYHEHHQUHIHUUHGEXWQRW\HWSODFHG

 RQD<$7SUREDWLRQFRQWUDFW´



+DYLQJUHYLHZHGWKHFRQFXUUHQWO\ILOHGVWLSXODWLRQE\WKHSDUWLHVWKHSDSHUV

 ILOHGE\3ODLQWLIIVWKHDUJXPHQWVWKHUHRQDQG*22'&$86($33($5,1*7+(

 &2857+(5(%<25'(567+$7



 7KH3ODLQWLIIV¶0RWLRQLV*5$17('3ODLQWLIIVKDYHVDWLVILHGWKH

 HOHPHQWVRI)HGHUDO5XOH&LYLO3URFHGXUH5XOHDDQG5XOHELQFOXGLQJ

 HVWDEOLVKLQJQXPHURVLW\FRPPRQDOLW\W\SLFDOLW\DGHTXDF\EVWDWXV7RWKH

 H[WHQWDVFHUWDLQDELOLW\LVUHTXLUHGIRU5XOHEFODVVDFWLRQVWKH&RXUWDOVR

 ILQGVWKHFODVVLVDVFHUWDLQDEOH



$ 1XPHURVLW\7KHQXPHURVLW\UHTXLUHPHQWLQ5XOHD



UHTXLUHVWKDWWKHFODVVEH³VRQXPHURXVWKDWMRLQGHURIDOO



PHPEHUVLVLPSUDFWLFDO´)HG5&LY3D7KH&ODVVLV



VXIILFLHQWO\QXPHURXVWKDWMRLQGHURIDOOPHPEHUVLV



LPSUDFWLFDEOH7KH&ODVVFRQVLVWVRIDWOHDVWKXQGUHGVDQG



SUREDEO\WKRXVDQGVRIFKLOGUHQZKRZHUHUHIHUUHGWR<$7DQGRU



SODFHGRQ<$7FRQWUDFWV


605+


67,38/$7('25'(5&(57,)<,1*&/$66$1' $332,17,1*&/$66&2816(/

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 37 Filed 09/17/18 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:390



%



















































&





605+

&RPPRQDOLW\7KHFRPPRQDOLW\UHTXLUHPHQWLQ5XOHDLV VDWLVILHGZKHQWKHSURSRVHGFODVV¶FODLPV³GHSHQGXSRQD FRPPRQFRQWHQWLRQVXFKWKDWGHWHUPLQDWLRQRILWVWUXWKRUIDOVLW\ ZLOOUHVROYHDQLVVXHWKDWLVFHQWUDOWRWKHYDOLGLW\RIHDFKFODLP LQRQHVWURNH´Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co.)G WK&LULQWHUQDOTXRWDWLRQVRPLWWHG7KHUHDUH QXPHURXVTXHVWLRQVRIODZDQGIDFWWKDWDUHFRPPRQWRWKHFODVV LQFOXGLQJWKHIROORZLQJTXHVWLRQV:KHWKHU&DOLIRUQLD :HOIDUH ,QVWLWXWLRQV&RGHLVXQFRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\YDJXH  :KHWKHU'HIHQGDQWVDUHUHTXLUHGWRSURYLGHDGHTXDWHQRWLFH WRFKLOGUHQZKRDUHUHIHUUHGWR<$7RIWKHEDVLVDQG FLUFXPVWDQFHVRIWKHLUUHIHUUDO:KHWKHU'HIHQGDQWVDUH UHTXLUHGWRSURYLGHDGHTXDWHQRWLFHWRFKLOGUHQZKRDUHUHIHUUHG WR<$7RIDQ\VWDWXWHVRWKHUODZVRUUXOHVWKH\DUHDOOHJHGWR KDYHYLRODWHGLQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKWKHLU<$7UHIHUUDO:KHWKHU 'HIHQGDQWVDUHUHTXLUHGWRSURYLGHDGHTXDWHH[SODQDWLRQWR FKLOGUHQZKRDUHUHIHUUHGWR<$7RIWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRIWKH <$7SURJUDPDQGDQ\FRQVHTXHQFHVRISDUWLFLSDWLQJLQWKH<$7 SURJUDP:KHWKHU'HIHQGDQWVDUHUHTXLUHGWRSURYLGH DGHTXDWHQRWLFHWRFKLOGUHQZKRDUHUHIHUUHGWR<$7WKDW SDUWLFLSDWLRQLQ<$7ZLOOSUHFOXGHWKHPIURPSDUWLFLSDWLQJLQ RWKHUGLYHUVLRQDU\SURJUDPVLQWKHIXWXUHDQG:KHWKHU 'HIHQGDQWVDUHUHTXLUHGWRDGHTXDWHO\DGYLVHFKLOGUHQRIWKHLU ULJKWWRFRQVXOWZLWKOHJDOFRXQVHOEHIRUHWKHFKLOGGHFLGHV ZKHWKHUWRDJUHHWRD<$7SUREDWLRQFRQWUDFW 7\SLFDOLW\7KHW\SLFDOLW\UHTXLUHPHQWLQ5XOHDLV VDWLVILHGZKHQWKHFODVVUHSUHVHQWDWLYHVDUH³SDUWRIWKHFODVVDQG µSRVVHVVWKHVDPHLQWHUHVWDQGVXIIHUWKHVDPHLQMXU\¶DVWKHFODVV

67,38/$7('25'(5&(57,)<,1*&/$66$1' $332,17,1*&/$66&2816(/

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 37 Filed 09/17/18 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:391



























































605+

PHPEHUV´Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon86 FLWDWLRQRPLWWHG7KHFODLPVRI3ODLQWLIIV-DFRE7-) DQG$QGUHZ0DUHW\SLFDORIWKHFODLPVRIWKHFODVVEHFDXVH WKH\DUHDOOWKUHHFODVVPHPEHUVXQGHUWKHFODVVGHILQLWLRQWKH\ DUHDOOWKUHHFKLOGUHQZKRZHUHUHIHUUHGWR<$7SXUVXDQWWR 6HFWLRQDQGWKH\DOOWKUHHDOOHJHWKDW'HIHQGDQWV¶SROLFLHV DQGSUDFWLFHVLQLPSOHPHQWLQJWKH<$7SURJUDPYLRODWHGWKHLU ULJKWV $GHTXDF\7KHDGHTXDF\UHTXLUHPHQWLQ5XOHDLV VDWLVILHGLI³WKHUHSUHVHQWDWLYHSDUWLHVZLOOIDLUO\DQGDGHTXDWHO\ SURWHFWWKHLQWHUHVWVRIWKHFODVV´)HG5&LY3D7KH DGHTXDF\DQDO\VLVDVNVWZRTXHVWLRQV³GRWKHQDPHG SODLQWLIIVDQGWKHLUFRXQVHOKDYHDQ\FRQIOLFWVRILQWHUHVWZLWK RWKHUFODVVPHPEHUVDQGZLOOWKHQDPHGSODLQWLIIVDQGWKHLU FRXQVHOSURVHFXWHWKHDFWLRQYLJRURXVO\RQEHKDOIRIWKHFODVV"´ Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp)GLQWHUQDO FLWDWLRQRPLWWHG7KHDGHTXDF\UHTXLUHPHQW³LVVDWLVILHGDVORQJ DVRQHRIWKHFODVVUHSUHVHQWDWLYHVLVDQDGHTXDWHFODVV UHSUHVHQWDWLYH´Rodriguez v. West Publ’g Corp.)G WK&LULQWHUQDOTXRWDWLRQPDUNVDQGFLWDWLRQ RPLWWHG7KH&RXUWILQGVWKDW3ODLQWLIIV-DFRE7-)DQG $QGUHZ0ZLOOIDLUO\DQGDGHTXDWHO\UHSUHVHQWWKHLQWHUHVWVRI WKH&ODVVEHFDXVHWKH\KDYHQRFRQIOLFWVRILQWHUHVWVZLWKRWKHU FODVVPHPEHUVDQGWKH\DUHFRPPLWWHGWRYLJRURXVO\SURVHFXWLQJ WKHDFWLRQRQEHKDOIRIWKHFODVVDQGWKH\DUHWKHUHIRUHKHUHE\ DSSRLQWHGFODVVUHSUHVHQWDWLYHV3ODLQWLIIV¶FRXQVHOWKHDERYH FDSWLRQHGDWWRUQH\VIURPWKH$PHULFDQ&LYLO/LEHUWLHV8QLRQ )RXQGDWLRQRI6RXWKHUQ&DOLIRUQLDWKH$PHULFDQ&LYLO/LEHUWLHV

67,38/$7('25'(5&(57,)<,1*&/$66$1' $332,17,1*&/$66&2816(/

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 37 Filed 09/17/18 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:392











































%















605+

8QLRQ)RXQGDWLRQRI1RUWKHUQ&DOLIRUQLDWKH$PHULFDQ&LYLO /LEHUWLHV8QLRQ)RXQGDWLRQRI6DQ'LHJRDQG,PSHULDO&RXQWLHV WKH$PHULFDQ&LYLO/LEHUWLHV8QLRQ)RXQGDWLRQWKH1DWLRQDO &HQWHUIRU<RXWK/DZDQG6KHSSDUG0XOOLQ5LFKWHU +DPSWRQ //3DUHDGHTXDWHFRXQVHOEHFDXVHWKH\DUHTXDOLILHGDQGWKH\ ZLOOYLJRURXVO\UHSUHVHQWWKHLQWHUHVWVRIWKHFODVV3ODLQWLIIV¶ FRXQVHOVDWLVI\WKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRI)HGHUDO5XOHRI&LYLO 3URFHGXUHJ$IRUWKHIROORZLQJUHDVRQVDQGDUHKHUHE\ DSSRLQWHGFODVVFRXQVHO D 3ODLQWLIIV¶FRXQVHOKDYHGRQHVXEVWDQWLDOZRUNLGHQWLI\LQJ
RULQYHVWLJDWLQJSRWHQWLDOFODLPVLQWKHDFWLRQ E 3ODLQWLIIV¶FRXQVHOKDYHVLJQLILFDQWH[SHULHQFHKDQGOLQJ
FODVVDFWLRQVRWKHUFRPSOH[OLWLJDWLRQLQIHGHUDOFRXUWDQG FDVHVLQYROYLQJWKHW\SHVRI&RQVWLWXWLRQDODQGFLYLOULJKWV FODLPVDVVHUWHGLQWKLVDFWLRQ F 3ODLQWLIIV¶FRXQVHOKDYHNQRZOHGJHRIWKHODZWKDWDSSOLHV WRWKLVFDVHVSHFLILFDOO\WKHODZUHJDUGLQJ&RQVWLWXWLRQDO FODLPVRWKHUFLYLOULJKWVFODLPVDQGFODVVDFWLRQVDQG G 3ODLQWLIIV¶FRXQVHOZLOOGHYRWHDGHTXDWHUHVRXUFHVWRWKLV FDVH E3ODLQWLIIVVHHNWRFHUWLI\WKLVFODVVXQGHU5XOHE ZKLFKDSSOLHVLIWKHGHIHQGDQW³KDVDFWHGRUUHIXVHGWRDFWRQ JURXQGVWKDWDSSO\JHQHUDOO\WRWKHFODVVVRWKDWILQDOLQMXQFWLYH UHOLHIRUFRUUHVSRQGLQJGHFODUDWRU\UHOLHILVDSSURSULDWH UHVSHFWLQJWKHFODVVDVDZKROH´)HG5&LY3URFE&ODVV FHUWLILFDWLRQLVDSSURSULDWHXQGHU5XOHEEHFDXVH 'HIHQGDQWVLQFUHDWLQJDQGRSHUDWLQJWKH<$7SURJUDPKDYH DFWHGDQGRUUHIXVHGWRDFWRQJURXQGVWKDWDSSO\JHQHUDOO\WRWKH

67,38/$7('25'(5&(57,)<,1*&/$66$1' $332,17,1*&/$66&2816(/

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 37 Filed 09/17/18 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:393



FODVVVRWKDWWKHGHFODUDWRU\DQGLQMXQFWLYHUHOLHIUHTXHVWHGLI



3ODLQWLIIVVXFFHHGLQWKLVFDVHZLOOEHDSSURSULDWHUHJDUGLQJWKH



FODVVDVDZKROH



& $VFHUWDLQDELOLW\$FODVVLVDVFHUWDLQDEOHLI³µLWLV



DGPLQLVWUDWLYHO\IHDVLEOHIRUWKHFRXUWWRGHWHUPLQHZKHWKHUD



SDUWLFXODULQGLYLGXDOLVDPHPEHU¶XVLQJREMHFWLYHFULWHULD´



Hernandez v. Lynch86'LVW/(;,6DW



TXRWLQJKeegan v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc.)5'



&'&DO7RWKHH[WHQWWKDWDVFHUWDLQDELOLW\LV



UHTXLUHGIRUD5XOHEFODVVWKLVVWDQGDUGLVVDWLVILHG



EHFDXVHWKHFKLOGUHQZKRZHUHUHIHUUHGWRDQGRUSODFHGRQ<$7



FDQEHLGHQWLILHGWKURXJKUHFRUGVPDLQWDLQHGE\'HIHQGDQWV



 7KHIROORZLQJFODVVLVFHUWLILHG³$OOFKLOGUHQLQ5LYHUVLGH&RXQW\ZKR

 KDYHEHHQUHIHUUHGWRWKH5LYHUVLGH&RXQW\<RXWK$FFRXQWDELOLW\7HDP

 ³<$7´SURJUDPSXUVXDQWWR&DO:HOI ,QVW&RGHDQGZKRKDYHHLWKHU

 EHHQSODFHGRQD<$7SUREDWLRQFRQWUDFWRUKDYHEHHQUHIHUUHGEXWQRW\HWSODFHG

 RQD<$7SUREDWLRQFRQWUDFW´



 ,7,66225'(5('

 'DWHG6HSWHPEHU 



BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB +RQRUDEOH-HVXV*%HUQDO 8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW-XGJH










605+


67,38/$7('25'(5&(57,)<,1*&/$66$1' $332,17,1*&/$66&2816(/

 
 Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 1 of 69 Page ID #:394

1 SYLVIA TORRES-GUILLÉN (SBN 164835)

2

storres-guillen@aclusocal.org HANNAH COMSTOCK (SBN 311680)

3 AhMcoEmRsItCocAkN@CacIVluIsLocLaIlB.oErgRTIES UNION

FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.

4 1313 W. 8th Street

5

Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 977-5220

Facsimile: (213) 977-5299

6

7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

8 Additional counsel on following page

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

EASTERN DIVISION

12

13

SIGMA BETA XI, INC.; ANDREW M., by and through his next friend

14

DENISE M., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; JACOB

15

T., by and through his next friend HEATHER T., on behalf of himself

16

and all others similarly situated; J.F., by and through her next friend CINDY

17

MCCONNELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,

18

Plaintiffs,

19

v.

20 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; MARK

21

HAKE, Chief of the Riverside County Probation Department, in his official

22

capacity; BRYCE HULSTROM, Chief Deputy of the Riverside County

23

Probation Department, in his official capacity,

24

Defendants.

25

CASE NO. 5:18-cv-01399 CLASS ACTION FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, NOMINAL DAMAGES (Violation of: First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; Article 1 §§ 2a, 3, 7, and 13 of the California Constitution; California Government Code § 11135)

26

27

28
SMRH:228057520.1

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 2 of 69 Page ID #:395

1 CHRISTINE P. SUN (SBN 218701)

2

csun@aclunc.org LINNEA L. NELSON (SBN 278960)

3 AlMneElsRonIC@AaNcluCnIcV.oIrLgLIBERTIES

UNION FOUNDATION OF

4 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.

5

39 Drumm St. San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 621-2493

6

SARAH HINGER*

7 8

AsMhinEgReIrC@AaNcluC.IoVrgIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION

125 Broad St., 18th Floor

9 New York, NY 10004

Telephone: (212) 519-7882

10 *Admitted Pro Hac Vice

11 DAVID LOY (SBN 229235)

12 MdEavLiIdSloSyA@DaEclLuEsaOnNdie(gSoB.oNrg272792)

13 AmMdEelReoICn@ANacCluIsVaInLdiLegIBo.EoRrgTIES

14

UNION FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES

P.O. Box 87131 15 San Diego, CA 92138-7131

Telephone: (619) 398-4489 16 Facsimile: (619) 232-0036

17

SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations MOE KESHAVARZI (SBN 223759) mAkNeDshRaEvaArzNi@. FsEheApTpHarEdRmSul(lSinB.cNom287188) afeathers@sheppardmullin.com 333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-1422 Telephone: (213) 620-1780 Facsimile: (213) 620-1398 MICHAEL HARRIS (SBN 118234) mharris@youthlaw.org NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW 405 14th Street, 15th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 835-8098 Facsimile: (410) 835-8099 VICTOR LEUNG (SBN 268590) AvLleEuXngIS@PaIcAluZsZocAal(.SoBrgN 316047) apiazza@aclusocal.org AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. 1313 W. 8th Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 977-5219 Facsimile: (213) 977-5299

18

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-2-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 3 of 69 Page ID #:396

1

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

2

1. In Riverside County, California, school administrators have

3 implemented an astonishingly punitive and ineffective law enforcement program. It

4 places children under probation supervision for normal, childish behavior. By doing

5 so, it systematically undermines our collective responsibility to give every child—

6 regardless of race or ethnicity—the chance to stay in school and on track to succeed.

7 Rather than supporting students to keep them engaged in school through mentorship

8 and counseling, the County sweeps children into six-month terms of probation

9 through its “Youth Accountability Team” (“YAT”) Program, for being “defiant,”

10 “easily persuaded by peers,” or tardy to school; using “inappropriate language”; and

11 behavior associated with grieving over the death of a parent. Every day that this

12 probation program remains in place, we jeopardize the potential of hundreds of

13 young people who are diverted away from educational success and toward the

14 criminal justice system.

15

2. Riverside County, through the Probation office and its allies, cannot be

16 permitted to target, ensnare, and discriminate against children in our schools in

17 Riverside County, by stripping them of their constitutional rights and treating them

18 like criminals. This needs to stop. Riverside County cannot be permitted to continue

19 to manipulate and financially benefit from this program on the backs of Riverside’s

20 children, especially Black and Latinx children.

21

3. Riverside County, through the collective efforts of its law enforcement

22 agencies, has subverted the purpose of the law under which the YAT program was

23 created by quietly sweeping tens of thousands of children and adolescents into

24 punitive probation supervision for the “offense” of childish behavior. These children

25 are put on contracts that impose a laundry list of onerous conditions that set young

26 people up to fail and also cause them to fall deeper into the criminal system. As

27 former Senior Probation Officer Debbie Waddell stated when describing the YAT

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-3-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 4 of 69 Page ID #:397

1 Program, “what we’re really doing is using this program to get them into the system

2 by fingerprinting and photographing them. We can search their homes any time we

3 want and work to obtain evidence against them so that when we can get ‘em, we can

4 really get ‘em!” Former Riverside County Deputy District Attorney Anthony

5 Villalobos followed these statements, explaining, “We can do all kinds of

6 surveillance, including wire taps on phones, without having to get permission from a

7 judge.”1

8

4. Many children have fallen prey and suffered the constitutional

9 violations and abuse that prevails in Riverside County’s YAT program. Plaintiffs

10 Andrew M., Jacob T., and J.F., are students in Riverside County who are or have

11 been placed on probation through the Riverside County YAT program for alleged

12 school misconduct. Plaintiff Sigma Beta Xi is a non-profit organization providing

13 mentoring services to children of color in Riverside County. Numerous Sigma Beta

14 Xi mentees are or have been placed on YAT probation. They are among the over

15 four hundred children placed on YAT probation each year. Between 2005 and 2016,

16 12,971 children across Riverside County have been placed on YAT probation,

17 including 3,219 for non-criminal offenses. Children as young as first graders have

18 been referred to YAT.

19

5. Riverside County’s Probation Department operates YAT probation as

20 an additional and more punitive and invasive layer of school discipline. Defendants

21 refer to YAT as a diversion program, in which “informal” probation purportedly

22 allows children to avoid the harsh penalties of being tried in court. Avoiding deeper

23 contact with the juvenile justice system would be an appropriate objective for a

24 diversion program. A substantial body of research shows that increased contact with

25 the juvenile justice system is counterproductive and harmful to child development

26

27 1 David L. Roberts, Psyche-Soul-ology, An Inspirational Approach to

28

Appreciating
SMRH:228057520.1

and

Understanding

Trou-b4l-ed

Kids

67–69

(2007).

FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 5 of 69 Page ID #:398

1 and rehabilitation. In practice, however, the “informal” nature of YAT probation

2 leaves children worse off. YAT probation keeps the harmful contacts with the

3 criminal system while eschewing procedural protections. Placing a child on YAT

4 probation includes none of the safeguards of judicial process, such as access to

5 appointed counsel, adequate notice of charges or the underlying facts, or any kind of

6 impartial decision maker. At the same time, it imposes consequences that are often

7 more severe than those that would be imposed by a court.

8

6. Rather than divert children, YAT draws more children into the criminal

9 system. Probation places YAT officers on site in public schools across Riverside

10 County and actively solicits referrals for things that would otherwise be addressed

11 routinely by the school and better resolved through supportive interventions.

12 Children are referred to Probation for alleged “behavior issues,” such as uttering

13 profanity, being easily influenced by peers, being late to class, and being

14 disrespectful. Defendants make use of an antiquated and unconstitutionally vague

15 law intended to regulate “incorrigible” children, Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 601, to

16 place children on terms of probation for these and other mundane school infractions.

17 In the absence of clear standards, enforcement of this law is both arbitrary and

18 discriminatory. Black and Latinx children in Riverside County are

19 disproportionately referred to probation for incorrigibility. One Black child was

20 placed on YAT probation for “pulling the race card.”

21

7. Placing children on probation under these circumstances is not only

22 counter-productive; it also violates their constitutional rights. Children subject to

23 YAT probation are required to comply with a long list of conditions, including

24 curfews and reporting absences to YAT, that set them up to fail. They are routinely

25 required to submit to drug testing and sign waivers permitting the search of their

26 home and persons in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. They are also

27 required to comply with broad requirements not to associate with anyone not

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-5-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 6 of 69 Page ID #:399

1 approved by Probation, infringing their First Amendment rights. Heavy-handed

2 supervision conditions like these have been shown to be ineffective and even

3 harmful.

4

8. Compounding the problems with YAT, Defendants place children on

5 YAT probation contracts through an entirely informal process that is void of basic

6 safeguards of procedural due process. Children ostensibly agree to submit to

7 conditions of probation that interfere with fundamental liberty under coercive

8 circumstances that preclude knowing, voluntary, or intelligent consent. Families also

9 ostensibly agree to comply under the same coercive conditions. The Defendants fail

10 to provide children and families with any formal notice of what children are charged

11 with or the underlying allegations, their legal rights, or the juvenile court process.

12 Instead, referral to YAT is communicated through a brief, informal, and inadequate

13 conversation by phone or in person at school, in which Defendants sometimes

14 blatantly misrepresent the nature of the YAT program and the consequences of not

15 acquiescing to YAT probation.

16

9. Knowing little except that they purportedly face charges in the criminal

17 system, children and their families enter a meeting with members of the YAT team,

18 which include probation officers and law enforcement, often armed, and can include

19 members of the prosecutor’s office, without the information needed to refute the

20 allegations or otherwise advocate for themselves. These meetings are held in YAT

21 offices or local police stations. No semblance of an impartial decision maker is

22 present. Children are not informed of their rights, including the right to remain silent

23 or to speak with a lawyer. Instead they are led to believe that if they do not agree to

24 enter the YAT program, they may be referred to the District Attorney’s office, even

25 when they are not accused of a criminal offense. Without their own advocate, and

26 facing their first involvement with the criminal system, children, as well as their

27 parents, are pressed to agree to a YAT probation contract. In these circumstances,

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-6-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 7 of 69 Page ID #:400

1 children who often stand accused of as little as violating school rules are not able to

2 make voluntary, knowing, and intelligent decisions to accept YAT probation’s

3 onerous conditions.

4

10. Beyond these constitutional violations, the injuries to children and their

5 families arising from YAT probation far outlive the child’s six-month probation

6 contract. Through YAT, law enforcement officials compile and exchange a vast

7 amount of information about a child, including their school records, which may

8 include special education records, counseling records, details about their family

9 history including contact with the justice system, substance abuse, domestic

10 violence, and history with other social service agencies, and individual family

11 member information. This includes information that law enforcement would have

12 been prohibited from obtaining under the Fourth Amendment. Defendants retain and

13 use this vast quantity of sensitive information even after the successful completion

14 of a YAT contract. Indeed, even though Defendants claim that the YAT program is

15 informal and intended to keep children out of the juvenile justice system,

16 information obtained about a child through YAT may be used against them in future

17 juvenile court proceedings. Once a child has been involved with YAT, no matter the

18 basis, he or she is statutorily ineligible for any other diversion opportunity in the

19 future.

20

11. Plaintiffs Andrew M., Jacob T. and J.F. bring this action on behalf of

21 themselves and on behalf of a class of similarly situated children in Riverside

22 County who have been placed on YAT probation or who have been referred to YAT

23 but not yet placed on YAT probation. Defendants’ operation of YAT infringes

24 Plaintiffs’ constitutional and civil rights under California and federal law, including

25 their rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S.

26 Constitution, the California Constitution Article 1, sections 2a, 3, 7, and 13, and

27 California Government Code § 11135. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-7-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 8 of 69 Page ID #:401

1 relief from the ongoing injury to their rights. Plaintiff Sigma Beta Xi brings this

2 action as an organization whose mission has been frustrated by the operation of

3 YAT.

4

II. PARTIES

5

12. Plaintiff Andrew M. is a fifteen-year-old Black male who resides in

6 Moreno Valley, in Riverside County, California, and attends Valley View High

7 School in the Moreno Valley Unified School District. He appears in this action by

8 and through his mother and next friend, Denise M., and will submit a motion to

9 appear under a fictitious name. Denise M. resides with Andrew M. in Moreno

10 Valley, California, and is a competent and reasonable person who is dedicated to

11 acting in Andrew M.’s best interests and fairly and adequately representing him in

12 this litigation. Denise M. is willing to act as Andrew M.’s next friend in this

13 litigation and is sufficiently familiar with the facts of his situation.

14

13. Plaintiff Jacob T. is a sixteen-year-old white male who resides in

15 Moreno Valley, in Riverside County, California, and attends the Riverside County

16 Education Academy, a military academy associated with the Riverside County

17 Office of Education. He appears in this action by and through his mother and next

18 friend, Heather T., and will submit a motion to appear under a fictitious name.

19 Heather T. resides with Jacob in Moreno Valley, California, and is a competent and

20 reasonable person who is dedicated to acting in Jacob T.’s best interests and fairly

21 and adequately representing him in this litigation. Heather T. is willing to act as

22 Jacob T.’s next friend in this litigation and is sufficiently familiar with the facts of

23 his situation.

24

14. Plaintiff J.F. is a seventeen-year-old Black female who resides in

25 Moreno Valley, in Riverside County, California and attends Val Verde High School,

26 a continuation school in the Val Verde Unified School District. She previously

27 attended Rancho Verde High School. She appears in this action by and through her

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-8-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 9 of 69 Page ID #:402

1 grandmother and next friend, Cindy McConnell. Cindy McConnell resides with J.F.

2 in Moreno Valley, California, and is a competent and reasonable person who is

3 dedicated to acting in J.F.’s best interests. Cindy McConnell is willing to act as

4 J.F.’s next friend in this litigation and is sufficiently familiar with the facts of her

5 situation.

6

15. Plaintiff Sigma Beta Xi, Inc. (“Sigma Beta Xi”), is a non-profit

7 community-based organization located in Moreno Valley, California, that provides

8 mentoring and leadership development services to approximately 220 children of

9 color in Riverside County who are struggling in school. These mentoring services

10 further Sigma Beta Xi’s mission “to establish strong families and communities by

11 building an organization of diverse men and women who will exemplify leadership

12 and professionalism based upon the principles of brotherhood, sisterhood,

13 excellence, endurance, wisdom, service, and unity.”

14

16. Defendant Riverside County (“County”) is a municipality within the

15 State of California, with capacity to sue and be sued. Riverside County Board of

16 Supervisors (“Board of Supervisors”) is the governing body of the County. The

17 Board of Supervisors is responsible for supervising all county officers, including all

18 agencies and departments responsible for implementing and administering the

19 Youth Accountability Program. Cal. Gov’t Code § 2530. The Riverside County

20 Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (“Council”), led by the County Chief

21 Probation Officer, is responsible for developing a “comprehensive multiagency

22 juvenile justice plan” (“JJCPA Plan”), pursuant to California Government Code §

23 30061, through which it developed and continues to reauthorize and expand the

24 operation of the Youth Accountability Program. The Board of Supervisors is

25 responsible for approving the Council’s plan each year.

26

17. Defendant Mark Hake, sued in his official capacity, is the Chief

27 Probation Officer for the Riverside County Department of Probation. Defendant

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-9-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 10 of 69 Page ID #:403

1 Hake is also the Chair of the Riverside County Juvenile Justice Coordinating

2 Council.

3

18. Defendant Bryce Hulstrom, sued in his official capacity, is the Deputy

4 Chief Probation Officer for the Riverside County Department of Probation.

5

19. Defendants are the officials responsible for operating the Youth

6 Accountability Program, enforcing California Welfare & Institutions Code sections

7 601 and 654, and implementing the policies, practices, and customs challenged in

8 this Complaint.

9

20. Defendants, acting under color of state law, performed, participated in,

10 aided and/or abetted the acts and omissions averred herein, proximately caused the

11 damages averred below, and are liable to Plaintiffs for the damages, injunctive, and

12 declaratory relief sought herein.

13

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14

21. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations

15 of rights secured under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

16 States Constitution. Plaintiffs also bring state claims under Article I, sections 2a, 3,

17 7, and 13 of the California Constitution, and California Government Code

18 section 11135.

19

22. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

20 1331 and 1343, because the matters in controversy arise under the Constitution of

21 the United States. Additionally, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court has

22 supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims made under the California

23 Constitution and the California Government Code because such claims stem from

24 the same case or controversy arising from a common nucleus of operative fact.

25

23. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they

26 operate within this district, and because Defendants’ acts and omissions took place

27 within this district.

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-10-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 11 of 69 Page ID #:404

1

24. Venue is proper in this federal district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

2 Defendants are located in the Central District of California and all of the acts and/or

3 omissions complained of herein have occurred or will occur in this district.

4 Additionally, Plaintiffs reside in this district.

5

IV. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

6 A. Adolescent Development and Ineffective and Effective Interventions Across

7

the Education and Juvenile Justice Systems

8

25. In recent decades, emerging research on adolescent development has

9 prompted numerous reforms in juvenile justice and school-based approaches to

10 children’s behavior. Research documents the process of adolescent development as

11 marked by important changes in brain systems involving cognitive and behavioral

12 control and socioemotional functioning.2 As the Supreme Court recognized, the

13 scientific research confirms “what any parent knows,” that children “are more

14 vulnerable or susceptible to outside pressures,” and, in in the context of interaction

15 with law enforcement, can be easily “overawe[d] and overwhelm[ed].” J.D.B. v.

16 North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261, 272–73 (2011) (internal alterations, quotations, and

17 citations omitted). Through adolescent development, children are unlikely to be

18 motivated by sanctions and deterrent strategies, whereas individualized supports and

19 positive incentives are more likely to help children to develop positive life skills.3

20

26. Recognizing these facets of adolescent development has important

21 implications for responding to children’s behaviors.4 Across education and juvenile

22

23

24

2

National Research Council, Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Approach 2 (Richard J. Bonnie et al. eds. 2013), https://doi.org/10.17226/14685.

25 3 Richard A. Mendel, Annie E. Casey Foundation, Transforming Juvenile

26

Probation: A Vision for Getting It Right 10 (2018), http://www.aecf.org/resources/transforming-juvenile-probation/.

27 4 National Research Council, supra note 2, at 2 (concluding that “[m]uch

28

adolescent
SMRH:228057520.1

involvement

in

illegal

acti-v1i1ty-

is

an

extension

of

the

kind

of

risk

FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 12 of 69 Page ID #:405

1 justice systems, it was once thought that harsher responses to children’s misconduct

2 were necessary to correct wayward children before they became hardened criminals

3 and to prevent a wave of “super predators.”5 Today, researchers and policy makers

4 recognize not only that this fear was misplaced, but also that these zero-tolerance

5 approaches actually fail to prevent future recidivism or disciplinary issues and can

6 have substantial negative impacts for children.6 As the Government Accountability

7 Office observes: “Students who face certain types of discipline in school may be

8 affected in profound ways that influence their lives as adults. . . . Research has

9 shown that students who are suspended from school lose important instructional

10 time, are less likely to graduate on time, and are more likely to repeat a grade, drop

11 out of school, and become involved in the juvenile justice system. The effects of

12 certain discipline events, such as dropping out, can linger throughout an individual’s

13 lifetime and lead to individual and societal costs.”7 Recognizing this, many states

14 and school districts are moving to reduce reliance on suspensions, expulsions, and

15 referrals to the justice system, relying more on supportive interventions and changes

16 to school culture with demonstrated positive effects.8

17

27. Within the juvenile justice system, research also demonstrates the need

18 to reassess prior approaches. Many interventions previously adopted in an effort to

19

20 taking that is part of the developmental process of identity formation, and most 21 adolescents mature out of these tendencies”).

22 5 Id. at 38–41.

23 6 See, e.g., id. at 43–47.

24

7

U.S. Government Accountability Office, K-12 Education: Discipline Disparities for Black Students, Boys, and Students with Disabilities 1 (March 2018),

25 https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/690828.pdf.

26 8 See National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, What

27

Works Clearing House: Behavior, https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/FWW/Results?filters=,Behavior (last visited June

28 25, 2018). SMRH:228057520.1

-12-

FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 13 of 69 Page ID #:406

1 get tough on juveniles were not only misguided but ineffective and harmful to

2 children. “Research shows that juvenile justice systems can do more harm than good

3 by actively intervening with children who are low risk of reoffending.”9

4 Summarizing the research, the Counsel of State Governments (“CSG”) identifies a

5 number of “generally ineffective” juvenile justice programs, including: overcrowded

6 detention facilities, boot camps, curfews, and “scared straight and other ‘shock

7 therapy’ programs.”10 As with ineffective responses in the education system, these

8 forms of intervention focus on control, discipline, fear and surveillance. Instead,

9 CSG highlights successful approaches including the use of cognitive behavioral

10 therapy, engaging families and supportive mentors, focusing resources on promoting

11 positive behavioral change, and using developmentally informed means of holding

12 children accountable.11 Recognizing the potential to do more harm than good, many

13 states and localities are adopting reforms to limit children’s contact with the system.

14

28. Juvenile probation programs have not received the same level of

15 attention as other facets of juvenile and criminal justice reform. However, as the

16 Annie E. Casey Foundation recently reported, “the research indicates that

17 surveillance-oriented probation is not an effective strategy for reversing delinquent

18 behavior, with insignificant effects on reoffending and especially poor results with

19

20

21 9 Elizabeth Siegle, et al., Counsel of State Governments Justice Center, Core
22 Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in 23 the Juvenile Justice System 9 (2014), https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/07/Core-Principles-for-Reducing-Recidivism-and24 Improving-Other-Outcomes-for-Youth-in-the-Juvenile-Justice-System.pdf.

25 10 Id. at 17 (citing Mark Lipsey, et al., Improving the Effectiveness of Juvenile

26

Justice Programs: A New Perspective on Evidence-Based Practice (2010), https://cjjr.georgetown.edu/wp-

27 content/uploads/2015/03/ImprovingEffectiveness_December2010.pdf).

28

11 Siegle et
SMRH:228057520.1

al.,

supra

note

9,

at

18,

36–4-01.3-

FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 14 of 69 Page ID #:407

1 youth at low risk of re-arrest.”12 Moreover, as Casey Foundation researchers

2 summarize:

3

Studies dating back decades have found that many or most diversion

4

program participants are accused of minor misbehaviors, which would be handled more appropriately with a warning—despite a large body of

5

research showing that this “net-widening” dynamic of diversion programs sometimes does more harm than good.13

6 Instead, students accused of school misbehavior or accused of low-level offenses

7 should be referred to appropriate service providers.14 Probation officers should have

8 no role in overseeing diverted children and rather should carry smaller caseloads of

9 children convicted of crimes, and focus on positive behavior change for these

10 children.15

11

29. The use of counterproductive and harmful interventions has greater

12 consequence for children of color, who are more likely to be subject to punitive

13 school discipline and overrepresented across the juvenile justice system. Research

14 evidences substantial racial disparities in school discipline that are “not explained by

15 more serious or more frequent misbehavior by children of color.”16 Disparities in

16 school discipline are most pronounced for offenses like “defiance” or “disrespect,”

17 where school staff must rely on their own subjective interpretations to enforce

18 school rules.17 Racial disparities carry over to and persist within the juvenile justice

19 system. For example, one study of the narrative reports of probation officers found

20

21 12 Mendel, supra note 3, at 7.

22 13 Id. at 13.

23 14 Id. at 27.

24

15 16

Id. at 31. Siegle et al., supra note 9, at 4 & n.7.

25 17 Russell J. Skiba et al., Race is Not Neutral: A National Investigation of African

26 American and Latino Disproportionality in School Discipline, 40 School Psych.

27

Rev. 1, 101 (2011), http://www.indiana.edu/~equity/docs/Skiba%20et%20al%20Race%20is%20Not

28 %20Neutral%202011.pdf. SMRH:228057520.1

-14-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 15 of 69 Page ID #:408

1 that “probation officers describe black and white youths differently, referring to

2 negative personality traits for black youths and more to negative environmental

3 influences for whites,” and that “black youths were judged to have a higher risk of

4 reoffending.”18 Similarly, white youth are more likely to use marijuana, but Black

5 youth are more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession.19 To address racial

6 disparities in the juvenile criminal system, CSG recommends practices that

7 “promote objective decision making,” such as improving the quality of and access to

8 defense attorneys, training on recognizing and overcoming explicit and implicit bias

9 and becoming more culturally competent and continued oversight of the system.20

10 B. History and Structure of the Youth Accountability Team Program

11

30. The California Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (“JJCPA”) was

12 passed in 2000 to provide funding for programs “demonstrated to be effective in

13 reducing delinquency . . . including prevention, intervention, suppression, and

14 incapacitation.”21 When the JJCPA was passed, California, like much of the country,

15 was focused on increasing criminal penalties and expanding law enforcement

16 surveillance and control over children. Today, however, state and local actors

17 recognize that their “tough on crime” approach left California hemorrhaging money

18 on ineffective and counterproductive programs while ignoring the needs and

19

20 18 George S. Bridges & Sarah Steen, Racial disparities in official assessments of

21

juvenile offenders: Attributional stereotypes as mediating mechanisms, 63 Am. Soc. Rev., 554, 561 (1998).

22 19 Cylan Matthews, The Black/White Marijuana Arrest Gap, In Nine Charts,

23 WASHINGTON POST (June 4, 2013), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/04/the-blackwhite-
24 marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/?utm_term=.1efda39c3684.

25 20 Siegle et al., supra note 9, at 41.

26 21 The Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act, Cal. Gov’t Code, §30061(b)(4)(B)(i)

27

(2000). The Act was originally named the Schiff-Cardena Crime Prevention Act of 2000. See http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/asm/ab_1901-

28 SMRH1:292580057/5a20b.1_1913_bill_20000908_chapte-r1e5d-.html.

FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 16 of 69 Page ID #:409

1 characteristics unique to children and failing to provide them the tools, resources,

2 and education they needed to succeed. The legislature has since passed a number of

3 bills to reform the juvenile justice system to promote rehabilitation and protect

4 children’s constitutional rights.22

5

31. The JJCPA, which requires county programs to be “demonstrated to be

6 effective” and include a “continuum of responses,” Cal. Gov’t Code §

7 30061(b)(4)(A)(iii), (b)(4)(B)(i), provides sufficient flexibility to permit local

8 governments to similarly reform their juvenile justice practices in light of

9 developing research and evolving best practices and to better protect juvenile rights.

10 However, Riverside County continues to use millions of dollars in JJCPA funds to

11 operate a program employing tactics shown to be counterproductive and even

12 harmful to children.

13

32. In 2001, the County adopted a Juvenile Justice Plan that included the

14 creation of the “Youth Accountability Team” Program run by the Department of

15 Probation. The Youth Accountability Team Program has operated consistently since

16 2001 as the most substantial component of the County JJCPA Plan. The Department

17 of Probation runs YAT probation. Law enforcement agencies across the county as

18 well as the District Attorney’s Office are also parties to a joint MOU setting out

19 their roles in operating YAT.

20

33. YAT purports to operate pursuant to California Welfare & Institutions

21 Code section 654, which provides:

22

In any case in which a probation officer, after [an investigation]

23

concludes that a minor is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court or will probably soon be within that jurisdiction, the probation officer

24

may, in lieu of filing a petition to declare a minor a dependent child of the court or a minor or a ward of the court under Section 601 . . . and

25

26 22 See California Legislature Approves Juvenile Justice Bills to Update Miranda

27

Rights, Allow Parole for Youthful Offenders, CAL. STATE SENATE (Sept. 15, 2017), http://sd33.senate.ca.gov/news/2017-09-15-california-legislature-

28 SMRHa:p22p80r5o75v20e.1s-juvenile-justice-bills-update--1m6-iranda-rights-allow.

FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 17 of 69 Page ID #:410

1

with consent of the minor and the minor’s parent or guardian, delineate specific programs of supervision for the minor, for not to exceed six

2

months . . . .

3

34. Section 654 permits the creation of a program of diversion from formal

4 adjudication and the presumably more serious consequences applicable therein. A

5 child is only eligible for a program of supervision under Section 654 for a first-time

6 offense, and is ineligible if she has already participated in a program under Section

7 654. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 654.3. Children accused of certain offenses are

8 presumed ineligible. Id.

9

35. YAT targets children “ages 12-17 years old who are purportedly

10 displaying pre-delinquent and delinquent behavior” (emphasis added). This

11 effectively brings more children, not fewer, into the juvenile justice system, relying

12 on probation supervision to take the place of school-based interventions.

13

36. YAT officers aggressively solicit referrals for children considered to be

14 “at risk,” which YAT broadly defines to include “family conflict, mental health,

15 school adjustment, or gang involvement.” As one school district explained in

16 responding to a public records request, “YAT . . . look[s] for students who have

17 been involved in the first stages of school discipline, might have poor or failing

18 grades, and are showing initial signs of moving toward more at-risk behaviors.”

19 These children, who have not committed any criminal offense, are then placed on a

20 regimented probation contract.

21

37. As Defendants have described in presenting the YAT probation

22 program to school districts, YAT probation contracts “contain terms and conditions

23 similar to those issued by the Courts to juveniles placed on formal probation,” such

24 as curfew, weekly check-ins, home searches, and community service, and last for six

25 months. “Cases may be terminated and forwarded to the YAT District Attorney at

26 any time for possible adjudication in Juvenile Court due to non-compliance or

27 violations,” and “[w]arnings, community restriction, and increased or additional

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-17-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 18 of 69 Page ID #:411

1 terms may be added to an existing YAT contract at any time for non-compliance.”

2 These terms mean that a school rule violation can be viewed by Defendants as cause

3 to prosecute a child. The YAT probation contract likewise ominously states that

4 “any violation of the terms and conditions may be grounds for referring the matter to

5 the District Attorney’s Office for prosecution,” even when the underlying alleged

6 conduct is not criminal.

7

38. Each year, most of the County’s JJCPA funds are allocated to YAT.

8 For fiscal year 2017–2018, the County proposed budget allocated $10,627,404 to

9 YAT, ninety-seven percent of the County’s JJCPA budget. The vast majority of

10 these funds are allocated to pay the salaries of Probation officers, law enforcement,

11 and District Attorneys’ office employees assigned to work with the YAT program.

12 Over a span of eight years, between fiscal years 2009–2010 and 2016–2017, the

13 average percentage of JJCPA funds allocated to salaries and benefits was 82.64%,

14 while community-based organizations received an average of 8.10% of funds.

15 According to the terms of the MOU’s, school districts also donate office space and

16 supplies, like telephones, to YAT officers operating within their schools.

17

39. YAT is currently established in seventeen school districts in Riverside

18 County. In 2015, the most recent year of complete data available to Plaintiffs, 1,505

19 children were referred to YAT and 915 were placed on probation. Defendants have

20 actively sought to expand the number of young people placed on YAT probation,

21 including by expanding their presence from high schools into middle schools in

22 Riverside County. In 2016, the Department of Probation itself reported that it had

23 launched an effort to increase referrals, “resulting in a 189% increase in the referrals

24 received monthly.”

25

26

27

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-18-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 19 of 69 Page ID #:412

1 C. Defendants Use an Unconstitutionally Vague Law and Vague Referral

2

Criteria to Funnel Children into YAT Probation for Common School

3

Disobedience and Symptoms of Trauma

4

40. Through YAT, Defendants actively solicit and facilitate referrals from

5 schools, including for non-criminal behaviors, and rely on the vague terms of an

6 antiquated incorrigibility law and an informal process to place children on terms of

7 probation supervision that infringe their constitutional rights, frequently exceed the

8 maximum penalties contemplated by the legislature, and come with other harmful

9 direct consequences.

10

41. Defendants frequently place children under onerous probation

11 supervision not on the basis of the commission of any criminal offense, but merely

12 adolescent misbehavior. A review of the first five years of YAT’s operation found

13 that at least seventy-six percent of referrals to YAT were made for status offenses—

14 things that are only offenses because of a person’s age—and recognized that “[i]n

15 the past, the [Juvenile Justice] system or the community did not actively engage

16 these youth.”

17

42. Defendants hide behind the vague terms of California Welfare &

18 Institutions Code section 601 (“Section 601”) to inveigle children as young as

19 eleven years old into YAT and the criminal system for a wide range of typical

20 school misbehavior and even for reasons that have nothing to do with accusations of

21 misconduct. For example, some children have been referred to YAT because they

22 have identifiable mental health needs, are exhibiting symptoms of trauma, or are

23 simply showing signs of adolescent immaturity.

24

43. Section 601 makes it an offense for a juvenile to “persistent[ly] or

25 habitual[ly] refuse[] to obey the reasonable and proper orders or directions of school

26 authorities.” This antiquated provision dates to the earliest codification of California

27 law, and to a time when legislative drafters presumed the state’s wide latitude to

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-19-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 20 of 69 Page ID #:413

1 regulate the lives of juveniles, standing in the stead of their parents. The Supreme

2 Court has since made clear that juveniles have constitutional rights, including the

3 right to due process, which the state must respect. See In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1

4 (1967). The terms of Section 601 cannot, therefore, remain unchanged and open-

5 ended.

6

44. Section 601 provides no further definition of the term “persistently or

7 habitually,” leaving the average child or adult to guess at how many instances, or

8 how long a period of disobedience, might trigger the law’s invocation. Moreover,

9 the law provides no further guidance in interpreting the term “reasonable and proper

10 orders or directions.” Instead, enforcement authority is delegated to school staff,

11 meaning that a teacher can elevate a violation of school rules to a justice system

12 referral on the basis of his or her subjective judgment. The vague terms of these

13 laws invite arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. The discretion to interpret

14 these vague terms invites implicit and explicit bias in referrals and outcomes

15 impermissibly based on the race and disability status of the child.

16

45. Probation takes full advantage, assuming an unfettered grant of

17 authority. It actively solicits and requires referrals to YAT from school staff

18 pointing to the terms of an MOU they created. Probation encourages referrals for

19 non-criminal, mundane childhood behavior, including: “failure/refusal to follow

20 directives (actively or passively): at school (e.g. talking back to security guard) or at

21 home (e.g. curfew, chores, telephone use)”; “general and repetitive disrespect

22 toward family or school authority figures (incorrigible)”; and “anti-social behavior

23 that disrupts classroom activity—talking during class, refusal to do work,

24 prohibiting others from learning, walking out of class, talking back to the teacher,

25 etc.—as reported by the teacher.”

26

46. A 2015 YAT Technical Report identifies possible “charges” for YAT

27 referrals to include, inter alia, truancy, defiance/incorrigibility, and “mental issues.”

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-20-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 21 of 69 Page ID #:414

1 “Mental issues” is further defined in YAT’s template entry assessment form to

2 include “suicide attempts” and “treatment/problems.” The standard referral form

3 created by YAT includes similar though not entirely consistent “problem areas” and

4 “mental health issues” that school staff or other referrers can select for Riverside

5 County to then funnel children in crisis into the YAT program and the criminal

6 system.

7

47. Conflating childhood behavior with criminal conduct, Defendants fast-

8 track and reroute children into criminal supervision who are processing deep grief or

9 trauma, displaying signs of disability, or simply having an off day focusing and

10 following directions. Indeed, children have been referred to YAT for:

11

 “behavior issues” (Cambodian elementary school student);

12

 “student behavior modification” (Latino seventh grader);

13

 “is easily persuaded by peers, is often late to school and classes”

14

(Latina eighth grader);

15

 “engaged in profanity and willfully defied authority” (Black eighth

16

grader);

17

 “caus[ing] daily disruptions by arriving late to nearly all of her classes”

18

(Latina seventh grader);

19

 “poor attendance/grades. Lack of motivation. Mother has not been

20

involved” (Native American eighth grader);

21

 “disrespectful towards peers and staff. Habitual foul language, refuses

22

to follow rules” (Latino seventh grader with likely disability); and

23

 “caused daily classroom disruptions. Uses inappropriate language and

24

refuses to do classwork” (Black sixth grader).

25

48. As these referrals demonstrate, an alleged violation of Section 601 is

26 assessed not by any specific metric, but by an indeterminate and wholly subjective

27 assessment of a student’s behavior. The citations included on Probation contracts are

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-21-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 22 of 69 Page ID #:415

1 no clearer. For example, Defendants have placed children on probation contracts for

2 such vague and innocuous reasons as:

3

 “incorrigible minor” (Latina eighth grader from Mountain View Middle

4

School, Beaumont Unified School District);

5

 “Suspension, Defiance, Disruptive Behavior, Previous MH

6

Intervention” (white eighth grader from Riverside Unified School

7

District);

8

 “601 (Defiance and Disruptive Behavior)” (Latino eighth grader from

9

Mira Loma Middle School, Jurupa Unified School District); and

10

 “school discipline” (Latino fifth grader from Dr. Carreon Jr. Academy,

11

Desert Sands Unified School District).

12

49. Often, Probation merely cites the catch-all phrase “601 WIC,” with no

13 further specification, as the basis for placing children on YAT probation. Other

14 times, Probation omits any reference to Section 601 or any other code section and

15 instead cites “school discipline,” “grades / behavior,” “disruptive school behavior

16 and bullying,” and other school-related behavior on a YAT probation contract,

17 adding to the uncertainty. Since 2005, Probation has swept into its supervision more

18 than 12,971 children who had no previous history of court or probation involvement

19 merely because Probation deemed the child to be “at risk” for future misbehavior

20 and thus “soon to be within the [juvenile court’s] jurisdiction” under Section 654.

21

50. The terms of Sections 601 permit not only an arbitrary, but also a

22 racially discriminatory exercise of law enforcement power. For example, one

23 referral to YAT for an eleven-year-old sixth grader was in part based on the child’s

24 perceived “use [of] ‘race card’ against [school] staff,” suggesting that students who

25 challenge racial discrimination by school staff may be deemed offenders and “at

26 risk” of becoming criminals. In Riverside County, and across the state, Black

27 children are more likely than others to be charged with violating Section 601.

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-22-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 23 of 69 Page ID #:416

1 Between 2003 and 2016, Black children in Riverside County were two and a half

2 times more likely than their white counterparts to be referred to YAT under Section

3 601. Latinx children were also almost one and half times more likely than their

4 white peers to be referred to YAT under Section 601. Riverside County’s racial

5 discrimination and abuse parallels findings in the context of school discipline, where

6 racial disparities are most prevalent in discipline for subjectively-defined offenses,

7 such as “disrespect.”

8

51. During the 2015–16 school year, Black children were referred to YAT

9 at nearly three times their rate of enrollment countywide, and Black boys in

10 particular were referred to YAT at over three times their rate of enrollment. About

11 thirty-two percent of Riverside County students are Latinx, but Latinx students were

12 more than thirty-nine percent of all YAT referrals during the 2015–16 school year.

13 A significantly greater proportion (thirty percent) of referrals for Latinx students

14 were for the lowest-level, Section 601 offenses (defiance, incorrigibility, curfew and

15 truancy), as compared to students in other racial groups.

16

52. Riverside County persistently abuses Section 601, ensnaring children

17 experiencing grief, trauma, mental health issues, or behavioral disabilities and

18 subjecting them to probation supervision and the criminal system. For example, one

19 sixth grader was targeted for YAT after a conversation between an administrator and

20 the student’s parent revealed that the child was experiencing “[a]nger/grief issues[,

21 is s]eparated from his father[, and] his [u]ncle died last year.” A Black seventh

22 grader who was experiencing “grief over loss of [her] baby sister” was similarly

23 referred to YAT probation for “grief, bullying, and instigation.” A middle school

24 principal who knew that an eleven-year-old boy was homeless nonetheless sent the

25 child to Probation because he was “frequently absent from school.” Under the vague

26 terms of the law, the trauma and hardship associated with death and experiencing

27 homelessness can be cited to sweep children into an unconstitutional program that

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-23-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 24 of 69 Page ID #:417

1 turns their normal, age-appropriate reaction to difficult circumstances into

2 “offenses,” sending them into a pipeline to the criminal justice system.

3 D. Defendants Disregard Fundamental Due Process Protections in Placing

4

Children on Probation

5

53. Defendants have targeted and funneled thousands of children who

6 would not otherwise be drawn into contact with the juvenile system, imposed

7 onerous demands, and abused outmoded and vague statutory provisions. Further,

8 Defendants, as a policy, practice, or custom, operate YAT in a manner that violates

9 fundamental tenets of procedural due process, inducing “consent” that is not

10 voluntary, knowing, or intelligent and is instead made without adequate notice or the

11 advice of counsel and absent oversight or a meaningful opportunity to be heard by

12 an independent arbitrator.

13

54. Defendants authorize, approve, and encourage officers to use as little as

14 a phone call to notify children and their families of referral to YAT. This practice

15 fails to ensure that children have sufficient notice of the allegations against them and

16 the consequences they face. A child’s referral to the YAT program initiates a one-

17 sided process controlled by Probation that operates without procedural safeguards

18 that are fundamental to a lawful and credible justice system.

19

55. Even the most substantial form of notice contemplated by Defendants,

20 a letter, falls far short of what due process requires. The letter is printed on

21 Probation letterhead and indicates that the child was referred to YAT probation,

22 which is described as a “diversion program.” Because a referral can be made by

23 anyone, for any reason, this may be the first time that a child and her family learn

24 that she is accused of committing an offense or being vaguely “at risk” of

25 committing a criminal offense. Information describing the reason for referral is

26 limited to at most a legal code citation and a police report number, if one exists. The

27 letter fails to provide the text describing the law the child allegedly violated, or any

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-24-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 25 of 69 Page ID #:418

1 description of the conduct the child allegedly engaged in. This complete failure of

2 notice places the burden on children and their families to figure out why they are

3 required to meet with Probation.

4

56. Probation’s letter also fails to provide any explanation of the child’s

5 rights, the juvenile court process, an explanation of the requirements of YAT

6 probation, or the consequences that follow from being placed on YAT probation.

7 Noticeably absent from the letter is any statement informing the child and the

8 child’s family that YAT probation is entirely voluntary. Instead, the terms of the

9 letter indicate that compliance is required. The letter sometimes includes language

10 indicating either that an appointment has been scheduled for a particular date and

11 time, or that the parent “must contact [the probation officer] as soon as possible” to

12 schedule an appointment. Both of these provisions convey that meeting with the

13 probation officer is required. The probation officer may also include a warning in

14 the letter that if a family fails to meet the appointment or response deadline, “the

15 matter may be referred to the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office for the

16 filing of criminal charges in Juvenile Court.”

17

57. Moreover, the notice letter is written in English. Apparently

18 recognizing that many families in Riverside County speak Spanish as a first

19 language, the letters also state in Spanish: “If you do not speak English, please bring

20 a member of your family or a friend to be your interpreter.” The letter does not offer

21 to provide a translation of the letter or to provide an interpreter for the appointment.

22 The failure to provide translation only adds to the power imbalance and the inability

23 of the child, and the family, to comprehend the circumstances and make an informed

24 choice regarding YAT probation.

25

58. In other instances, and consistent with policy, practice, and custom,

26 Probation fails to provide any formal written notification to a child and the child’s

27 family indicating that the child has been referred to YAT. Instead, Defendants

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-25-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 26 of 69 Page ID #:419

1 inform the family by phone or other informal means. When notice is provided

2 during a phone call or by other informal means, it fails to provide the most basic

3 assurances of fair process. There are serious consequences if a family does not

4 understand or fails to remember details communicated solely over the phone.

5 According to Defendants, failure to attend a meeting could result in criminal charges

6 or a determination that the family is ineligible for diversion. At this critical juncture,

7 notice by phone is wholly insufficient.

8

59. Children and their families thus arrive at the YAT probation meeting

9 misled and believing that they face criminal charges and that they are required to

10 meet with a probation officer, but without information about the charges, the

11 juvenile court process, the terms and consequences of YAT probation, or their legal

12 rights. In addition to the informational asymmetry, children who have never been in

13 trouble with the law before walk into a law enforcement setting and are surrounded

14 by several experienced, sometimes armed, law enforcement officers. These meetings

15 are held at YAT offices or police departments and are attended by probation officers

16 and police officers, who may be visibly armed. Representatives of the District

17 Attorney’s Office are also actively involved in preparing for YAT contract meetings

18 and can attend. In addition to the lack of adequate notice, children are also without

19 appointed counsel to advise them.

20

60. During the meeting, probation officers present children and their

21 families with a YAT probation contract requiring compliance with numerous

22 conditions to purportedly avoid the possibility of prosecution. Riverside County,

23 however, does not prosecute Section 601 petitions, meaning that acquiescence to

24 YAT in exchange for an agreement not to prosecute is entirely misleading, if not

25 outright false. Moreover, children, and families, are not informed that the conditions

26 of YAT probation are often more onerous than those they would face if they did not

27 agree to YAT probation. For example, a first time possession of marijuana at school,

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-26-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 27 of 69 Page ID #:420

1 if pursued, is punishable under California law by four hours of counseling and ten

2 hours of community service, and no form of probationary supervision is authorized

3 by the law. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11357(d). However, children have been

4 placed on probation supervision with many additional onerous terms for the same

5 offense.

6

61. Surrounded by law enforcement, and lacking basic information and

7 advice of counsel, a child is presented in this meeting with a critical decision: if she

8 declines to accept probation supervision at this moment, according to Defendants,

9 she may be required to go to court and may not be offered diversion again. If she

10 accepts YAT probation, she submits to onerous terms of supervision. The decision

11 carries consequences of which the child will likely be unaware, seriously impairing

12 her ability to evaluate her options.

13

62. In these circumstances, a child cannot voluntarily, knowingly, or

14 intelligently agree to YAT probation. Nor could their families or any adult.

15 Defendant officers obtain acquiescence to YAT probation through a process marked

16 by a complete lack of procedural safeguards and a coercive and intimidating

17 environment.

18

63. Under these conditions, the likelihood that Plaintiffs’ constitutional

19 rights will be violated is clear. Federal and state constitutional laws, as well as state

20 statutory laws, protect various children’s rights implicated by the YAT probation

21 placement procedures and the determination of whether to choose YAT probation or

22 defend against allegations in court. These include liberty and privacy interests as

23 well as the right to a speedy trial and the right to remain silent. The right to counsel

24 is also afforded to California Juveniles in all proceedings under California Welfare

25 & Institutions Code sections 601 and 602. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 634. Despite

26 the clear implications of a decision to accept YAT probation on these firmly

27

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-27-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 28 of 69 Page ID #:421

1 established rights, Probation has no policies in place to ensure that officers respect

2 these rights or advise children regarding their rights.

3 E. YAT Contract Conditions Exceed Statutorily Authorized Consequences and

4

Unconstitutionally Intrude on Constitutional Rights

5

64. When a child acquiesces to participate in YAT, she receives a six-

6 month probation contract memorialized on a standard, pre-filled form, which

7 includes a checklist of default terms of YAT probation supervision. Additional

8 terms may be checked or amendments made during the meeting. The terms of YAT

9 probation are numerous, including required compliance with curfew, weekly check-

10 ins with probation, attendance at weekly classes, requirements to obey parents,

11 probation, and school authorities, notifications of any absence or late arrival at

12 school, drug testing, requirements to attend a corrections facility tour, and other

13 terms. These terms are not drawn based on a nexus with the underlying offense.

14

65. Pursuant to policy, practice, and custom, YAT probation imposes terms

15 that are often more onerous and invasive than even court-ordered probation for

16 similar offenses. The standard YAT probation contract permits YAT officers to

17 impose broad search conditions stating: “I will submit to search/test of my

18 person/vehicle/premises upon request of the Probation Officer or YAT member.”

19 While this term encompasses testing, in some cases, a drug testing requirement is

20 also included as a separate line. Children, and their families, are not informed that

21 this term constitutes a waiver of their Fourth Amendment Rights. This term thus

22 allows Defendants to assert broad authority to search and surveille children and their

23 families, without even a determination of probable cause and without judicial

24 oversight at any point in the process.

25

66. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the imposition of such broad search

26 conditions without a conviction or adjudication of delinquency. California Welfare

27 & Institutions Code section 654, cited by Defendants, does not extend authority to

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-28-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 29 of 69 Page ID #:422

1 impose search conditions. However, a blanket search term is included in

2 Defendants’ standard YAT probation contract. Defendants have no standard advisals

3 of children’s Fourth Amendment rights. Children are presented with these terms, in

4 the context of the highly imbalanced YAT contract meeting, and purportedly

5 broadly waive their Fourth Amendment rights by signing the probation contract.

6 Waiver in these circumstances is not and cannot be voluntary, knowing, or

7 intelligent.

8

67. Pursuant to policy, practice, and custom, YAT team members also

9 regularly remove children from classes to conduct “check-ins” during the school

10 day. These check-ins interfere with a child’s school engagement and are not

11 scheduled around the student’s or school’s needs, but on the basis of the YAT team

12 members’ schedule. During these impromptu check-ins, YAT team members

13 question children about topics including their social life, grades, and classroom

14 subjects. While check-ins occur on a weekly basis, children do not always see the

15 same YAT officer and have little understanding of the function of these check-ins.

16

68. The standard YAT probation contract also includes overbroad

17 directives that chill and infringe upon the child’s First Amendment rights to

18 expressive association, including prohibiting association with anyone “not approved

19 of by YAT” and requiring that the child “have no negative contact with anyone,”

20 with no further definition of the nebulous term “negative contact.”

21

69. YAT probation terms also commonly require a child to write an

22 apology letter about the alleged reason for referral. These letters are likely to include

23 admissions and other statements that could be used against a child in court.

24 However, Defendants do not advise children of their rights. Nor do they provide any

25 explanation of how these letters will be stored or used, and no assurance regarding

26 whether the letters will be treated as confidential. YAT officers obtain a substantial

27 amount of additional personal and sensitive information about the child and their

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-29-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 30 of 69 Page ID #:423

1 families and provide no assurance regarding how they will use and store this

2 information or under what circumstances the information may be disclosed to

3 others.

4 F. Privacy Implications

5

70. YAT probation interferes with children’s privacy. Defendants collect a

6 wide array of private information about a child, such as: education records,

7 counseling records, risk assessments, letters of apology, photographs, records of

8 supervision contacts and home searches, and drug tests. YAT officers including law

9 enforcement and the District Attorney’s office engage in “an ongoing sharing of

10 information” compiled about children through the course of YAT probation.

11 Information may also be shared with other law enforcement agencies, such as gang

12 task force officers.

13

71. YAT requests that schools making referrals provide “Discipline

14 Records; Transcripts/Grades; and Attendance Records.” These records are supplied

15 without parent or student consent, despite the fact that these records are subject to

16 close confidentiality rules under the Family Educational Records and Privacy Act,

17 20 U.S.C. § 1232g. In Murrieta, for example, YAT officers are given direct access

18 to the school student records database. Information is also compiled from other law

19 enforcement and social services data sources.

20

72. During the YAT probation contract meeting, YAT officers ask families

21 questions about “[w]ho lives in the home” including “names and date of birth or

22 age,” drug/alcohol abuse, domestic violence, probation or parole, weapons and

23 ammunition, and any criminal history. They also conduct a risk assessment, using a

24 standardized form asking questions about “[l]ack of knowledge by parents or

25 guardians of minor’s friends and activities” and a lack of age-appropriate rule-

26 setting; whether there are “chronic discipline problems”; whether the minor has

27 engaged in “substance abuse multiple times, beyond experimentation”; whether

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-30-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 31 of 69 Page ID #:424

1 “any relative with whom the minor associates with [sic] has . . . a prison record” or

2 “pending an adult or juvenile adjudication”; and whether the minor “associates with

3 a gang or tagging crew.” Children are also required to sign a release granting YAT

4 officers access to highly personal counseling records.

5

73. Children referred to YAT probation are assigned a Central Intake

6 Division (“CID”) number, which is used to track information about the child in

7 Probation’s Juvenile Adult Management (“JAMs”) database. Upon information and

8 belief, other agencies associated with YAT probation also record and maintain

9 information about children in their own databases, using the same CID number or

10 another unique identifier for the child. The files associated with a child’s CID

11 number remain even if the child is not ultimately placed on YAT probation.

12 Probation and other YAT officers create field contact notes describing their contacts

13 with children through YAT. These notes are then entered into the child’s case file.

14

74. Defendants provide no explanation of the types of information gathered

15 and retained on children who are placed on YAT probation. Nor do they provide

16 information about how it will be stored, and what if any confidentiality protections

17 are provided.

18

75. Defendants do not uniformly provide children placed on YAT

19 probation with information about sealing records, or inform children of the

20 possibility that records will be maintained by Probation and other agencies

21 associated with YAT probation.

22 G. Future Consequences of Placement on YAT Probation

23

76. Beyond the immediate and gross violation of children’s constitutional

24 and civil rights, probation supervision through YAT produces numerous additional

25 injuries. Entry into a YAT probation contract fast-tracks future contact with the

26 criminal system and increases the severity of consequences. Once a child has gone

27 through the YAT probation, she is presumed ineligible for diversion programs in the

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-31-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 32 of 69 Page ID #:425

1 future. Children are deprived of the “second chance” that the Welfare and

2 Institutions Code contemplates for first-time, low-level offenders, and are instead

3 diverted into the justice system for non-criminal behavior through YAT probation.

4 Failure to complete YAT successfully can also be used against the juvenile in

5 sentencing in any future juvenile court proceeding.23

6 H. The YAT Probation Program Has a Significant Adverse Impact on Black and

7

Latinx Children

8

77. The racist design of the YAT probation program ensures that Black and

9 Latinx youth are overrepresented in and disproportionately impacted by the

10 program’s constitutional deficiencies. In YAT, “risk” is fundamentally related to

11 race and ethnicity.

12

78. Defendants’ association of Black and Latinx youth with “risk” and

13 delinquency is epitomized by the Neighborhood Toxicity Formula, a metric

14 designed to guide where the YAT program focuses its operation. The Neighborhood

15 Toxicity Formula labels neighborhoods as more or less “toxic” based in part on their

16 racial, ethnic, and socio-economic demographics. Under this formula, a

17 neighborhood’s toxicity increases when it has a large “non-white population,” and is

18 largely populated by residents who are “Hispanic/Latino,” “recent immigrants,” or

19 “immigrants/temporary residents.” The “Neighborhood Toxicity Calculation”

20 further codifies racial bias by measuring “toxicity” through variables that are

21 recognized code words for racial animus, including “dense multi-family housing,”

22 “concentration of crime-prone age groups,” and “family size.” See, e.g., Mhany

23 Mgmt. Inc., v. Cnty. Of Nassau, 819 F.3d 581, 608 (2d Cir. 2016) (holding that

24 concerns from white community members that a proposed development would bring

25 “full families living in one bedroom townhouses, two bedroom co-ops,” and “four

26

27

23

See, e.g., In re C.Z., 165 Cal. Rptr. 3d 409, 411 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (affirming denial of deferred sentence on basis of unsuccessful completion of Section 654

28 program). SMRH:228057520.1

-32-

FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 33 of 69 Page ID #:426

1 people or ten people in an apartment” suggested implicit racial bias via code words;

2 and referencing empirical evidence that opponents to affordable housing often

3 subtly reference immigrant families under the guise of fears that the proposed

4 development “will bring in ‘families with lots of kids’”). The Neighborhood

5 Toxicity formula is set out in a 2005 program evaluation commissioned by

6 Defendants from California State University, San Bernardino and used to make

7 recommendations on the communities within Riverside County where Defendants

8 should focus in operating the YAT program.

9

79. The racist assumption that a person’s race or ethnicity makes them

10 more or less “at risk” of future criminal behavior carries through to the day-to-day

11 implementation of the YAT program. Probation uses a Risk Assessment Form to

12 evaluate children referred and eligible for a YAT probation contract. The Risk

13 Assessment Form used by Defendants is a four-point metric that purports to predict

14 a child’s risk of delinquency. The questions used to assign a risk score are broadly

15 drafted, invite bias, and incorporate factors that are beyond individual control and

16 perpetuate disparities and discrimination occurring elsewhere in the justice system

17 and in school discipline. The risk assessment is not validated and the “risk” it

18 purports to identify is generalized. The questions a YAT officer evaluates include

19 whether: there is “[l]ack of knowledge by parents or guardians of minor’s friends

20 and activities” and a lack of age-appropriate rule-setting; whether there are “chronic

21 discipline problems”; whether the minor has engaged in “substance abuse multiple

22 times, beyond experimentation”; whether “any relative with whom the minor

23 associates with has . . . a prison record” or “pending an adult or juvenile

24 adjudication”; and whether the minor “associates with a gang or tagging crew.”

25 Based on these questions, a YAT officer assigns children a score between zero and

26 four. This score is purportedly used to inform the decision to place a child on YAT

27 probation.

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-33-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 34 of 69 Page ID #:427

1

80. Defendants’ Risk Assessment Form has a significantly adverse and

2 disparate impact on Black and Latinx children. The broadly drafted criteria of the

3 Risk Assessment Form result in higher risk scores for Black and Latinx children

4 when compared to similarly situated white children. Excluding any referrals to YAT

5 deemed ineligible, over twenty-four percent of white youth evaluated received a

6 score of 0 or 1. In contrast, only seventeen percent of Latinx children and sixteen

7 percent of Black children received a score of 0 or 1. White children are more than

8 twice as likely as Black children (three percent and seven percent, respectively) and

9 1.6 times as likely as Latinx children to receive a risk score of 0. Similarly, when

10 looking at the scores of 3 or 4, fifty-one percent of Black and Latinx youth were

11 assigned scores of either 3 or 4 points, where only forty-two percent of all white

12 youth referred received a score of 3 or 4 points.

13

81. Defendants’ policy, practice, and custom of disproportionately placing

14 Black and Latinx youth on YAT probation contracts creates an additional layer of

15 significantly adverse and disparate impact. Black and Latinx youth are less likely to

16 be scored a risk factor of zero or one. When they do receive a risk score of zero or

17 one, they are still more likely than white children with the same risk score to be

18 placed on probation. A full sixty percent of Latinx youth, and fifty percent of Black

19 youth who are evaluated as presenting no risk are nonetheless placed on probation.

20 In contrast, forty-five percent of white youth scoring zero are placed on probation.

21 Amongst youth scoring a 1 on the risk assessment, sixty-one percent of Black youth

22 and fifty-seven percent of Latinx youth are still assigned a probation contract, while

23 only fifty-two percent of white youth are assigned probation. At all levels, the Risk

24 Assessment Form favors white children and criminalizes Black and Latinx children.

25

82. The racially disparate impact of Defendants’ risk assessment and

26 assignment of YAT probation contracts are in keeping with the YAT probation

27 program’s overarching approach to “toxicity” in the communities that make up

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-34-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 35 of 69 Page ID #:428

1 Riverside County. The racially discriminatory operation of the YAT program means

2 that Black and Latinx children are also disparately subjected to violations of their

3 constitutional rights, including their due process rights, their First Amendment

4 rights, and their Fourth Amendment rights.

5 I. Allegations of Named Plaintiffs

6 Andrew M.

7

83. Andrew M. was placed on YAT probation after goofing around with

8 friends was met with a series of escalating and improper law enforcement responses.

9 In the spring of 2017, Andrew was a thirteen-year-old eighth grader at Mountain

10 View Middle School in Riverside County. Andrew’s school was patrolled by Officer

11 Lee, of the Moreno Valley Police Department. On February 9, 2017, during the

12 lunch period, Andrew. was kicking an orange back and forth with friends in a

13 makeshift game of soccer when he misdirected a kick and the orange rolled between

14 Officer Lee’s legs.

15

84. Officer Lee approached Andrew from behind, placed him in handcuffs,

16 and led him to the office.

17

85. At the principal’s office, Andrew saw Officer Lee whisper something

18 to the assistant principal, Dr. Harris, before leaving the room. Thereafter, Dr. Harris

19 turned to Andrew and stated “let me see your bag.” Andrew handed over his

20 backpack, which Dr. Harris then searched. She retrieved a small amount of

21 marijuana. Following the search, Officer Lee issued Andrew a citation under

22 California Health and Safety Code section 11357(d), a civil infraction for possession

23 of marijuana.

24

86. The next morning, Andrew’s mother, Denise M., went to the school to

25 pick up a copy of Andrew’s discipline notice. Dr. Harris also gave her a copy of a

26 YAT probation contract with Andrew’s identifying information entered into the top

27 portion. Based on her communications with Dr. Harris, Denise understood that

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-35-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 36 of 69 Page ID #:429

1 Andrew would be required to submit to YAT probation to avoid being expelled

2 from school.

3

87. Several weeks later, on or about March 13, 2017, Andrew’s mother

4 received a phone call from Riverside County Probation Officer Natalie Holden,

5 informing her that Andrew had been referred to YAT. Officer Holden informed

6 Denise of some of the terms of YAT, including weekly check-ins and required

7 community service hours. Denise requested a written confirmation of Andrew’s

8 referral and the required appointment details. In response, Officer Holden sent

9 Denise an email confirming the date and time of Andrew’s required appointment,

10 Tuesday, March 21, at 8:00 am, and the address of the police station where the

11 meeting would occur.

12

88. On the date of the required meeting, Andrew arrived at the police

13 station with his father, uncle, and grandmother. They were met by a female, who on

14 information and belief was a plainclothes police officer, who escorted them to a

15 small windowless office. As the female officer led them to the room, a male, who on

16 information and belief was a plainclothes police officer, joined. The male officer

17 was armed with a gun. Andrew felt alarmed and intimidated at the police station.

18 Seeing the police officer’s gun exacerbated his fears. Sitting at the conference room

19 table, the female officer questioned Andrew and his family members about Andrew

20 and his family, including about the friends Andrew M. hangs out with and whether

21 anyone in Andrew’s family has been involved with the criminal justice system.

22

89. The female officer then gave Andrew a contract for informal probation.

23 Andrew’s probation contract mirrored the standard probation contract used to train

24 YAT officers. The contract indicated that a program of probation supervision under

25 Section 654 was undertaken in lieu of filing a petition in Juvenile Court. Where the

26 contract stated “You have been accused of the crime of ____” the female officer

27 wrote “n/a. WIC 601/citation (infr.),” and included a nine-digit citation number. The

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-36-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 37 of 69 Page ID #:430

1 contract included a number of pre-selected terms of supervision, including the

2 requirements to abide by an 8:00 pm curfew, attend school and notify YAT officers

3 of any absence before 9:00 am, “obey directives of the Probation Officer and YAT

4 members,” report to probation as directed, have “no negative contact with anyone,”

5 complete twenty-five hours of community service, write an essay, attend counseling

6 as directed, check in with YAT every Thursday, attend a tour of a correctional

7 facility, attend programming at the Moreno Valley Police Department every

8 Tuesday afternoon, and maintain good grades. The contract indicated that probation

9 supervision would last for a term of six months and that “any violation of the terms

10 and conditions may be grounds for referring the matter to the District Attorney’s

11 Office for prosecution.” The prohibition on associating with anyone not approved

12 was crossed out for Andrew’s contract, and the blanket search term was not checked

13 off.

14

90. The numerous requirements of Andrew’s informal probation contract

15 exceeded the consequences contemplated by the legislature under Health and Safety

16 Code section 11357(d), which permits a maximum penalty of four hours of drug

17 education or counseling and up to ten hours of community service for a first offense,

18 and does not authorize any additional conditions of probation supervision.

19

91. Although the contract included language stating that probation

20 supervision was undertaken with Andrew’s consent, and that Andrew “understood

21 and agreed to comply” with the probation terms, Andrew did not believe he had a

22 choice in submitting to YAT probation and did not understand fully the terms of the

23 contract or the decision he purportedly made. Andrew, a thirteen-year-old boy who

24 had never come in contact with the criminal justice system before, found himself

25 pressured in a confining room with law enforcement at the police station. Across the

26 table from Andrew were two authority figures he believed to be police officers, one

27 of them visibly armed. In these circumstances, Andrew felt scared and intimidated.

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-37-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 38 of 69 Page ID #:431

1 Beyond the ticket he received from Officer Lee, Andrew and his family had no

2 information about the offense or offenses of which he was accused or the underlying

3 factual allegations. No one provided Andrew with the information that would have

4 allowed him to weigh the costs and benefits of opting to go to court or to accept

5 informal probation. He had no information about his legal rights, including his right

6 to counsel, which California law provides for any child petitioned under Section

7 601, see Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 634, or his right to remain silent.

8

92. Andrew had no legal counsel who could have offered him guidance on

9 the considerations he faced in this critical stage. A defense attorney could have

10 advised Andrew that the terms of informal probation offered were in many ways

11 more onerous than those a court could order under Section 11357(d). Counsel also

12 could have warned Andrew that acquiescing to informal probation here, where he

13 faced no criminal charges, would preclude the possibility of diversion in any future

14 juvenile delinquency case and could be held against him in any future sentencing.

15 So too, defense counsel could have probed the legal sufficiency of the alleged

16 violation of Section 601, recognized that Section 601 cases are not heard by courts

17 in Riverside County, and advised Andrew and his family of the possible defense

18 based on the unlawful search of his backpack. In these circumstances—given the

19 lack of adequate notice, the misleading information, and the coercive environment—

20 Andrew could not have provided voluntary, knowing, and intelligent consent to

21 submit to YAT probation.

22

93. Although the YAT probation contract states that YAT probation is

23 entered in lieu of prosecution, this did not hold true for Andrew. Shortly after being

24 placed on YAT probation, Andrew also received a court summons for violation of

25 California Health and Safety Code section 11357(d). Andrew appeared in Riverside

26 County Superior Court on April 3, 2017 with his mother, his grandmother, and a

27 Sigma Beta Xi mentor. Andrew had participated in Sigma Beta Xi’s mentoring

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-38-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 39 of 69 Page ID #:432

1 program since the sixth grade, and Sigma Beta Xi presented a letter on his behalf,

2 attesting to his good character and his participation in a community service program.

3 The court accepted Andrew’s guilty plea and sentenced him to a suspended fine on

4 the condition that he submit to one drug test and to complete ten hours of

5 community services, which Andrew could complete with the Sigma Beta Xi

6 program. Andrew subsequently completed these terms. Notably, these court-ordered

7 conditions were less onerous than those specified in the YAT probation contract that

8 was supposed to divert children like Andrew from harmful contact with the juvenile

9 justice system.

10

94. During the six-month term of YAT probation extending into Andrew’s

11 ninth-grade year, Andrew was pulled out of class to check in with YAT officers

12 multiple times. The officers were not always the same. These check-ins caused

13 Andrew to be tardy to his fourth-period class so frequently that his school called his

14 grandmother, who then worried that Andrew would face school discipline for

15 truancy.

16

95. On one occasion, YAT officers removed Andrew from his fifth-period

17 Spanish class even though he was taking a test that period. Andrew was then taken

18 to another room and told to complete a fifty-question survey about how comfortable

19 he felt with YAT. Andrew again told the officer that he was going to miss his

20 Spanish quiz, but the officer still did not permit him to return to class. When

21 Andrew was finally allowed to return to his Spanish class, he only had enough time

22 to write his name, the date, and answer maybe just one question on the vocabulary

23 test before class ended.

24

96. In addition to school time check-ins, YAT officers visited Andrew’s

25 home multiple times to inquire about his whereabouts and activities. During one

26 visit, an officer told Andrew’s mother that he must attend a mandatory YAT

27

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-39-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 40 of 69 Page ID #:433

1 programming meeting at the Moreno Valley Police Department, or else face severe

2 consequences.

3

97. According to the terms of the contract, Andrew’s probation was set to

4 end on September 21, 2017. Since that date, Andrew’s mother has made several

5 telephonic and in person requests for confirmation that Andrew successfully

6 completed YAT probation and is no longer subject to probation terms. At one point,

7 she was told that a confirmation letter was sent by mail and that another letter would

8 be sent by mail. She never received a letter in the mail.

9 Jacob T.

10

98. Jacob T. was placed on YAT probation following a disputed altercation

11 he had with a female classmate on March 5, 2018. On that day, Jacob was a sixteen-

12 year-old, ninth-grade student at Canyon Springs High School in Moreno Valley.

13

99. Ten days later, on March 15, 2018, a Canyon Springs High School

14 administrator called Jacob into his office to discuss the female student’s allegations.

15 When Jacob arrived, the administrator and an armed police officer were waiting in

16 the office. The administrator called Jacob’s mother, who insisted that they wait until

17 she arrived to begin questioning Jacob. When Jacob’s mother arrived, the

18 administrator recounted the other student’s allegations, which Jacob denied. The

19 administrator suspended Jacob from Friday, March 16, 2018 to Thursday, March 22,

20 2018. The administrator did not discuss YAT with Jacob or his mother during this

21 meeting.

22

100. On March 19, 2018, four days after Jacob and his mother’s meeting

23 with the administrator, a probation officer called Jacob’s mother. The officer told

24 her that an assistant principal at Jacob’s school had referred him to YAT. The

25 probation officer provided only very minimal information about the program on the

26 call, explaining that it was a probation program for “at-risk” teens with a number of

27

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-40-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 41 of 69 Page ID #:434

1 requirements. The probation officer told Jacob’s mother that Jacob. and his parents

2 needed to go to the Moreno Valley police department station for a meeting.

3

101. On March 22, 2018, Jacob and both of his biological parents arrived at

4 the Moreno Valley Police Department as they had been directed. A probation officer

5 escorted the family to a small, windowless room. Once in the room, a second

6 officer, who on information and belief was a law enforcement officer, joined

7 carrying a YAT probation contract. The second officer was armed with pepper spray

8 and handcuffs. The police officer stated her name and began checking off the terms

9 of the probation contract.

10

102. During the meeting, the officers repeatedly told Jacob and his family

11 that Jacob would be “a failure in life” and likely would end up in prison if he did not

12 agree to participate in and successfully complete YAT. The officers failed to

13 provide Jacob or his family time to consider the decision, failed to give them space

14 to discuss their options, failed to provide any information about their legal rights,

15 and failed to indicate that they could consult an attorney or have one present. The

16 officers also failed to explain specifically why Jacob was referred to YAT. Jacob’s

17 probation contract, moreover, merely stated “601 WIC” as the offense for which

18 Jacob is on YAT probation. Critically, the officers failed to explain that Jacob faced

19 no criminal charges and that agreeing to informal probation would preclude Jacob’s

20 participation in any future diversion program. Without understanding the scope of

21 the surveillance and believing that they had no choice in the matter, Jacob and his

22 mother felt compelled to sign the YAT probation contract.

23

103. After the family signed the contract, the officers revealed for the first

24 time that YAT community service requirements were mandatory and that Jacob’s

25 room would be subject to unannounced searches.

26

104. The terms of Jacob’s YAT probation contract mirror those in the

27 standard probation contract, including the requirements to abide by an 8:00 pm

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-41-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 42 of 69 Page ID #:435

1 curfew, attend school and notify YAT officers of any absence before 9:00 am, “obey

2 directives of the Probation Officer and YAT members,” report to probation as

3 directed, have “no negative contact [with] anyone,” complete twenty-five hours of

4 community service, write an essay, attend counseling as directed, check in with

5 YAT every Thursday before 4:30 pm, attend a tour of a correctional facility, attend

6 programming at the Moreno Valley Police Department every Tuesday afternoon,

7 and maintain good grades. Among a long list of conditions, Jacob’s probation terms

8 also include a prohibition on association “with anyone not approved” by YAT: a

9 term allegedly authorizing “search/test of my person/vehicle/premises upon request

10 of the Probation Officer or YAT member;” and an additional term requiring drug

11 testing. The probation contract indicates that supervision will last for a term of six

12 months and that “any violation of the terms and conditions may be grounds for

13 referring the matter to the District Attorney’s Office for prosecution.”

14

105. Jacob is still required to comply with all of the terms of YAT

15 probation. In the three months since he was placed on probation, Jacob has been

16 subjected to at least five home visits and has been interrogated by police officers,

17 probation officers, and deputy district attorneys, all YAT members.

18

106. Jacob currently attends Riverside County Education Academy. In or

19 around May 2018, a probation officer pulled Jacob out of his fifth-period class to

20 question him. Jacob was escorted into a conference room where he met with a

21 probation officer alone. The officer interrogated Jacob for an extended period,

22 causing Jacob T. to lose instruction time. Jacob and his parents are concerned that

23 probation officers will continue pulling him out of class to interrogate him and

24 interfere with his ability to perform well in school.

25

107. Probation officers have told Jacob that he will be subjected to at least

26 one mandatory drug test within the six-month probation term. During a mandatory

27 YAT programming meeting in or about April 2018, a YAT officer pulled Jacob

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-42-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 43 of 69 Page ID #:436

1 from the meeting, followed Jacob into the restroom, and demanded that Jacob

2 provide a urine sample.

3

108. Jacob and his family remain strongly dissatisfied with YAT, do not

4 believe it has had or will have a positive impact on Jacob, and do not believe that

5 Jacob T. has learned any new skills. In contrast, Jacob and his family believe that

6 programs such as Sigma Beta Xi—in which Jacob is currently enrolled as a

7 mentee—are much more effective in supporting Jacob and keeping him on track to

8 graduate. Jacob’s YAT probation is set to expire on September 22, 2018. However,

9 a YAT officer told Jacob that his probation supervision period could restart.

10 J.F.

11

109. J.F., a Black female, was sixteen years old when she enrolled as a

12 sophomore in Rancho Verde High School in Riverside County in the fall of 2017.

13 J.F. had moved from her grandfather’s home in Arizona to live with her

14 grandmother, Cindy McConnell. J.F. struggled coping with her Oppositional Defiant

15 Disorder and had extreme difficulty waking up early in time for school, where her

16 first class started at 7:30 am. The school’s and Defendants’ response to J.F.’s

17 struggles and late arrivals—placing her on YAT probation—failed to help J.F. and

18 instead violated her rights.

19

110. Defendants placed J.F. on YAT probation on February 23, 2018, less

20 than twenty-four hours after first meeting with officials from Val Verde Unified

21 School District and two law enforcement officers regarding J.F.’s late arrivals. The

22 officials implied that J.F. would be involuntarily transferred to a county continuation

23 school, and her grandmother would face criminal charges, if J.F. did not acquiesce

24 to YAT probation. Pressured, cornered, and concerned, J.F. felt she had no

25 alternative but to submit to YAT. Defendants did not provide J.F. with notice of the

26 violation she was accused of committing, information about the juvenile court

27 process and the consequences and terms of YAT probation, or advise her of her

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-43-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 44 of 69 Page ID #:437

1 legal rights. J.F. did not have the benefit of counsel or an impartial decision maker.

2 In these circumstances, J.F. could not give voluntary, knowing, or informed consent

3 to subject herself to YAT probation.

4

111. J.F. first met with a School Attendance Review Board (“SARB”)

5 official on or about late December 2017 or early January 2018. During that meeting,

6 the SARB official told J.F. and her grandmother, Cindy McConnell, that the school

7 district would help J.F. solve her attendance issues through a series of graduated

8 responses. When Cindy received notice of a mandatory meeting scheduled for

9 February 22, 2018, she and J.F. expected the meeting would be similar to the prior

10 meeting with the SARB official.

11

112. Instead, when they arrived on February 22, J.F. and Cindy quickly

12 realized that it was unlike the previous meeting. J.F. and Cindy were escorted into a

13 conference room where multiple District officials, including a Val Verde Unified

14 School District School Board Member, Riverside County Probation Officer German

15 Regin and an officer, who on information and belief is a law enforcement officer,

16 and a woman typing formal meeting notes were waiting. During that meeting, the

17 SARB panel chastised J.F. for her absences and poor grades, implied that the

18 District could involuntarily transfer her to Val Verde Continuation School, and

19 suggested that Cindy could face criminal charges if J.F.’s attendance did not

20 improve. J.F. tried to explain her difficulty waking up early enough to make her first

21 class at 7:30 am. The SARB panel told J.F. that if she wanted to improve her

22 attendance and avoid involuntary transfer, she would have to submit to YAT

23 probation. The SARB panel informed J.F. and Cindy that a mandatory YAT meeting

24 was scheduled for 9:00 am the following day, February 23, 2018.

25

113. At 9:00 am on February 23, 2018, less than twenty-four hours after the

26 SARB hearing, J.F. and Cindy arrived for the mandatory YAT meeting at Val Verde

27 High School. There, they were met by Probation Officer Regin, of the Riverside

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-44-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 45 of 69 Page ID #:438

1 County Probation Department, who escorted them to his office. Though they

2 believed YAT probation was the only way to prevent J.F. from being pushed out of

3 her school and Cindy from facing criminal charges, as the SARB panel suggested,

4 neither J.F. nor Cindy knew exactly why J.F. was being put on probation.

5

114. After extensive questioning by Officer Regin, another officer briefly

6 entered the room, stated his name, and plainly stated that he would be conducting

7 visits to J.F. and Cindy’s home. After that officer left, Officer Regin

8 unapologetically gave J.F. and Cindy the probation contract that included

9 preselected terms, consistent with the standard YAT probation contract, spent no

10 more than a few minutes describing the YAT probation program, and instructed J.F.

11 to read the contract herself, without providing any explanation of the probation

12 contract’s terms.

13

115. J.F.’s probation contract reflects that she is charged with the crime of

14 “601 WIC,” but no YAT officer explained what this means. The contract also

15 indicates that YAT probation was proposed “[i]n lieu of filing a Petition with the

16 Juvenile Court.” J.F. and Cindy are uncertain but believe J.F. was placed on YAT

17 probation either for attendance issues or for bad grades, both of which were

18 mentioned by the SARB panel and Officer Regin. Looking at the term “601 WIC,”

19 written on J.F.’s probation contract, Cindy wondered whether YAT was for low-

20 income families that would qualify for the federal nutrition and health program for

21 Women, Infants, and Children, commonly referred to as “WIC.”

22

116. All but one condition—mandatory check-ins—were preselected on

23 J.F.’s YAT probation contract. As terms of her probation, J.F. is required to:

24

 Obey all laws and ordinances,

25

 adhere to a 10:00 pm curfew,

26

 “obey parents or guardian and keep them informed of [ ]

27

whereabouts and associates,”

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-45-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 46 of 69 Page ID #:439

1

 attend school every period of every day and notify YAT officers

2

of any absence before 9:00 am,

3

 “obey school officials/rules,”

4

 report to probation as directed,

5

 “obey directives of the Probation Officer and YAT members,”

6

 “not associate with anyone not approved by parent, YAT”;

7

 have “no association with negative influences,”

8

 have “no negative contact with anyone, including, parent, school

9

staff, peers, YAT members, or law enforcement,”

10

 submit a letter of apology,

11

 complete “20+” community service hours,

12

 write an essay,

13

 attend counseling as directed and continue receiving therapy

14

services from the County,

15

 attend a tour of a correctional facility,

16

 attend programming every Tuesday afternoon,

17

 “improve and maintain good grades and attendance,”

18

 maintain “good behavior at home and school,”

19

 “submit to search/tests of [her] person/vehicle/premises upon

20

request of the Probation Officer of YAT member,” and

21

 “attend any awareness classes deemed necessary. Parent(s) to

22

attend parenting if recommended.”

23

117. The probation contract also reflects that J.F. “understand[s that] home

24 visits will be conducted by the team on an as needed basis,” and threatens that “any

25 violation of these terms and conditions may be grounds for referring the matter to

26 the District Attorney’s Office for prosecution.”

27

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-46-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 47 of 69 Page ID #:440

1

118. The numerous conditions in J.F.’s YAT probation contract conflict

2 with the response to school attendance problems contemplated by the legislature

3 which created SARBs to “[d]ivert pupils with serious attendance and behavioral

4 problems from the juvenile justice system to agencies more directly related to the

5 state public school system,” namely, “community-based and school-based

6 programs.” Cal. Educ. Code § 48325.

7

119. Beyond the SARB meeting on February 22, 2018, and Officers Regin’s

8 vague references to attendance and grades, J.F. and her grandmother Cindy had no

9 information about the offense of which she was accused. Without knowing the

10 direct consequences of accepting YAT probation, that she had the right to reject

11 probation or particular terms, and without an understanding or advisement of the

12 rights she waived, J.F. and Cindy had no opportunity to meaningfully weigh the

13 costs and benefits of opting to go to court or to accept this purported informal

14 probation. J.F. had no information about her legal rights, including her right to

15 consult with counsel and her right to remain silent. Nor was there an impartial

16 decision maker present.

17

120. J.F. had no legal counsel who could have offered her much-needed

18 guidance on the considerations she faced in this critical stage. A defense attorney

19 could have advised J.F. that the terms of informal probation offered were excessive

20 and inappropriate under California law and warned J.F. that acquiescing to informal

21 probation here, where she faced no criminal charges, would preclude the possibility

22 of diversion in any future case and could be held against her in any future

23 sentencing. So too, defense counsel could have probed the legal sufficiency of the

24 alleged violation of Section 601 and recognized that Section 601 cases are not heard

25 by courts in Riverside County. In these circumstances, J.F. could not have provided

26 voluntary, knowing, or intelligent consent to submit to YAT probation.

27

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-47-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 48 of 69 Page ID #:441

1

121. Following J.F.’s entry into YAT probation on February 23, 2018,

2 Officers Regin and a second officer have conducted at least five unannounced home

3 visits to Cindy and J.F.’s home. During each visit, one officer has entered the home,

4 observed the general areas, and stood at J.F.’s bedroom door to observe her room

5 while asking J.F. about personal matters, including how J.F. treats Cindy, maintains

6 cleanliness in her room, and conducts herself in romantic relationships.

7

122. A different YAT officer whose name J.F. does not know has also

8 removed J.F. from class on several occasions for extensive meetings, interfering

9 with her learning time. These visits typically occur during J.F.’s fifth-period History

10 class, or sixth-period PE class. In addition to officers removing J.F. from class, Ms.

11 Estrada, a woman identified as a YAT counselor, pulls J.F. out of school about once

12 a week for about one hour. The meetings begin during J.F.’s second-period English

13 class. Ms. Estrada is abrasive, judgmental, and undermines the progress that J.F. and

14 Cindy have made with J.F.’s therapist.

15

123. J.F. is enrolled in summer school at Val Verde High School, a

16 continuation school. Her classes take place directly across the hall from the

17 designated YAT office. Due to the compressed timeframe, a single day of summer

18 school covers an entire week’s worth of class content. Despite the valuable

19 instructional time, YAT officers have continued to pull J.F. from class during

20 summer school. J.F., who is deficient in school credits, is fearful that YAT officers

21 will continue removing her from class time during summer school, causing her to

22 miss valuable educational time and compromising her ability to complete the

23 summer school credits she needs.

24

124. J.F. finds the required YAT class topics—including murder and felony

25 murder—completely unrelated to the reason she was placed on YAT probation. The

26 meetings are also burdensome, beginning at the Perris Sheriff’s Station less than one

27

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-48-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 49 of 69 Page ID #:442

1 hour after J.F.’s regular school day ends in Val Verde, making it more difficult to

2 complete her school homework.

3

125. J.F. is subject to her YAT probation contract and the attendant

4 probation supervision until August 23, 2018.

5 Sigma Beta Xi

6

126. Sigma Beta Xi is a non-profit organization providing mentoring

7 services primarily to Riverside County children of color, including children with

8 disabilities, whose educational success is at risk due to poor grades, discipline, or

9 other factors. Sigma Beta Xi contracts with public schools within Riverside County,

10 who refer children to receive mentoring and support from Sigma Beta Xi. Sigma

11 Beta Xi’s mission is to establish strong families and communities by building an

12 organization of diverse young men and women who will exemplify leadership and

13 professionalism based upon the principles of brotherhood, sisterhood, excellence,

14 endurance, wisdom, service, and unity.

15

127. Mentoring is central to Sigma Beta Xi’s mission. Sigma Beta Xi

16 employs twelve mentors who work to understand the environment from which the

17 child comes to school, provide one-on-one mentoring and leadership development,

18 and ultimately find ways to bring the child to her full potential. Sigma Beta Xi

19 creates an individualized plan for each mentee that responds to the child’s unique

20 needs. Sigma Beta Xi offers more intensive mentoring services for mentees with

21 greater needs, including additional mentoring hours, more support coordinating with

22 caretakers and other service providers, more referrals to outside counseling, and

23 additional extracurricular activities and field trips designed to foster leadership

24 skills. Sigma Beta Xi also enrolls a select number of students in two enhanced

25 programs. The first is its Rites of Passage Program, a resource-intensive support

26 program that provides counseling services for students and their families and helps

27 them deal with trauma, anger, anxiety, and depression. The second is its Positive

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-49-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 50 of 69 Page ID #:443

1 Youth Justice Initiative Program, a leadership development program that trains and

2 empowers youth to engage in community organizing and transform the criminal

3 justice system.

4

128. Sigma Beta Xi offers a continuum of engagement and leadership

5 opportunities for mentees as their involvement in the organization increases. All

6 mentees receive one-on-one mentoring each week. Once mentees are

7 developmentally ready for sharing in a group setting, mentees join Sigma Beta Xi’s

8 weekly group mentoring sessions. After sustained involvement with Sigma Beta Xi,

9 mentees are given additional opportunities to develop their leadership and help

10 shape the organization, such as by interviewing prospective mentors. A growing

11 number of mentees also join Sigma Beta Xi’s student fraternity, which operates

12 under the Sigma Beta Xi name and provides additional opportunities for leadership

13 and community service.

14

129. Numerous Sigma Beta Xi mentees, including Andrew M. and Jacob T.,

15 have been placed on YAT probation.

16

130. As a result of mentees’ experiences with YAT, Sigma Beta Xi’s

17 mission of building a diverse group of young professional leaders has been

18 significantly frustrated. Mentees who currently are or have been on YAT probation

19 are often more distrustful of adults, including their Sigma Beta Xi mentors. As a

20 result, these mentees make slower progress in their mentoring sessions and take

21 longer to advance, or do not fully advance, through Sigma Beta Xi’s continuum of

22 engagement and leadership opportunities.

23

131. To address its frustrated mission, Sigma Beta Xi has been forced to

24 divert its limited resources in various ways. Sigma Beta Xi has assigned mentees

25 who are or were on YAT probation to additional and more intensive services to

26 ensure mentees can build trusting and effective relationships with mentors despite

27 the mentees’ experience with YAT probation. Mentors also engage in extra work to

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-50-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 51 of 69 Page ID #:444

1 ensure that mentees involved with YAT are not prohibited from participating in

2 Sigma Beta Xi activities and do not face additional consequences for participating in

3 activities designed to provide opportunities for positive development. For example,

4 Sigma Beta Xi had to intervene when Probation accused a mentee of violating the

5 terms of her YAT probation by traveling to a student leadership summit in Los

6 Angeles with Sigma Beta Xi. In other circumstances, Sigma Beta Xi mentors

7 transport mentees to comply with onerous YAT probation supervision requirements.

8 Additionally, Sigma Beta Xi mentors now require more training about YAT to

9 ensure they can effectively support mentees whose lives are made more difficult by

10 the program.

11

132. If Sigma Beta Xi were not required to spend these additional resources

12 to address the frustration of mission created by Defendants’ operation of YAT, it

13 would be able to devote these resources to activities that further its mission. Sigma

14 Beta Xi would be able to spend more time with individual mentees on positive

15 leadership building activities, rather than addressing needs tied to complying with

16 probation supervision. It could also use these resources to, for example, provide

17 mentoring services to additional children in Riverside County, such as enrolling

18 more children in its Rites of Passage and Positive Youth Justice Initiative programs.

19

V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

20

133. Andrew M., Jacob T. and J.F. (“Class Plaintiffs”) bring this class action

21 on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated pursuant to Federal Rule of

22 Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).

23

134. Class Plaintiffs seek to certify a class defined as follows:

24

All children in Riverside County who have been referred to the Riverside County Youth Accountability Team (“YAT”)

25

program pursuant to Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 601, and who have either been placed on a YAT probation contract or

26

have been referred but not yet placed on a YAT probation contract.

27

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-51-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 52 of 69 Page ID #:445

1 Those within the class are referred to herein as the “Class Members.” On

2 September 17, 2018, the Court entered a Stipulated Order Certifying Class and

3 Appointing Class Counsel. That Order adopts Plaintiffs’ definition of the class

4 described immediately above.

5

135. The Class Members are so numerous that individual joinder of their

6 members is impractical. Each year, thousands of children are referred to YAT.

7 According to public records obtained from the Probation Department, in 2015, YAT

8 received 1505 referrals. Each year, probation places between 400 and 500 children

9 on YAT probation contracts. Of those, hundreds are referred to or placed on YAT

10 pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 601. The number of

11 unnamed future class members who will be referred and subject to YAT probation

12 through the policies, practices, and customs alleged herein is unknown and

13 unknowable.

14

136. There exist questions of law and fact common to the entire class. These

15 common questions of fact and law include, without limitation:

16

a) Whether Defendants are required to provide adequate notice to

17

children who are referred to YAT of the basis and circumstances

18

of their referral.

19

b) Whether Defendants are required to provide adequate notice to

20

children who are referred to YAT of any statutes, other laws or

21

rules they are alleged to have violated in connection with their

22

YAT referral.

23

c) Whether Defendants are required to provide adequate

24

explanation to children who are referred to YAT of the

25

requirements of the YAT program and any consequences of

26

participating in the YAT program.

27

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-52-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 53 of 69 Page ID #:446

1

d)

2

3

4

5

e)

6

7

8

f)

9

10

11

g)

12

13

14

15

h)

16

17

18

19

i)

20

21

j)

22

23

24

25

k)

26

27

28
SMRH:228057520.1

Whether Defendants are required to provide adequate notice to children who are referred to YAT that participation in YAT will preclude them from participating in other diversionary programs in the future. Whether Defendants are required to adequately advise children of their right to consult with legal counsel before the child decides whether to agree to a YAT probation contract. Whether Defendants are required to provide adequate notice to children who are referred to YAT that agreeing to YAT may require them to submit to searches of their homes or persons. Whether Defendants are required to provide adequate notice to children who are referred to YAT that agreeing to YAT may require them to waive their rights to associate with “anyone not approved” by YAT. Whether Defendants are required to provide adequate notice to children who are referred to YAT that agreeing to YAT may prohibit them from having “negative contact with anyone,” in violation of their expressive association rights. Whether California Welfare & Institutions Code § 601 is unconstitutionally vague. Whether Defendants are required to operate the YAT program in a non-discriminatory manner that does not have a disproportionate effect on different racial or ethnic groups of children. Whether Defendants may use a risk assessment instrument that scores Black and Latinx children as having a higher risk of criminality as a basis for YAT placement.
-53-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 54 of 69 Page ID #:447

1

137. Class Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the Class members in

2 that they are children in Riverside County who were each referred to and placed on

3 a YAT probation contract, and suffer the resulting violations of their civil rights

4 under Constitutional and statutory laws due to Defendants’ implementation of the

5 YAT probation program.

6

138. Class Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the

7 Class Members. The Class Plaintiffs have a personal interest in the subject matter of

8 this litigation and have no interests antagonistic to the interests of the class. Class

9 Plaintiffs are represented by competent and experienced counsel in class action, civil

10 rights, and constitutional litigation.

11

139. Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally

12 applicable to the Class Members, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief

13 and/or corresponding declarative relief with respect to the class and the subclasses

14 as a whole. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).

15

140. The prosecution of individual actions against Defendants by individual

16 class members would create a risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications and the

17 establishment of incompatible standards of conduct across the Plaintiff Class. Fed.

18 R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1).

19

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

20

Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

21

to the U.S. Constitution 42 U.S.C. § 1983

22

(Deprivation of the Right to Procedural Due Process) (All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)

23

141. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations of Paragraphs

24 1 through 140 as though fully set forth herein.

25

142. This claim is brought by Plaintiff Sigma Beta Xi on behalf of itself and

26 by Plaintiffs Andrew M., Jacob T. and J.F. on behalf of themselves and the members

27 of the certified class.

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-54-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 55 of 69 Page ID #:448

1

143. The Procedural Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

2 provides that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without

3 due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

4

144. Plaintiffs have a fundamental interest in their liberty to be free from the

5 constraints of probationary supervision imposed by Defendants’ YAT probation

6 program. Defendants deprive Plaintiffs of their liberty interests without adequate

7 procedural protections.

8

145. Defendants have a policy, practice, and custom of placing children on

9 YAT probation through unfair procedures that deny Plaintiffs the ability to act in

10 their own best interest and to make a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent decision

11 regarding whether to accept YAT probation.

12

146. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate Plaintiffs’ rights

13 under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and cause

14 serious, irreparable, and lasting harm to these children, which they will continue to

15 suffer in the absence of relief.

16

147. The mission of Sigma Beta Xi is also frustrated by the unlawful policy,

17 practice, and custom of Defendants, and Sigma Beta Xi continues to divert resources

18 as a result.

19

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

20

Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

21

to the U.S. Constitution 42 U.S.C. § 1983

22

(Welf. & Inst. Code § 601 is Overly Vague on Its Face in Violation of Due Process)

23

(All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)

24

148. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations of Paragraphs

25 1 through 140 as though fully set forth herein.

26

27

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-55-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 56 of 69 Page ID #:449

1

149. This claim is brought by Plaintiff Sigma Beta Xi on behalf of itself and

2 by Plaintiffs Andrew M., Jacob T. and J.F. on behalf of themselves and the members

3 of the certified class.

4

150. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against

5 the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

6

151. The terms of Section 601(b)—prohibiting “persistent or habitual refusal

7 to obey the reasonable and proper orders or directions of school authorities”—are

8 vague on their face. These terms fail to define the offense sufficiently to provide

9 notice to the average child who is expected to comply with its terms of what conduct

10 is prohibited or to provide sufficient guidance to those charged with its enforcement,

11 authorizing and encouraging arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

12

152. Section 601 is the basis for Plaintiffs’ referral to and their placement on

13 YAT probation.

14

153. Defendants’ enforcement of Section 601(b) causes serious, irreparable,

15 and lasting harm to Plaintiffs, and they will continue to suffer irreparable harm in

16 the absence of relief.

17

154. The mission of Sigma Beta Xi is also frustrated by Defendants’

18 enforcement of Section 601(b), and Sigma Beta Xi continues to divert resources as a

19 result.

20

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

21

Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

22

to the U.S. Constitution 42 U.S.C. § 1983

23

(Welf. & Inst. Code § 601 is Vague as Applied in Violation of Due Process) (All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)

24

155. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations of Paragraphs

25 1 through 140 as though fully set forth herein.

26

27

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-56-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 57 of 69 Page ID #:450

1

156. This claim is brought by Plaintiff Sigma Beta Xi on behalf of itself and

2 by Plaintiffs Andrew M., Jacob T. and J.F. on behalf of themselves and the members

3 of the certified class.

4

157. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against

5 the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

6

158. Defendants apply Section 601, inter alia, through their criteria for

7 referral and in their citation of Section 601 to place children on YAT probation.

8 Defendants, as a matter of policy, practice, and custom, apply Section 601 in a

9 manner that is overly vague. As applied by Defendants, Section 601 fails to define

10 the offense sufficiently to provide notice to the average child of what conduct is

11 prohibited or to provide sufficient guidance to those charged with its enforcement,

12 authorizing and encouraging arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

13

159. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate Plaintiffs’ rights

14 under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and cause

15 serious, irreparable, and lasting harm to these children, which they will continue to

16 suffer in the absence of relief.

17

160. The mission of Sigma Beta Xi is also frustrated by Defendants’ policy,

18 practice, and customs, and Sigma Beta Xi continues to divert resources as a result.

19

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

20

Violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

21

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Unreasonable Search And Seizure)

22

(Plaintiffs Sigma Beta Xi., Jacob T., and J.F. Against All Defendants)

23

161. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations of Paragraphs

24 1 through 140 as though fully set forth herein.

25

162. This claim is brought by Plaintiff Sigma Beta Xi on behalf of itself and

26 by Plaintiffs Jacob T. and J.F. on behalf of themselves and the members of the

27 certified class.

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-57-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 58 of 69 Page ID #:451

1

163. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the

2 right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

3

164. Defendants, as a matter of policy, practice, and custom, inter alia,

4 impose blanket search terms as a condition of YAT probation. These terms, as

5 incorporated in YAT probation contracts, purport to authorize search of a child’s

6 person—including through drug testing—property, and premises. Defendants rely

7 on these terms of YAT probation contracts to conduct drug testing and home

8 searches of Plaintiffs without a warrant.

9

165. As a matter of policy, practice, and custom, Plaintiffs are not informed

10 that these terms constitute a waiver of their rights under the Fourth Amendment. The

11 terms are presented in a context that is coercive and in which Plaintiffs, children

12 facing their first encounter with the justice system, are utterly lacking in relevant

13 information. Any purported waiver or blanket consent to searches of their person,

14 home, and property is not voluntary, knowing, or intelligent and is thus invalid.

15

166. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate Plaintiffs’ rights

16 under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and cause serious,

17 irreparable, and lasting harm to these children, which they will continue to suffer in

18 the absence of relief.

19

167. The mission of Sigma Beta Xi is also frustrated by Defendants’

20 policies, practices, and customs, and Sigma Beta Xi continues to divert resources as

21 a result.

22

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

23

Violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

24

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Overbreadth, Violation of Freedom of Expressive Association)

25

(Plaintiffs Sigma Beta Xi, Jacob T., and J.F. Against All Defendants)

26

168. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations of Paragraphs

27 1 through 140 as though fully set forth herein.

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-58-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 59 of 69 Page ID #:452

1

169. This claim is brought by Plaintiffs Sigma Beta Xi on behalf of itself

2 and by Plaintiffs Jacob T. and J.F. on behalf of themselves and the members of the

3 certified class.

4

170. The First Amendment protects against overly broad laws that abridge

5 the freedom of speech and the fundamental right to freedom of expressive

6 association.

7

171. Defendants, as a matter of policy, practice, or custom, impose YAT

8 probation conditions that prohibit association with “anyone not approved” by

9 Defendants and prohibit children from having “any negative contact with anyone.”

10 These terms are overbroad on their face because they reach a substantial amount of

11 First Amendment protected activity. Any purported waiver or consent to such

12 conditions is not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent and is thus invalid.

13

172. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate Plaintiffs’ rights

14 under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and cause serious,

15 irreparable, and lasting harm to these children, which they will continue to suffer in

16 the absence of relief.

17

173. The mission of Sigma Beta Xi is also frustrated by Defendants’ policy,

18 practice, and customs, and Sigma Beta Xi continues to divert resources as a result.

19

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

20

Violation of Art. I, § 7 of the California Constitution

21

(Deprivation of the Right to Procedural Due Process) (All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)

22

174. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations of Paragraphs

23 1 through 140 as though fully set forth herein.

24

175. This claim is brought by Plaintiff Sigma Beta Xi on behalf of itself and

25 by Plaintiffs Andrew M., Jacob T. and J.F. on behalf of themselves and the members

26 of the certified class.

27

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-59-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 60 of 69 Page ID #:453

1

176. The California Constitution, Article I, section 7 provides that “a person

2 may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”

3

177. Plaintiffs have a fundamental interest in their liberty to be free from the

4 constraints of probationary supervision imposed by Defendants’ YAT probation

5 program. Defendants deprive Plaintiffs of their liberty interests without adequate

6 procedural protections.

7

178. Defendants have a policy, practice, and custom of placing children on

8 YAT probation through unfair procedures that deny Plaintiffs the ability to act in

9 their own best interest and to make a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent decision

10 regarding whether to accept YAT probation.

11

179. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate Plaintiffs’ rights

12 under Article I § 7 of the California Constitution and cause serious, irreparable, and

13 lasting harm to these children, which they will continue to suffer in the absence of

14 relief.

15

180. The mission of Sigma Beta Xi is also frustrated by the unlawful policy,

16 practice, and custom of Defendants, and Sigma Beta Xi continues to divert resources

17 as a result.

18

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

19

Violation of Art. I, § 13 of the California Constitution

20

(Unreasonable Search And Seizure) (Plaintiffs Sigma Beta Xi, Jacob T., and J.F. Against All Defendants)

21

181. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations of Paragraphs

22 1 through 140 as though fully set forth herein.

23

182. This claim is brought by Plaintiff Sigma Beta Xi on behalf of itself and

24 by Plaintiffs Jacob T. and J.F. on behalf of themselves and the members of the

25 certified class.

26

183. Article I, section 13 of the California Constitution protects the right to

27 be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-60-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 61 of 69 Page ID #:454

1

184. Defendants, as a matter of policy, practice, and custom, impose blanket

2 search terms as a condition of YAT probation. These terms, as incorporated in YAT

3 probation contracts, purport to authorize search of a child’s person—including

4 through drug testing—property, and premises. Defendants rely on these terms of

5 YAT probation contracts to conduct drug testing and home searches of Plaintiffs

6 without a warrant.

7

185. As a matter of policy, practice, and custom, Plaintiffs are not informed

8 that these terms constitute a waiver of their rights under the Fourth Amendment. The

9 terms are presented in a context that is coercive and in which Plaintiffs, children

10 facing their first encounter with the justice system, are utterly lacking in relevant

11 information. Any purported waiver or blanket consent to searches of their person,

12 home, and property is not voluntary, knowing, or intelligent and is thus invalid.

13

186. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate Plaintiffs’ rights

14 under the Article I, section 13 of the California Constitution and cause serious,

15 irreparable, and lasting harm to these children, which they will continue to suffer in

16 the absence of relief.

17

187. The mission of Sigma Beta Xi is also frustrated by Defendants policy,

18 practice, and customs, and Sigma Beta Xi continues to divert resources as a result.

19

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

20

Violation of Art. I, §§ 2a, 3 of the California Constitution

21

(Overbreadth, Violation of Freedom of Expressive Association) (Plaintiffs Sigma Beta Xi, Jacob T., and J.F. Against All Defendants)

22

188. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations of Paragraphs

23 1 through 140 as though fully set forth herein.

24

189. This claim is brought by Plaintiffs Sigma Beta Xi on behalf of itself

25 and by Plaintiffs Jacob T. and J.F. on behalf of themselves and the members of the

26 certified class.

27

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-61-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 62 of 69 Page ID #:455

1

190. Article I, sections 2a and 3 of the California Constitution protect

2 against overly broad laws that abridge the freedom of speech and the fundamental

3 right to freedom of expressive association.

4

191. Defendants, as a matter of policy, practice, or custom, impose YAT

5 probation conditions that prohibit association with “anyone not approved” by

6 Defendants and prohibit children from having “any negative contact with anyone.”

7 These terms are overbroad on their face because they reach a substantial amount of

8 protected speech and expressive activity. Any purported waiver or consent to such

9 conditions is not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent and is thus invalid.

10

192. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate Plaintiffs’ rights

11 under Article I, sections 2a and 3 of the California Constitution and cause serious,

12 irreparable, and lasting harm to these children, which they will continue to suffer in

13 the absence of relief.

14

193. The mission of Sigma Beta Xi is also frustrated by Defendants’ policy,

15 practice, and customs, and Sigma Beta Xi continues to divert resources as a result.

16

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

17

Violation of Art. I, § 7 of the California Constitution

18

(Welf. & Inst. Code § 601 is Overly Vague on Its Face in Violation of Due Process)

19

(All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)

20

194. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations of Paragraphs

21 1 through 140 as though fully set forth herein.

22

195. This claim is brought by Plaintiff Sigma Beta Xi on behalf of itself and

23 by Plaintiffs Andrew M., Jacob T. and J.F. on behalf of themselves and the members

24 of the certified class.

25

196. Article I § 7 of the California Constitution protects against the

26 deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

27

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-62-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 63 of 69 Page ID #:456

1

197. The terms of Section 601(b)—prohibiting “persistent or habitual refusal

2 to obey the reasonable and proper orders or directions of school authorities”—are

3 vague on their face. These terms fail to define the offense sufficiently to provide

4 notice to the average child who is expected to comply with its terms of what conduct

5 is prohibited or to provide sufficient guidance to those charged with its enforcement,

6 authorizing and encouraging arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

7

198. Section 601 is the basis for Plaintiffs’ referral to and their placement on

8 YAT probation.

9

199. Defendants’ enforcement of Section 601(b) causes serious, irreparable,

10 and lasting harm to Plaintiffs, and they will continue to suffer irreparable harm in

11 the absence of relief.

12

200. The mission of Sigma Beta Xi is also frustrated by Defendants’

13 enforcement of Section 601(b), and Sigma Beta Xi continues to divert resources as a

14 result.

15

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

16

Violation of Art. I, § 7 of the California Constitution

17

(Welf. & Inst. Code § 601 is Vague as Applied in Violation of Due Process) (All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)

18

201. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations of Paragraphs

19 1 through 140 as though fully set forth herein.

20

202. This claim is brought by Plaintiff Sigma Beta Xi on behalf of itself and

21 by Plaintiffs Andrew M., Jacob T. and J.F. on behalf of themselves and the members

22 of the certified class.

23

203. Article I, section 7 of the California Constitution protects against the

24 deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

25

204. Defendants apply Section 601 through their criteria for referral and in

26 their citation of Section 601 to place children on YAT probation. Defendants, as a

27 matter of policy, practice, and custom, apply Section 601 in a manner that is overly

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-63-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 64 of 69 Page ID #:457

1 vague. As applied by Defendants, Section 601 fails to define the offense sufficiently

2 to provide notice to the average child of what conduct is prohibited or to provide

3 sufficient guidance to those charged with its enforcement, authorizing and

4 encouraging arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

5

205. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate Plaintiffs’ rights

6 under the California Constitution and cause serious, irreparable, and lasting harm to

7 these children, which they will continue to suffer in the absence of relief.

8

206. The mission of Sigma Beta Xi is also frustrated by Defendants’

9 policies, practices, and customs, and Sigma Beta Xi continues to divert resources as

10 a result.

11

ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

12

Violation of California Government Code § 11135

13

(The YAT probation program has a significantly adverse impact on Black and Latinx children)

14

(Plaintiffs Andrew M., Sigma Beta Xi, and J.F. against All Defendants)

15

207. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations of Paragraphs

16 1 through 140 as though fully set forth herein.

17

208. This claim is brought by Plaintiff Sigma Beta Xi on behalf of itself and

18 by Plaintiffs Andrew M. and J.F. on behalf of themselves and the members of the

19 certified class.

20

209. California Government Code section 11135 prohibits discrimination

21 “under any program or activity that . . . receives any financial assistance from the

22 state.”

23

210. Defendants’ operation of the YAT probation program has a

24 significantly adverse and disproportionate impact on Black and Latinx children,

25 including Plaintiffs Andrew M. and J.F. and the mentees of Plaintiff Sigma Beta Xi.

26

211. Defendants use a risk assessment instrument that results in Black and

27 Latinx children being scored as having a higher risk of future criminality, an

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-64-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 65 of 69 Page ID #:458

1 undefined concept, based upon broadly drafted questions that invite bias, and

2 perpetuate disparities and discrimination occurring elsewhere in the criminal system

3 and in school discipline. Black and Latinx children are scored as having higher risk

4 than similarly situated white children under Defendants’ formula.

5

212. Defendants’ policy, practice, and custom of placing children on YAT

6 probation contracts has an additional adverse and disparate impact on Black and

7 Latinx children. Even among children who score as having no risk, Black and

8 Latinx children are more likely than white children to be placed on YAT program

9 contracts.

10

213. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate Plaintiffs’ rights

11 under California Government Code section 11135 and cause serious, irreparable,

12 and lasting harm to these children, which they will continue to suffer in the absence

13 of relief.

14

214. The mission of Sigma Beta Xi is also frustrated by Defendants’

15 policies, practices, and customs, and Sigma Beta Xi continues to divert resources as

16 a result.

17

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

18

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court:

19

I. Assume jurisdiction of this matter;

20

21

II. Appoint the individual Plaintiffs as Class Representatives;

22

III. Appoint Plaintiffs’ counsel as Class Counsel;

23

IV. Issue a declaratory judgment that:

24

A. California Welfare & Institutions Code section 601(b)’s

25

prohibition of “persistent or habitual refusal to obey the

26

reasonable and proper orders or directions of school authorities”

27

is unconstitutionally vague;

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-65-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 66 of 69 Page ID #:459

1

B.

2

3

4

C.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

D.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

E.

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
SMRH:228057520.1

Defendants’ application of California Welfare & Institutions Code section 601 through the policies, practices, and customs of YAT is unconstitutionally vague; Defendants’ policy, practice, and custom of placing children in the YAT program under the circumstances described above, without adequate notice of (a) the charges against them or the underlying facts supporting the allegation, (b) their legal rights, including the right to consult with counsel, or (c) the possible consequences, and (d) under conditions that are coercive, misleading, and otherwise do not permit voluntary, knowing, and intelligent consent violates Plaintiffs’ rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; Defendants’ policy, practice, and custom of searching the homes, belongings, and persons of children placed on YAT probation, including through drug testing, under the circumstances described above, violates Plaintiffs’ rights to be free from unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 13 of the California Constitution; Defendants’ policy, practice, and custom of prohibiting children placed on YAT probation from associating with anyone not approved of by Defendants is overbroad and violates Plaintiffs’ rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and violates Plaintiffs right to freedom of expressive association protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; and
-66-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 67 of 69 Page ID #:460

1

F. Defendants’ policy, practice, and custom of operating the YAT

2

probation program, including through utilizing its Risk

3

Assessment Form and the placement of children on YAT

4

probation, has a significant adverse impact on Black and Latinx

5

children in violation of California Government Code section

6

11135;

7

V. Issue an Order for injunctive relief enjoining Defendant from:

8

A. Enforcing California Welfare & Institutions Code section

9

601(b)’s prohibition of “persistent or habitual refusal to obey the

10

reasonable and proper orders or directions of school authorities”;

11

B. Continuing their policy, practice, and custom of applying

12

California Welfare & Institutions Code section 601 in an

13

unconstitutionally vague manner including through its referral

14

criteria and in placing children on YAT probation contracts;

15

C. Placing children on informal probation contracts, as described

16

above, or any other form of supervision by Defendant without

17

due process of law, including, but not limited to:

18

1. Notice containing, at a minimum: (a) an explanation of the

19

charges against a child and the specific conduct alleged to

20

violate the law; (b) an explanation of the juvenile court

21

process and of YAT probation sufficient for a child to

22

make an informed decision regarding participation in YAT

23

probation; (c) a statement of the child’s rights, including

24

the right to consult with an attorney, the right to be free

25

from unreasonable searches, and the right to freedom of

26

association; and (d) a statement of the consequences a

27

court would be authorized to issue based on the specific

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-67-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 68 of 69 Page ID #:461

1

facts of the offense, and all the consequences resulting

2

from YAT;

3

2. Access to an attorney who can advise a child in deciding

4

whether accepting YAT probation is in their best interest;

5

D. Searching the homes, property, or persons of children placed on

6

YAT probation on the basis of an informal probation contract, as

7

described above, and without a warrant or a specific exception

8

under the Fourth Amendment;

9

E. Prohibiting children placed on YAT from associating with others

10

“not approved of” by Defendants or others;

11

F. Continuing to maintain or make use of any records generated

12

through referral and placement of Named Plaintiffs and class

13

members on YAT probation; and

14

G. Operating the YAT probation program in a manner that has a

15

significant adverse impact on Black and Latinx children,

16

including but not limited to, the use of the Risk assessment form;

17

VII. Award Plaintiffs Andrew M., Jacob T., and J.F. nominal damages in

18

the amount of one dollar each for violations by Defendants of their

19

constitutional rights;

20

VIII. Award Plaintiffs’ costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

21

1988; and

22

IX. Grant such equitable, further, and different relief as the Court deems

23

just and proper.

24

X. The declaratory and injunctive relief requested in this action is sought

25

against each Defendant; against each Defendant’s officers, employees,

26

and agents; and against all persons acting in active concert or

27

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-68-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 69 of 69 Page ID #:462

1

participation with any Defendant, or under any Defendant’s

2

supervision, direction, or control.

3 4 Dated: September 26, 2018

Respectfully submitted,

5

/s/ Sylvia Torres-Guillén

6

Sylvia Torres-Guillén

7

ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

8

Hannah Comstock Victor Leung

9

Alexis Piazza

10

ACLU FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

11

Christine P. Sun Linnea L. Nelson

12

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

13

FOUNDATION Sarah Hinger*

14

ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO AND

15

IMPERIAL COUNTIES David Loy

16

Melissa Deleon

17

SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP

18

Moe Keshavarzi Andrea N. Feathers

19

NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW

20

Michael Harris

21

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

22

*Admitted Pro Hac Vice

23

24

25

26

27

28
SMRH:228057520.1

-69-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

 
 1

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

2

SIGMA BETA XI, INC., ET AL. V. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, ET AL.

3

CASE NO. 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM

4 Plaintiffs in this matter, on behalf of themselves and all Class Members, and Defendants Riverside County, Mark Hake, and Bryce Hulstrom, (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their attorneys,
5 hereby enter into this Settlement Agreement and Release (“Agreement”), as of the date it is executed by
6 all parties hereto (the “Agreement Date”) and effective upon approval of the Court pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as set forth below. The Parties desire a fair resolution for the youth
7 in Riverside County in this matter, seek to avoid potentially costly and protracted litigation, and have

8

voluntarily agreed, considering the benefits that flow from this Agreement and as indicated by the signatures below, to resolve the disputes that have arisen between them by entering into this Agreement.

9

RECITALS

10 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs brought an action on behalf of themselves and all Class Members against the
11 County of Riverside, Mark Hake, and Bryce Hulstrom (collectively “Defendants”) on or about July 1,
2018, alleging that Defendants operate the Riverside County Youth Accountability Team (“YAT”) 12 Program in violation of the U.S. Constitution, California Constitution, and California Government Code;
13 and Plaintiffs’ allegations are more fully described in the First Amended Complaint filed in Case No. 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM (the “Action”);
14 WHEREAS, Defendants deny any violation of the United States Constitution, the California Constitution,
15 and the California Government Code in their operation of the Riverside County YAT Program;

16 WHEREAS, both Plaintiffs and Defendants, through counsel, have conducted discussions and arm’s

17 length negotiations regarding a compromise and settlement of the Action with a view to settling all matters in dispute;

18 WHEREAS, considering the benefits that the Plaintiffs and Class Members will receive from settlement

19 of the Action and the risks of litigation, Plaintiffs’ Counsel have concluded that the terms and conditions

20

of this Agreement are fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Plaintiffs and Class Members; Plaintiffs have agreed that Defendants shall be released from the Settled Claims pursuant to the terms and

21 provisions of this Agreement; and have agreed to dismissal with prejudice of this Action and all Settled

Claims as defined in Section II; 22

WHEREAS, the Parties agree that entry of this Agreement in the Action, without further litigation, is in 23 the public interest;

24 WHEREAS, the Parties agree that the goals of this Agreement are intended to promote the well-being of
25 youth; to reflect best practices in investments in school, health and community-based holistic youth development; to improve youth outcomes; and to increase community engagement and leadership in pre-
26 arrest youth probation programs in Riverside County;

27

28

Page 1 of 28

Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., et al. v. County of Riverside, et al., 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM

Settlement Agreement

1 THEREFORE IT IS STIPULATED by the Parties, subject to the approval of the Court pursuant to Rule

2

23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in consideration of the benefits flowing to the Parties hereto from the Agreement, that the Settled Claims shall be compromised, settled, forever released, barred, and

3 dismissed with prejudice, upon and subject to the following terms and conditions:

4 I. Definitions

5

A. “Action” means the civil action captioned Sigma Beta Xi, et al. v. County of Riverside

6

et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM, United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division.

7 B. “Class Member(s)” means any child in Riverside County who has been referred to the

8

Riverside County Youth Accountability Team (“YAT”) program pursuant to California

9

Welfare & Institutions Code § 601, and who was either placed on a YAT probation contract or was referred but has not yet been placed on a YAT probation contract.

10 C. “Certified translation” and “certified interpretation” means written translation or verbal

11

interpretation from English into another language by an individual who has passed a

12

written and oral certification examination administered by Riverside County, the State of California, or the United States attesting that she or he is fluent in both languages

13

and qualified to provide professional translation and/or interpretation.

14

D. “Community Representative” means a public or private nonprofit organization that has

demonstrated effectiveness in providing affirmative, evidence-based supports or

15

services primarily to the Riverside County community on a voluntary basis. Such

16

services may include, but are not limited to, mentoring, counseling, personal growth

and development, health, wellness, nutrition, fitness, employment skill development,

17

and academic or educational services. Community representatives shall be focused on

18

positive youth development practices and do not include organizations whose programming requires youth to have contact with county jails, state prisons, jail or

19

prison administrators or inmates, or any program that uses “Scared Straight”

Programming. 20

21

E. “Defendants” means all defendants named in the Action.

22

F. “Effective Date of Settlement” means the date upon which this Agreement shall

become effective, as set forth in Section XVIII, below.

23

G. “Plaintiffs” means all plaintiffs named in Action. 24

25

H. “Plaintiffs’ Counsel” means all plaintiffs’ counsel named in the Action. Should these entities change their names or merge with other entities, those new entities shall also

26

qualify as Plaintiffs’ Counsel.

27

28

Page 2 of 28

Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., et al. v. County of Riverside, et al., 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM

Settlement Agreement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
II. 18 19 20 21 22 23 III. 24 25 26 27 28

I. “Scared Straight Programming” means programming that involves organized visits to prison or jail facilities by youth purportedly at risk of becoming delinquent. Programs include confrontational “rap” sessions in which adult inmates share graphic stories about prison life with youth. Other less confrontational methods and more educational sessions include inmates sharing life stories and describing the choices they made that led to imprisonment.
J. “Settled Claims” means all claims for declaratory or injunctive relief that were brought on behalf of Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., or Class Members based on the facts and circumstances alleged in the Complaint and First Amended Complaint, including but not limited to claims that Defendants’ policies, procedures, and practices related to the YAT program violated organizational plaintiff Sigma Beta Xi, Inc.’s and Class Members’ rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, § 7 of the California Constitution; their rights to be free from unlawful search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, § 13 of the California Constitution; their rights to freedom of association under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, §§ 2a and 3 of the California Constitution; and their statutory rights to be free from unlawful racial discrimination under California Government Code § 11135.
K. “Settlement” means the settlement provided for in this Agreement.
L. “Non-Court-Ordered Supervision Program” means any program that involves the creation of a contract or agreement between a youth and the Riverside County Probation Department or otherwise creates mandated conditions for participation in services.
Release: Scope and Effect of Release
A. As of the Effective Date of Settlement, the Plaintiffs and the Class Members, on behalf of themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, attorneys, successors, assigns, agents, affiliates, and partners, and any persons they represent, by operation of any final judgment entered by the Court, fully, finally, and forever release, relinquish, and discharge the Defendants of and from any and all of the Settled Claims. This Release shall not apply to claims that arise or accrue after the termination of this Agreement.
Probation Referral
A. The Youth Accountability Team (YAT) Program is a program pursuant to Welfare & Institutions § 654. Subject to the limitations below, only youth who fall under the jurisdiction of Welfare & Institutions § 602 will be enrolled in a Welfare & Institutions Code § 654 program or referred for prosecution under Welfare & Institutions Code § 602.
Page 3 of 28 Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., et al. v. County of Riverside, et al., 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM
Settlement Agreement

1

B. Defendants agree not to seek or accept referrals from any source regarding any youth

2

under the age of 18 into the YAT program or any other non-court-ordered supervision program who is alleged to have committed an offense under Welfare & Institutions

3

Code § 601 or who is alleged to have engaged in non-criminal behavior, including non-

criminal violations of school rules. Defendants further agree not to place any youth

4

under the age of 18 into the YAT Program or any other non-court-ordered supervision

5

program who is alleged to have committed an offense under Welfare & Institutions

Code § 601 or who is alleged to have engaged in non-criminal behavior, including non-

6

criminal violations of school rules. This language shall not be construed to restrict the

ability of the Riverside County Probation Department (“Probation Department”) from

7

responding to inquiries and providing information about programming that exists in the

8

community and is open to the public.

9

C. Substantial research shows that contact with the juvenile justice system leads to worse

outcomes for youth. The Probation Department is committed to minimizing contact

10

between youth and the juvenile justice system to the extent possible consistent with

11

public safety and evidence-based practices. For youth accused of committing an

offense under Welfare & Institutions Code § 602 and where the Probation Department

12

has statutory discretion, the Probation Department may contact the youth or their

parent or guardian where the Probation Department is deciding whether to counsel and

13

close or provide a referral to community-based services or refer the youth to the YAT

14

Program. Any information obtained from the parent or guardian shall not be disclosed

to the District Attorney other than the YAT Team members and shall not be used

15

against the youth during any court proceeding. For the following offenses, there shall

16

be a presumption upon an application for a petition that the Probation Department will counsel and close the matter or refer the youth to a community-based organization.

17 (1). Willful Disturbance of Public School, California Education

18

Code § 32210;

19

(2). Possession of Cigarettes / Marijuana / Alcohol, California

20

Penal Code § 308 (smoking paraphernalia), California Health & Safety Code §§ 11357, and 11360 (marijuana charges), California

21

Business & Professions Code §§ 25608, 25620, and 25662 (alcohol

possession); and

22

(3). Possession of Certain Items, California Penal Code §§

23

412.27 (laser pointer at school); 594.1-594.2 (graffiti tool); and

24

California Health & Safety Code §§ 13001- 13002 (possession of

flammable substance).

25

IV. Defense Counsel

26

A. Defense counsel shall be a part of the YAT team, or any other non-court ordered

27

supervision program team.

28

Page 4 of 28

Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., et al. v. County of Riverside, et al., 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM

Settlement Agreement

1

B. Defendants will provide legal counsel for all youth referred to and involved in the YAT

2

program or any other non-court ordered supervision program. The role of legal counsel will be to advocate for and protect the rights of the youth client, including ensuring that

3

the youth understands their legal rights and the potential consequences and benefits of

either entering the program or proceeding to court, and is able to knowingly,

4

voluntarily, and intelligently make a decision regarding participation.

5

C. Generally, as stated by the American Bar Association, the primary duties that legal

6

counsel owe to their clients, to the administration of justice, and as officers of the

court, are to serve as their clients’ counselor and advocate with courage and devotion;

7

to ensure that constitutional and other legal rights of their clients are protected; and to

8

render effective, high-quality legal representation with integrity. As such, and consistent with the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct,

9

as the youth’s representative, defense counsel shall support the youth by performing

the various functions as counsel and having a special responsibility for the quality of

10

justice. As advisor, counsel shall provide an informed understanding of the client's

11

legal rights and obligations and explain their practical implications. As advocate,

counsel shall zealously assert the client's position. As negotiator, counsel shall seek a

12

result helpful and advantageous to the client. As an evaluator, counsel shall act by

examining the youth’s legal matters and reporting about them to the client or to others. 13

14

D. Once the Probation Department has determined that a youth is suitable for the YAT program or any other non-court ordered supervision program, as reflected in Section

15

III(C) above, the Probation Department will provide a copy of the petition (J-132) and

accompanying documents to the Public Defender’s office, initiating the appointment of

16

counsel.

17

E. Defendants will provide counsel at no cost to the youth through the Office of the Public

18

Defender except where representation by outside counsel would best serve the interests

of the youth (e.g., where the county contracts with outside counsel to avoid a conflict

19

of interest between clients).

20

F. Youth referred to the YAT Program or any other non-court ordered supervision

21

program shall consult with counsel, at no cost to the youth or family, prior to meeting with the Probation Department and prior to deciding whether to participate in the

22

program. If, after consultation with counsel, the youth elects not to participate in the

YAT Program or any other non-court ordered supervision program, the obligations of

23

the counsel are immediately terminated. If, after consultation with counsel, the youth

24

elects to participate in the YAT Program or any other non-court ordered supervision

program, the appointment and responsibilities of counsel shall remain in effect

25

throughout the youth’s involvement in the YAT program or any other non-court

26

ordered supervision program and as part of the YAT team. Defense counsel’s representation shall continue to ensure that, as permitted or required by law, the

27

youth’s records and files are timely sealed and/or destroyed.

28

Page 5 of 28

Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., et al. v. County of Riverside, et al., 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM

Settlement Agreement

1 2 3 4 V. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

G. Within 7 days of executing the Agreement, the parties shall file a joint application to the Presiding Judge of the Riverside County Juvenile Court, requesting that the Court appoint Counsel for the youth in all YAT-related cases or any non-court ordered supervision program.
Probation Notice to Youth
A. Youth will be afforded due process in all contacts with Defendants related to the YAT program or any other non-court-ordered supervision program, including but not limited to:
(1). Prior to assigning any youth to the YAT program or any other non-court-ordered supervision program, the Probation Department will determine that there is probable cause to believe that the youth named in the application for a petition committed the alleged offense.
(2). The Probation Department will provide the following information in order for the youth to make a knowing, voluntary, and informed decision regarding participation in to the YAT program or any other non-court-ordered supervision program:
(a). Written information about the charges or allegations made against the youth that would satisfy Section V.A. of this Agreement, including (a) the offense code and text of the law, and (b) a copy of the police report which shall be provided to defense counsel.
(b). A description of the YAT Program or any other non-court-ordered supervision program, including (a) the criteria for participation; and (b) a complete description of how the program operates, including the length of the program, any youth evaluations conducted, and the specific components that may be and are expected to be assigned as part of the program (e.g., classes or counseling sessions that a youth may be required to attend).
(c). Notice that, if the youth chooses to participate in the program, any information obtained during the course of the program may be disclosed to the juvenile court in future proceedings.
Page 6 of 28 Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., et al. v. County of Riverside, et al., 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM
Settlement Agreement

1

(d). A statement that the youth’s information will

2

be stored in juvenile or other county records systems unless or until the record is destroyed or sealed.

3

(e). A description of how Probation will

4

determine that a youth has successfully completed the

program. 5

(f). The right to have Riverside County-provided

6

certified interpretation at all meetings with the

7

Probation Department if the youth or the youth’s

parent or guardian does not speak English as a first

8

language.

9

(3). The initial notice and any written information addressed in

10

this Agreement that is provided to youth and the youth’s parent or guardian must be in language that is easy to understand, at no more

11

than a fifth-grade reading level. All written materials will be made

available in both English and Spanish. If the youth or the youth’s

12

parent or guardian speak a language other than English or Spanish,

13

the Probation Department will make reasonable accommodations to

ensure all items in the written notice are effectively communicated

14

to the youth and family.

15

(4). For any youth or parent or guardian for whom English is not

a first language, the Probation Department will provide certified

16

interpretation services at all meetings.

17

(5). The Probation Department will provide accommodations for

18

any youth, parent or guardian with a disability to ensure that youth

and family members are able to participate fully and understand, at a

19

minimum, all critical components of the YAT Program or any other

20

non-court-ordered supervision program, including notice, the initial

interview, and exit interview.

21 (6). The Probation Department will make best efforts to work

22

with youth and their families to schedule meetings to avoid conflicts

with regular instructional time, any extracurricular activities, or

23

appointments, so that individuals who play a supportive role in the

24

youth’s life are able to attend. If a probation officer wishes to meet

with the youth or their family at their home, the probation officer

25

shall provide notice at least 48 hours ahead of the meeting time,

26

except where the probation officer and the parent or guardian agree.

27

28

Page 7 of 28

Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., et al. v. County of Riverside, et al., 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM

Settlement Agreement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 VI. 25 26 27 28

(7). The Probation Department will not require a youth to admit culpability as a condition of participation in any the YAT Program or any other non-court-ordered supervision program.
(8). There shall be a presumption against assigning drug or alcohol testing as a condition to any probation contract (“Contract”) under the YAT Program or any other non-court-ordered supervision program. The Probation Department will not assign drug or alcohol testing unless there is a direct nexus between the condition and the alleged offense, or where subsequent incidents of drug or alcohol usage have been identified. Where the Probation Department seeks to assign drug or alcohol testing at any point, notice of this condition shall be provided in writing to the youth, the youth’s parent or guardian, and their counsel. No drug or alcohol testing shall be assigned unless the youth is provided a referral to drug or alcohol counseling. The Probation Department will not terminate the Contract due to a family or youth’s inability to pay for drug or alcohol counseling or treatment services and will make best efforts to ensure that the youth is referred to the best low- or no-cost resources available.
(9). The Probation Department will provide youth with notice, in writing, that the youth has successfully completed the YAT Program or any other non-court-ordered supervision program. Notice shall be provided within 72 hours of completion.
(10). If a youth is in danger of not successfully completing the program, the Probation Department will provide the youth with every opportunity for additional services and supports intended to bring the youth onto a path toward successful completion.
(11) Notice must be provided in writing to the youth and the youth’s parent or guardian, and the youth’s attorney, and mailed to the youth’s home address at least one week prior to any meeting at a critical stage. “Critical stages” shall include the initial interview meeting, exit interview, the proposed introduction of any new condition, and where the probation officer believes the youth may be in jeopardy of being terminated from the program.
Risk Assessments
A. The Probation Department currently uses the Ohio Youth Assessment System for Diversion (“OYAS”) to determine if youth who are referred to the YAT Program receive one of two options: 1) counsel and close, or 2) a Contract of up to six months
Page 8 of 28 Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., et al. v. County of Riverside, et al., 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM
Settlement Agreement

1

of supervision. As long as the Probation Department continues to utilize the OYAS, or

2

any future assessment tool, it agrees to the following:

3

(1). To maintain a high level of inter-rater reliability the Probation Department will:

4

(a). Provide 14 hours of introductory training on

5

how to correctly use the OYAS to any staff member

newly assigned to use the OYAS for youth in the

6

YAT Program or any other non-court-ordered

7

supervision program, prior to that staff member

conducting any OYAS assessments.

8

(b). Provide ongoing yearly training on the correct

9

use of the OYAS for all staff members utilizing the

10

OYAS for assessments in the YAT Program or any

other non-court-ordered supervision program.

11 (c). Because the predictive power of the OYAS is

12

short term, the Probation Department currently only

uses the score obtained from the administration of the

13

OYAS to guide decision making regarding the levels

14

of intervention in the YAT Program. The score will

not be used at a later time or for other purposes.

15

(2). The Probation Department currently requires a supervisor to

16

approve a different level of intervention than that the OYAS score

17

recommends (i.e., an override). With respect to the practice of

overrides:

18 (a). The Probation Department will provide yearly

19

training to supervisors who approve OYAS overrides

20

to help them consistently make appropriate decisions regarding overrides.

21

(b). The Probation Department will develop

22

guidelines for the appropriate use of overrides. At a

minimum, overrides must be accompanied by a

23

written explanation of which factors the supervisor

24

relied on to approve the override, which will include

what aspects of the program are appropriate for the

25

youth and why.

26

(3). If the Probation Department chooses to utilize another

27

screening instrument, other than or in addition to the OYAS, it will do the following:

28

Page 9 of 28

Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., et al. v. County of Riverside, et al., 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM

Settlement Agreement

1

(a). Provide the instrument creator’s

2

recommended hours of training on how to correctly use the instrument to all staff who will use it, prior to

3

any staff member conducting screenings with the

instrument.

4

(b). Provide yearly training on the correct use of

5

the instrument for all staff using the instrument, as

6

well as for any staff who will be asked to approve

deviations from the outcome recommended by the

7

instrument.

8

(c). If the instrument can be overridden, the

9

Probation Department agrees to require a supervisor’s approval for any override and a written

10

explanation for all factors that supported the override.

11

(4). The instrument will only be used for the purpose for which it

is intended, and not for other purposes. 12

VII. Contracts Under the YAT Program or Any Other Non-Court-Ordered Supervision Program 13

14

A. For any youth participating in the YAT Program or any other non-court-ordered supervision program, the Probation Department, the youth, and the youth’s parent or

15

guardian will sign a written Contract explaining the basis for the Contract and setting

out each party’s responsibilities within the program. The Contract shall be developed

16

between the youth, the youth’s parent or guardian, defense counsel, and probation

17

officer, using the Contract template attached as Exhibit A, to ensure that all items are

developmentally appropriate and designed to meet the specific needs of the youth (e.g.,

18

goals for educational success, history of trauma, and unique individual challenges) and

to promote positive behavioral change. 19

20

(1). The Contract will set out written information about the charges or allegations made against the youth that would satisfy

21

Section V(A), above, including the offense code and text of the law.

22

(2). The Contract will identify the jointly-created list of positive

development opportunities, goals, incentives, terms, and resources

23

designed to build on the youth’s strengths and to meet the specific

24

needs of the youth. These should include: (1) the youth's needs to

be addressed by the Contract and an identification of the youth’s

25

strengths; (2) the resources the Probation Department will provide to

26

the youth (e.g., the provision of bus cards to travel to courses or meetings); (3) the goals the youth agrees to work toward, including

27

short-term goals and targeted incentives; (4) terms the youth agrees

28

Page 10 of 28

Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., et al. v. County of Riverside, et al., 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM

Settlement Agreement

1

to comply with; and (5) information about any Community

2

Representatives that may work with the youth.

3

(3). For any youth or parent or guardian for whom English is not a first language, the Probation Department will provide a copy of the

4

Contract in a language the youth, parent, or guardian understands.

5

(4). The Probation Department will make accommodations as

necessary to ensure that the Contract is accessible to any youth,

6

parent, or guardian with a disability.

7

(5). The following terms will not be included in any Contract

8

under the YAT Program or any other non-court-ordered supervision

program:

9

(a). Any term related to touring a correctional

10

facility;

11

(b). Any term prohibiting associations, with the

12

possible exception of co-participants, victims, or

witnesses related to the alleged offense for which the

13

youth is referred; or

14

(c). Any term related to searches of the youth’s

15

person, vehicle, premises, cell phone, or other personal possession.

16 (6). Contracts may include a term to address drug or alcohol use

17

by the youth, as described in Section V.A.4, above. Completion of

goals related to drug or alcohol addiction should give consideration

18

to the youth’s efforts in meeting those goals as developed according

19

to Section VII.A.2 above, rather than the outcome of any particular

drug or alcohol test.

20

(7). Contracts may be amended to reflect youth progress or

21

adjusted to respond to youth needs. In no circumstance will new

22

conditions be added to a Contract absent notice to appointed counsel

and consent from the youth and parents or guardians.

23 (8). Any Contract under the YAT Program or any other non-

24

court-ordered supervision program will remain in place for no more

25

than six months. A Contract may be closed at an earlier date if the Probation Department believes that a youth has successfully

26

cooperated and met the goals and objectives set out in the Contract.

27

28

Page 11 of 28

Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., et al. v. County of Riverside, et al., 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM

Settlement Agreement

1 VIII. Record Collection, Creation, and Retention

2

A. The Probation Department shall not collect or maintain any information on youth who

3

do not fall under Welfare & Institutions Code § 601 or § 602, including in its Juvenile and Adult Management System (“JAMS”) database. For any youth referred under

4

Welfare & Institutions Code § 601, the Probation Department will not retain any

information beyond what is obtained in the application for a petition, and will retain the

5

application for petition and JAMS record solely for records management purposes for

6

the period of time provided by the Probation Department’s records retention policy.

7

B. Riverside Defendants shall not collect or maintain any information about youth who do

not fall under Welfare & Institutions Code § 602 in any database where the primary

8

purpose is to track gang-related intelligence information. The Probation Department

9

will not enter any information discovered in the course of the YAT Program or any other non-court-ordered supervision program into any external gang-related database.

10 C. The Probation Department will not seek to obtain any documentation pertaining to the

11

immigration status of a youth or a youth’s parent or guardian.

12

D. For any youth referred for petition under Welfare & Institutions Code § 602 and

involved with the YAT Program or any other non-court-ordered supervision program,

13

the Probation Department may receive, solicit and maintain certain records pertaining

14

to the youth. These records will be stored in the JAMS database and/or hard copy

(“JAMS file”).

15

(1). Where the Probation Department seeks to obtain records, it

16

will do so with the purpose of preparing the Contract and providing

17

services to the youth.

18

(2). The Probation Department will seek to minimize the amount

of information solicited and incorporated in the youth’s JAMS file.

19

The Probation Department will provide notice to the youth, their

20

parent or guardian, and their counsel, and obtain authorization prior to requesting medical and mental health records, including in the

21

youth’s Individualized Education Plan.

22

(3). The Probation Department will maintain the confidentiality

of youth records as provided for under Welfare & Institutions Code

23

§ 827 and applicable state law governing juvenile records. Pursuant

24

to § 827, youth and their parent or guardian have a right to inspect

the information contained in the youth’s JAMS file.

25

(4). The Probation Department may be obligated to provide

26

information from a youth’s participation in the YAT Program or any

27

other non-court ordered program of supervision, including whether

28

Page 12 of 28

Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., et al. v. County of Riverside, et al., 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM

Settlement Agreement

1 2 3 IX. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the youth declined participation, in subsequent juvenile proceedings, should they arise.
Data Tracking
A. Within 180 days of the Effective Date of Settlement, Defendants shall, on a quarterly basis, collect and analyze the following data regarding youth who are placed into the YAT program or any other non-court-ordered supervision program. Defendants’ analysis shall disaggregate the collected data by race / ethnicity, gender, age at time of alleged offense, and foster youth status. The categories for race and ethnicity shall be tracked according to the categories for race and ethnicity currently used by the Probation Department in its JAMS database. Defendants shall, on a quarterly basis, track and analyze the following data points for each youth:
(1). Individual identifier;
(2). Race / Ethnicity;
(3). Gender;
(4). Age at time of alleged offense;
(5). Foster youth status;
(6). Home language;
(7). Address for internal collection, and zip code for external reporting;
(8). Date of birth;
(9). School attended during period of participation in the program;
(10). Alleged offense that is basis of referral and date / time of alleged offense;
(11). Date of initial meeting with youth and parent or guardian;
(12). Method used to determine eligibility and level of intervention for the program, including:
(a). Any and all assessment instruments used:
(i). The name of the instrument;
(ii).The youth’s score (or evaluative metric) on instrument; and
Page 13 of 28 Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., et al. v. County of Riverside, et al., 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM
Settlement Agreement

1

(iii).Whether the instrument was

2

overridden; and if so, the reason for the override and the person

3

authorizing the override.

4

(13). Whether the youth completed the program;

5

(14). If the youth did not complete the program,

6

(a). The reason for non-completion;

7

(b). The amount of time the youth was in the

8

program; and

9

(c). The caseload number the youth was on when the youth did not complete the program.

10 B. Defendants’ analysis shall be provided in a written report to the Juvenile Justice

11

Coordinating Council (“JJCC”) in open session, and to the County Executive Officer,

on an annual basis in a format that will protect any confidential information about the

12

youth or personnel included in the report. The written reports shall be published and

13

maintained at the Probation Department website. Additionally, a hyperlink shall be

maintained at https://www.countyofriverside.us and all relevant county departmental

14

websites directing the reader to the Probation Department’s website for the reports and

15

all associated materials. Defendants’ written report to the JJCC shall present information on referrals, participation, and outcomes for the youth participating in the

16

YAT Program or any other non-court-ordered supervision program. The categories for

race and ethnicity shall be tracked according to the categories for race and ethnicity

17

currently used by the Probation Department in its JAMS database. Defendants’ written

18

report shall include:

19

(1). Participant Analysis

20

(a). Number of youth referred to the YAT

Program or any other non-court-ordered supervision

21

program (disaggregated by race/ethnicity, gender, zip

22

code, and offense);

23

(b). Age of youth at the time of the alleged

offense (disaggregated by offense, zip code and

24

race/ethnicity);

25

(c). Foster youth status (disaggregated by age,

26

race/ethnicity, and offense);

27

(d). Home language of youth (disaggregated by age, race/ethnicity, and offense);

28

Page 14 of 28

Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., et al. v. County of Riverside, et al., 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM

Settlement Agreement

1

(e). Number of youth ineligible, if any

2

(disaggregated by age, race/ethnicity, zip code, and offense);

3

(f). Number of youth who declined to participate

4

(disaggregated by age, race/ethnicity, zip code, and

offense); 5

(g). Number of youth “counseled and closed”

6

(disaggregated by age, race/ethnicity, zip code, and

7

offense);

8

(h). Number of youth put on a “Contract”

(disaggregated by age, race/ethnicity, zip code, and

9

offense);

10

(i). Number of youth in the YAT Program or any

11

other non-court-ordered supervision program at the

beginning and end of the fiscal year (disaggregated

12

by age, race/ethnicity, zip code, and offense);

13

(j). Number of youth in the YAT Program or any

14

other non-court-ordered supervision program each quarter, as of the first day of the quarter

15

(disaggregated by age, race/ethnicity, zip code, and

offense); 16

(k). Average length of time in the program for

17

youth who complete the YAT Program or any other

18

non-court-ordered supervision program

(disaggregated by age, race/ethnicity, zip code, and

19

offense);

20

(l). Average length of time in the program for

21

youth who do not complete the YAT Program or any other non-court-ordered supervision program,

22

(disaggregated by age, race/ethnicity, zip code, and

offense); 23

(m). Number of youth who successfully completed

24

the YAT Program or any other non-court-ordered

25

supervision program (disaggregated by age,

race/ethnicity, zip code, and offense);

26

(n). Number of youth who did not complete the

27

YAT Program or any other non-court-ordered

28

Page 15 of 28

Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., et al. v. County of Riverside, et al., 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM

Settlement Agreement

1

supervision program (disaggregated by age,

2

race/ethnicity, zip code, and offense); and

3

(o). List of services provided to youth in the YAT Program or any other non-court-ordered supervision

4

program.

5

(2). Assessment Analysis

6

(a). Number of youth assessed for participation in

the YAT Program or any other non-court-ordered

7

supervision program (disaggregated by age,

8

race/ethnicity, zip code, and offense);

9

(b). How many youth received each available

score on the assessment instrument (disaggregated by

10

age, race/ethnicity, zip code, and offense);

11

(c). Number of overrides (disaggregated by age,

12

race/ethnicity, zip code, and offense); and

13

(d). Ten most common reasons for overrides

(disaggregated by age, race/ethnicity, zip code, and

14

offense).

15

(3). Community Analysis

16

(a). Top ten zip codes of youth utilizing the

17

program; and

18

(b). Top ten referral offenses (disaggregated by

age, race/ethnicity, zip code, and offense).

19 X. Modification of Existing Probation Department Policies, Processes and/or Procedures and
20 Other Public Information Regarding the YAT Program and Any Other Non-Court-Ordered

21 Supervision Program; and Training

22

A. Defendants will modify any and all existing formal or informal policies, processes

and/or operating procedures, whether written or unwritten, and related training

23

materials to reflect the terms herein.

24

B. Defendants will train all personnel assigned to administer the YAT Program and

25

personnel assigned to juvenile intake functions on the policies and procedures reflected herein within 180 days of the Effective Date of Settlement.

26

C. Defendants will review and revise any and all public information, including

27

awareness, educational, and outreach information created, drafted, or released by

Riverside County Departments to reflect the terms herein and agreed to by the Parties.

28

Page 16 of 28

Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., et al. v. County of Riverside, et al., 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM

Settlement Agreement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 XI. 24 25 26 27 28

D. Within 180 days of the Effective Date of Settlement, the Probation Department shall create a mandatory training plan reflecting that all personnel assigned to administer the YAT Program or any other non-court ordered supervision program, and personnel assigned to juvenile intake functions, shall receive training in the areas of “Engaging Youth for Better Probation Outcomes” and “Advancing Probation Practice” as outlined and identified by Scott MacDonald and Naomi Goldstein. Scott MacDonald and Naomi Goldstein shall coordinate and lead the training on a yearly basis beginning in FY 2019-2020.
(1). The purpose of the training shall be to reflect a focus on youth success and positive development; identify youth needs for educational supports; increase cultural competence and an awareness of implicit bias, with a specific focus on race and disability; and increase awareness of youth responses to trauma.
(2). Initial training will commence in training year FY 2019/2020 and will consist of two eight (8) hour blocks. The Probation Department’s Staff Development Unit will work with Scott McDonald and Naomi Goldstein to assist with the STC certification process.
(3). Additional initial training classes may be held as new staff are assigned to the YAT Program or any other non-court-ordered supervision program and to juvenile intake functions.
(4). A four-hour refresher training for each course will be held annually beginning in FY 2020/2021 and continuing through the end of FY 2023/2024 for staff who are assigned to the YAT Program or any other non-court-ordered supervision program, and to juvenile intake functions.
(5). The training requirement reflected in Section X(D) is limited to five (5) years.
(6). The training plan shall be attached to this Agreement as Exhibit B. Any modifications to the training plan shall only be made upon written agreement between the Parties.
Composition of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee (JJCC)
A. Within 180 days of the Effective Date of Settlement, Defendants shall add 5 additional Community Representatives to the JJCC to be appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Community Representatives shall not be an arm of a law enforcement entity. Community Representatives shall make up at least 45% of the JJCC membership. In addition, Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., shall have a temporary seat on the JJCC for 2 years. In addition to its statutorily-defined duties, the JJCC should also:
Page 17 of 28 Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., et al. v. County of Riverside, et al., 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM
Settlement Agreement

1

(1). Develop a process for soliciting community review and

2

feedback regarding the operation of at-risk youth programs and services available in Riverside County, and incorporate that

3

feedback in their quarterly meetings;

4

(2). Review the data reports described in Section IX of this

Agreement and develop action plans and strategies to reduce

5

disproportionalities in referrals and enrollment of youth into the

6

YAT Program or any other non-court-ordered supervision programs;

and to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs and services

7

provided in the YAT Program or any other non-court-ordered

8

supervision programs to ensure the programs are centered on youth development, needs, and success;

9

(3). Identify potential improvements or modifications to

10

Defendants’ policies and/or practices.

11

(4). Review and comment on at-risk youth programs and services

available in Riverside County. 12

XII. Increased Allocation of JJCPA Funding to Community Representatives 13

14

A. Beginning in the 2020-2021 Fiscal Year, the Probation Department shall direct a minimum of $1.4 million annually for 5 years to Community Representatives. The

15

monies will be made available to Community Representatives through Defendants’

Request For Proposal (“RFP”) process. Any proposals submitted for funding after

16

January 1, 2020, will be reviewed by an RFP Review Committee consisting of JJCC

17

members or their designees. Any JJCC member who has submitted a response to the

RFP shall be recused from voting on any proposal they submit.

18 XIII. Sealing and Destruction of YAT Records for All Class Members

19

A. Within 180 days of the Effective Date of Settlement, the Probation Department shall:

20

(1). Identify, seal, and destroy the YAT case files for all youth

21

who were referred to and/or placed on a YAT contract without an application for a petition;

22

(2). Identify all youth who were referred to and/or placed on a

YAT contract through an application for a petition under the

23

jurisdiction of Welfare & Institutions Code § 601. YAT case files

24

for such youth will be maintained or destroyed in accordance with the Probation Department’s two (2) year records retention policy;

25

and

(3). Identify all youth who were referred to and/or placed on a

26

YAT contract under the jurisdiction of Welfare & Institutions Code

27

§ 602. YAT case files for such youth will be maintained or sealed in accordance with Welfare & Institutions Code § 781 and §

28

Page 18 of 28

Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., et al. v. County of Riverside, et al., 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM

Settlement Agreement

1

786.5. Within 7 days of executing the Agreement, the parties shall

2

file a joint application to the Presiding Judge of the Riverside County Juvenile Court, requesting that the court seal all juvenile

3

case files that would be eligible for sealing in accordance with

Welfare & Institutions Code § 781 and § 786.5.

4

(4). Notify all youth who were referred to and/or placed on a

5

YAT contract under the jurisdiction of Welfare & Institutions Code § 601 and their parent or guardian that the youth continues to be

6

eligible for diversion under Welfare & Institutions Code § 654. This

notification shall be done via distribution of the Notice to the Class.

7 XIV. Enforcement and Monitoring

8

A. Plaintiffs’ Counsel shall be provided with the following records within 90 days of the

9

Effective Date of Settlement:

10

(1). Amendments and modifications to Defendants’ departmental

policies and procedures regarding the YAT Program or any other

11

non-court-ordered supervision program administered by the

12

Probation Department, reflecting the terms herein and agreed to by

the Parties.

13

(2). Awareness, educational, and outreach information created,

14

drafted, or released by Defendants reflecting the terms herein and

15

agreed to by the Parties.

16

(3). Any and all template notifications sent to youth and/or their

parents/guardians regarding the YAT Program or any other non-

17

court-ordered supervision program administered by the Defendants.

18

(4). Any and all template voluntary juvenile probation contracts

19

used in the YAT Program or any other non-court-ordered supervision program administered by the Defendants.

20 B. The parties jointly request the appointment of Scott MacDonald and Naomi Goldstein

21

as qualified joint third-party monitors (“Monitors”) in this matter.

22

(1). The Monitors shall complete comprehensive reviews and

reports annually for the duration of the Agreement to advise the

23

Court and the parties on Defendants’ implementation and

24

compliance, or non-compliance, with the terms set forth in this

Agreement. Such reports shall be provided to the Parties and the

25

Court, and shall be made publicly available pursuant to Defendants’

26

obligations under the California Public Records Act.

27

(2). The Monitors shall be entitled to reasonable compensation

for their role as third-party monitors, which shall be paid by

28

Page 19 of 28

Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., et al. v. County of Riverside, et al., 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM

Settlement Agreement

1

Defendants. The Monitors shall provide monthly invoices detailing

2

each expense along with the documentation necessary to justify each expense.

3

(3). The Monitors shall be provided with reasonable access to

4

any persons, information, and documents maintained by Defendants

concerning the YAT Program or any other non-court ordered

5

supervision program to ensure Defendants’ compliance with the

6

Agreement.

7

(4). The Parties agree that they are each entitled to engage in ex

parte communications with the Monitors. However, all of the

8

Monitors’ findings and recommendations shall be set forth in

9

writing in their joint report.

10

(5). If for any reason Scott MacDonald and Naomi Goldstein are

not appointed or can no longer serve, the Parties shall attempt to

11

agree on who shall be appointed in their place. If the Parties do not

agree, the Parties shall each nominate and submit two potential

12

monitors to be chosen and appointed by the Court.

13

(6). The monitoring plan shall be attached to this Agreement as

14

Exhibit C. Any modifications to the training plan shall only be

made upon written agreement between the Parties.

15

XV. Dispute Resolution Procedures; Continuing Jurisdiction 16

A. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to supervise the implementation of this Agreement

17

and enforce its terms, and the Terms of this Agreement shall be incorporated into the

18

Order of the Court approving the Agreement.

19

B. The Parties agree that the Court will not be asked to exercise jurisdiction to supervise

the implementation of this Agreement or to enforce its terms until exhaustion of the

20

following dispute resolution process:

21

(1). Should Plaintiffs’ Counsel believe in good faith that

22

Defendants are engaging in a material breach of their obligations

under the Agreement, or a pattern or practice of non-compliance

23

with their obligations under this Agreement, Plaintiffs’ Counsel

shall promptly notify Defendants’ Counsel, in writing, of the

24

specific grounds upon which non-compliance is alleged.

25

(2). Within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the notice

26

from Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Defendants’ Counsel shall notify

Plaintiffs’ Counsel of Defendants’ position and any action it has

27

taken or intends to take in connection therewith. The Parties shall

28

Page 20 of 28

Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., et al. v. County of Riverside, et al., 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM

Settlement Agreement

1

negotiate in good faith in an effort to resolve any remaining

2

disputes. The Parties agree that this negotiation period will be considered exhausted if the Parties jointly determine that

3

negotiations have reached an impasse, or if either party invokes the

formal meet-and-confer process under Section XV(B)(3) of this

4

Agreement.

5

(3). If any dispute cannot be resolved informally under Section

6

XV(B)(1) or Section XV(B)(2) of this Agreement, counsel for either

party may notify counsel for the opposing party by letter and request

7

that counsel meet and confer. The Parties shall meet within ten (10)

8

business days of such notice and shall make reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute in good faith.

9

(4). If the dispute is not resolved through the meet and confer

10

process, counsel may seek the Court’s assistance in resolving the

dispute. The prevailing party shall receive reasonable attorneys’

11

fees expended in connection with the dispute. The Parties agree that

12

the Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this

Agreement. The Court in this proceeding shall have the power to

13

award such relief and issue such judgments as the Court deems

14

proper and appropriate.

15 XVI. Terms of Order for Notice, Hearing and Final Judgment

16

A. Concurrently with their filing of this Agreement, Plaintiffs’ Counsel shall apply to the

Court for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement provided for in this Agreement and

17

entry of a Preliminary Approval Order. Such Preliminary Approval will seek approval

of a Notice to the Class, as well as a finding that the following satisfies the publication

18

requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Parties agree

19

that Defendants will contract with AB Data to create the Notice to the Class, and to

create and implement the Notice Plan intended to reach a high percentage of Class

20

Members. A description of the Notice Plan is attached as Exhibit D:

21

(1). Within ten (10) business days of the date of the Preliminary

22

Approval:

23

(a). posting the Notice to the Class and this

Settlement Agreement in appropriate places on the

24

applicable county departments’ websites and on

https://www.countyofriverside.us; 25

26

(b). providing the Notice to the Class and this Agreement to juvenile defense attorneys in Riverside

27

County through the Riverside County Public

Defender and alternate public defender offices;

28

Page 21 of 28

Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., et al. v. County of Riverside, et al., 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM

Settlement Agreement

1

(c). providing the Notice to the Class and this

2

Agreement in appropriate places on the website of the ACLU of Southern California, ACLU of

3

Northern California, ACLU of San Diego and

Imperial Counties, and the National Center for Youth

4

Law;

5

(d). posting the Notice to the Class and this

6

Agreement in locations where Riverside County

YAT probation officers are regularly stationed; and

7

(e). providing individual notice, via First-Class

8

U.S. Mail, to the parents or legal guardians of each

9

youth whose records shall be sealed and destroyed under Section XIII of this Agreement.

10 (2). The Probation Department will not renew any Memoranda of

11

Understanding with any school districts in Riverside County relating

to the YAT Program or any other non-court-ordered supervision

12

program, and juvenile probation officers will no longer be posted in

13

schools after the end of the 2018-2019 school year. Therefore, the

Parties agree that it is not necessary that Notice to the Class and this

14

Agreement be posted at school locations in Riverside County.

15

(3). The Notice to the Class and this Agreement shall remain

16

posted and shall be maintained or replaced with new copies as

needed, until the Court issues an order finally approving or rejecting

17

the Settlement. Plaintiffs’ Counsel shall be responsible for meeting

the notice requirements listed in (C) above and ensuring

18

maintenance of such notice, and Defendants shall be responsible for

19

meeting the notice requirements listed in (A), (B), (D),and (E) above

and ensuring maintenance of such notice. The Parties shall request

20

that Class Members be provided at least 45 days to submit

21

objections to the Court after the Notice to the Class is posted and distributed.

22 B. If the Settlement contemplated by this Agreement is approved by the Court, counsel

23

for the Parties shall request that the Court enter a Final Judgment.

24

C. Within ten (10) business days following the Effective Date of Settlement, Defendants

shall post a Notice of Final Settlement, jointly developed between the Parties, in all

25

locations where YAT probation officers are regularly stationed and in appropriate

26

places on the applicable county departments’ websites and on

https://www.countyofriverside.us, as well as providing individual copies of the Notice

27

to the Class to any Class Members who so request on an individual basis. The Notice

28

Page 22 of 28

Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., et al. v. County of Riverside, et al., 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM

Settlement Agreement

1

of Final Settlement shall remain posted, and shall be maintained or replaced with new

2

copies as needed, until the obligations of this Agreement are terminated.

3

D. Defendants shall post a Spanish language translation of both the Preliminary Notice and the Final Notice to the Class in appropriate places on the applicable county

4

departments’ websites and on https://www.countyofriverside.us. Should Plaintiffs’

Counsel provide translations in other languages to Defendants, Defendants shall post a

5

notice informing Class Members that such translations are available. Plaintiffs’

6

Counsel shall provide such notices in sufficient time to allow Defendants to meet the

posting requirements in Section XVI of the Agreement.

7 XVII. Attorney’s Fees

8

A. In addition to and separate from any other payments called for in this Agreement, the

9

County of Riverside shall pay a one-time-only lump sum payment of Plaintiffs’

10

Counsel attorneys’ fees plus litigation costs in the amount of $1 million, payable by

wire transfer to the ACLU Foundation of Southern California within ten (10) days after

11

the Effective Date of Settlement. This payment represents a full and final settlement of

all past, present and future attorneys’ fees and all past, present and future ordinary and

12

extraordinary costs, except that the prevailing party in a dispute under Section XV.B.4

13

of this Agreement shall receive reasonable attorneys’ fees expended in connection with

the dispute. Plaintiffs’ Counsel will file an unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and

14

Costs, and the payment of said fees and costs is subject to court approval. Defendants

15

agree that Plaintiffs satisfy the prevailing party element for such a motion.

16 XVIII. Effective Date of Settlement; Termination

17

A. The Effective Date of Settlement shall be the date when all of the following shall have

occurred: (A) entry of the Preliminary Approval Order; (B) approval by the Court of

18

this Agreement, following notice to the Class and a fairness hearing, as prescribed by

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and (C) entry by the Court of Final

19

Judgment.

20

B. In the event that the Court does not approve the Agreement, or the Court’s approval of

21

the Agreement or the Final Judgment is reversed, vacated, or terminated on appeal, the

Parties’ good-faith adherence to the terms of this Agreement prior to said reversal,

22

vacatur, or termination shall not be considered unlawful.

23

C. This Agreement is subject to and contingent upon Court approval under Rule 23(e) of

24

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants’ Counsel and Plaintiffs’ Counsel

shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by providing written notice of their

25

election to do so (“Termination Notice”) to all other parties hereto within thirty (30)

26

days of (A) the Court’s declining to enter the Preliminary Approval Order or modifying that Preliminary Approval Order in any material respect; (B) the Court’s

27

declining to approve the Settlement embodied in this Agreement or any material part

of it; (C) the Court’s declining to enter the Final Judgment or modifying the Final

28

Page 23 of 28

Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., et al. v. County of Riverside, et al., 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM

Settlement Agreement

1

Judgment in any material respect; or (D) the Court of Appeals or the United States

2

Supreme Court’s reversing, vacating, or modifying in any material way the Final Judgment.

3

D. Except as otherwise provided herein, in the event the Settlement is terminated or

4

modified in any material respect or fails to become effective for any reason, then the

Settlement shall be without prejudice and none of its terms shall be effective or

5

enforceable; the Parties to this Agreement shall be deemed to have reverted to their

6

respective status in the Action as of the date and time immediately prior to the

execution of this Agreement; and except as otherwise expressly provided, the Parties

7

shall proceed in all respects as if this Agreement and any related orders had not been

8

entered. In the event the Settlement is terminated or modified in any material respect, the Parties shall be deemed not to have waived, not to have modified, or not be

9

estopped from asserting any additional defenses or arguments available to them.

10

E. Effective July 1, 2019, the Probation Department will terminate the YAT contract

and/or YAT consequence agreement for any youth referred under Welfare &

11

Institutions Code § 601 and shall notify all youth and their parent or guardian that the

12

YAT contract and/or YAT consequence agreement is terminated by providing written

notice to the youth and their parent or guardian on the same day. Additionally, the

13

Probation Department shall notify the youth and their parent or guardian that the youth

14

continues to be eligible for diversion under Welfare & Institutions Code § 654. The youths’ records will be sealed or destroyed under Section XIII of this Agreement.

15

F. Unless earlier terminated by operation of Section XVIII, the obligations of this

16

Agreement shall terminate five (5) years from the Effective Date of Settlement.

17 XIX. No Admission of Wrongdoing

18

A. This Agreement, whether or not executed, and any proceedings taken pursuant to it,

shall not be offered to be evidence of, any presumption, concession, or admission by

19

any of the Defendants of the truth of any fact alleged by the Plaintiffs or the validity of

20

any claim that had been or could have been asserted in the Action or in any litigation,

or the deficiency of any defense that has been or could have been asserted in the

21

Action, or of any liability, negligence, fault, or wrongdoing of the Defendants; or any

22

admission by the Defendants of any violations of, or failure to comply with, the

Constitution, laws or regulations; and shall not be offered or received against the

23

Defendants as evidence of a presumption, concession, or admission of any liability,

negligence, fault, or wrongdoing, nor shall it create any substantive rights or causes of

24

action against any of the parties to this Agreement, in any other civil, criminal, or

25

administrative action or proceeding, other than such proceedings as may be necessary

to effectuate the provisions of this Agreement; provided, however, that if this

26

Agreement is approved by the Court, Defendants may refer to it and rely upon it to

27

effectuate the liability protection granted them hereunder.

28

Page 24 of 28

Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., et al. v. County of Riverside, et al., 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM

Settlement Agreement

1

XX. Additional Provisions

2

A. This Agreement, and the obligations incurred herein, shall be in full and final

3

disposition of the Action with prejudice, including any and all Settled Claims against Defendants. On the Effective Date of Settlement, Plaintiffs and Class Members shall

4

be deemed to have fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged

Defendants of and from any and all Settled Claims in accordance with Section II of the

5

Agreement.

6

B. All of the exhibits attached hereto are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully

7

set forth herein.

8

C. This Agreement may not be modified or amended, nor may any of its provisions be

waived except by a writing signed by all parties hereto or their successors-in-interest.

9

D. The waiver by one party of any breach of this Agreement by the other party shall not

10

be deemed a waiver of any other prior or subsequent breach of this Agreement.

11

E. This Agreement and its exhibits constitute the entire agreement among the Parties

12

hereto concerning the Settlement of the Action, and no representations, warranties, or

inducements have been made by any party hereto other than those contained and

13

memorialized in such documents.

14

F. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts. All executed

15

counterparts and each of them shall be deemed to be one and the same instrument provided that counsel for the parties to this Agreement shall exchange among

16

themselves original signed counterparts.

17

G. This Agreement shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the successors and

assigns of the parties hereto. 18

19

H. This Agreement shall not be construed more strictly against one party than another merely by virtue of the fact that it, or any part of it, may have been prepared by

20

counsel for one of the parties, it being recognized by the Parties that this Agreement is

the result of negotiations between the Parties and that all parties have contributed

21

substantially and materially to the preparation of this Agreement.

22

I. All counsel and any other person executing this Agreement and any of the exhibits

23

hereto, or any related settlement documents, warrant and represent that they have the

full authority to do so and that they have the authority to take appropriate action

24

required or permitted to be taken under the Agreement to effectuate its terms.

25

J. Plaintiffs’ Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel agree to cooperate fully with one another

26

in seeking Court approval of this Agreement and to promptly agree upon and execute all such other documentation as may be reasonably required to obtain final approval

27

by the Court of the Settlement.

28

Page 25 of 28

Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., et al. v. County of Riverside, et al., 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM

Settlement Agreement

EXHIBIT A

YOUTH ACCOUNTABILITY TEAM (YAT) - CONTRACT VOLUNTARY NON-COURT ORDERED PROGRAM OF SUPERVISION
Welfare and Institutions Code section 654

CID: Youth’s Name:

(auto populated)

The police said you (auto populated insert code and description of alleged offense). You have talked with your lawyer about the YAT Program. You agree to participate. This contract lists what you are expected to do while you are in the Program. It lists the goals you agree to work on. It also lists the help you can expect from Team members.

Strength(s) that can help me to meet my goals:

I am good at __________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Things I can use help with: ________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

GOALS:

GOAL: Improve school attendance (for example)

Responsible Person:

Support/Assignment:

Probation Officer (for example) Give bus tickets (for example)

Projected Goal End Date: Goal End Date:

GOAL: Responsible Person:

Support/Assignment:

Projected Goal End Date: Goal End Date:

GOAL: Responsible Person:

Support/Assignment:

Projected Goal End Date: Goal End Date:

PROGRAM RULES
1. Follow the law (example: do not use or have drugs or alcohol). 2. Attend meetings with YAT team when you are asked to. 3. Work on your personal goals. 4. Tell a YAT team member if you move or get a new phone number.
Additional Rules:

YOUTH AGREEMENT I helped write my goals with my Probation Officer and lawyer. I understand YAT will give me help to meet my goals. I agree to be in the YAT Program for _____ months (no more than six months). My Probation Officer can end my time in YAT sooner if they believe I have met my goals. I understand why the Probation Officer is asking me to be in YAT. I understand the YAT Program Rules.
I understand my YAT Probation Officer may visit me at home. I understand my YAT Probation Officer will let my parent/guardian know at least 48 hours before a meeting. I also understand my parent/guardian can agree to let my YAT Probation Officer come to my home sooner. I also agree that other YAT team members may come to my home if my parent/guardian and my attorney agree to let them.

Print Youth’s Name:

Youth’s Signature:

Date:

Witnessed by Youth’s Lawyer: _________________________________________ Date: _

_______________

Print Youth’s Lawyer’s Name: ___________________________________________

PARENT/GUARDIAN AGREEMENT

I agree to the YAT Program rules. I understand the YAT Program is voluntary and my child and I can stop participating at any time. I agree that auto populated (name) will be in the YAT Program for _____ months (no more than six months). If the Probation Officer believes that (name) has met their goals sooner, the Probation Officer may end the contract sooner. I agree to help my child meet their goals. I also agree to come with auto populated (name) for meetings, educational programs, and/or counseling.

I understand the YAT Probation Officer may visit my child and me at home. I understand the YAT Probation Officer will let me know at least 48 hours before the meeting. I also understand I can agree to meet them at my home sooner if I want to. I understand I can also ask (youth’s) lawyer to be there for any meeting with the YAT Probation Officer. I also agree that other YAT team members may come to my home if I and my child’s attorney agree to let them.

Parent/Guardian: ____________________________________________________ Date: ____________________

Print Parent/Guardian’s Name: ___________________________________________

Interpreted By:

____________________________________________________ Date: ____________________

Print Interpreter’s Name: ________________________________________________

PROBATION OFFICER AGREEMENT

I helped create the goals with (youth) and their attorney. I agree to support (youth) and to help them meet their personal goals.

Probation Officer: ____________________________________________________ Date: ____________________

Print Probation Officer’s Name: ___________________________________________

Copy given to youth:

Yes

No

Copy given to parent/guardian:

Yes

No

Date: Date:

EXHIBIT B

Training Plan for the Riverside County Probation Department’s YAT Program, or Any Other Non-Court Ordered Supervision Program

The following training plans will promote culture and practice improvements for probation officers working with youth and families involved in the YAT program or any other non-court ordered supervision program. Through the training provided, probation officers will learn the best practices in diversion, including maximizing (non-status) diversion without net-widening. The training will also focus on positive youth development and family-centered practices that promote equity.

Training outcomes can be improved with the instructors’ understanding and consideration of the Department’s current culture and practices, as well as policy and practice changes currently being implemented as part of the Department’s restructuring of the YAT Program.

This training plan incorporates the time to develop that understanding and to help cultivate relationships and trust going into the training. This plan outlines costs of individual trainings that could be repeated based on the numbers of staff trained. Not included in the plan are costs associated with room rental, food or refreshments, printed hand-outs, audio-visual equipment costs or rentals. This plan assumes that the Department will use their own facilities and resources for these items.

Consultants will work with the County to have the trainings Standards and Training for Corrections (STC) certified. They will consist of two 8-hour blocks of initial instruction for all probation officers assigned to juvenile intake, YAT, and any other non-court ordered supervision program. The training will be conducted from 8 am until 5 pm, with at least an hour for lunch and appropriate breaks for adult learners. Consultants will also work with the County to have the Refresher courses Standards and Training for Corrections certified. Refresher courses will consist of 4-hour blocks of instruction for probation officers assigned to juvenile intake, YAT, and any other non-court ordered supervision program. They will be completed annually each year following the initial training. The refresher courses shall also include the appropriate breaks for adult learners.

The Probation Department’s Staff Development Unit will work with Scott MacDonald and Naomi Goldstein to assist with the STC Certification Process. If for any reason the courses outlined below cannot be STC certified, the Probation Department guarantees that such courses will still be provided to staff as detailed in the Settlement Agreement and Scott MacDonald and Naomi Goldstein will continue to be compensated as set forth below.

Deliverable Training Prework

Details In relationship to juvenile intake, YAT, and any other nonCourt ordered supervision program, assessing current culture and practice includes

Up to 3 days

Provider Scott MacDonald

Cost Cost will be incorporated into monitoring-

Advancing Probation Practice Training Travel time and prep

document review, process and program review, phone and onsite consultation with key leaders, managers and supervisors designated by the department. Full day training of up to 50 people. Trainings can be replicated based on numbers trained. Each site visit may include two days in prep and time to get to trainings.

1 day 2 days

Expenses Debrief memo

Expenses include up to two nights hotel, training, air travel, car rental, meals. (conservative estimate, actual expenses will be claimed). Supplies and printing. Advancing Probation Practice training includes an activity using the control vs assistance model and self-audit. The outcomes of this practicum will provide useful information on staff culture and readiness to implement system improvements, along with detail on recommended improvements elicited from staff. Time includes analysis from data accumulated from staff and a report.

Up to 2 days

Adolescent Development Training Travel time

Full day training up to 150 people.
Two days of travel to and from the East Coast.

1 day 2 days

Scott

$1,400

MacDonald

Scott

$2,800

MacDonald

Scott

$1,500

MacDonald

Scott MacDonald and Associate data analyst

$2,800

Subtotal for Scott MacDonald Naomi Goldstein

$8,500 $3,500

Naomi

$3,000

Goldstein

Expenses

Meals, lodging, air travel, ground transport, and supplies/copying.

Naomi

$4,300

Goldstein

Subtotal for Naomi Goldstein Total

$10,800 $19,300

For each additional back to

Scott

$1,900 or

training day for Scott

MacDonald $2,400 if

Macdonald, including up to $500

separate

for hotel, meals, car rental.

flight is

necessary

Training 1: Engaging Youth for Better Probation Outcomes (Dr. Naomi Goldstein)

Involving youth is an essential component of probation. Promoting positive youth development will require that probation and youth justice systems embrace cutting-edge research on adolescent development. The morning session will summarize this research and its implications for improving probation practice.

Adolescent Development (4 hours) This segment provides an overview of brain science and adolescent development research. Staff will learn about unique cognitive, emotional, and psychosocial factors in youth that affect involvement in delinquent behaviors and youths’ capacities to fulfill court conditions and rules of probation. Participants will learn about developmentally appropriate practices for motivating youth towards behavior change, with a specific focus on probation case management strategies that are grounded in research.

Implications for Probation Practice (3.5 hours) To be effective, probation practices should align with principles of adolescent development and utilize a strength-based, developmentally sound approach that builds upon community connections, positive peer culture, and family engagement. This segment shares principles of positive youth development and how they can be integrated into probation.

Reflections from the Day: (30 minutes) What are take-aways from today’s presentation and one idea you will implement in your work? What actions or policy changes would you recommend in your department to better incorporate the concepts learned today.

Training 2: Advancing Probation Practice (Scott MacDonald)
Training size 18-50 maximum Training can be tailored to line, supervisor, and management staff together or separately. This training will provide an overview of effective probation practices currently being advanced in the field that are grounded in research and value-based approaches that increase youth motivation and engagement, better incorporate families and community, and promote equity. Also, it will include discussions regarding the necessity of culture and practice shifts. The goal of the training is to leave participants with the

encouragement, motivation and concrete ideas to improve their professional practices to help the youth, families and communities they serve.
Why Transformation? (2 hours) The morning session discusses the important role probation plays as the most commonly used disposition; provides an overview of the problems and challenges facing most juvenile probation systems; highlights how current practice often is inconsistent with adolescent development research and lags in addressing racial disparities; and offers some guiding principles for getting it right. A particular focus on right sizing the system that included two pillars: minimizing the unnecessary footprint of the justice system, consistent with the “risk principle” and ensuring that probation officers are reallocating time on the appropriate youth with higher severity and need to ensure success on probation. This segment will also present the juvenile justice “highway” to present a system portrayal of the opportunities to avert further system involvement (offramps) or deepen involvement (onramps) and the role in actively creating successful pathways away for the justice system.
Components of Probation Transformation (1.5 hours) This segment summarizes and outlines some of the key components to improving probation practice, including:
• the overrepresentation of youth of color (YOC) and the need for race equity and inclusive
practice in youth justice;
• the adolescent brain, adolescent development, implications for probation practice and
Positive Youth Justice (this segment will be a short review of key components of training
provided by Dr. Goldstein to avoid duplication, but provide context).
• family engagement, inclusion and family-centered practice and;
• the vision of a community-centered and inclusive approach to probation. Value Cloud (15 minutes)
Participants identify the values a probation department and probation officer should hold. Value Discussion (15 minutes)
At their tables, participants discuss the top five values identified through the cloud exercise, considering the purpose of probation and how these values speak to the purpose of probation? Probation Scenarios (15 minutes) On their own, participants review two scenarios (an new probation case and a probation violation) and consider how they would respond based on their respective department’s current practices or approaches. Assessing Probation Practice, Outcomes and Culture (1.25 hours) This segment presents and proposes metrics for probation. Also, it covers the control vs. assistance paradigm and discusses why examining probation culture is essential to probation improvement. Control Assistance Activity (1.5 hours) On their own, participants assess their own department’s practices using components of the control vs. assistance assessment tool. Then participants discuss with their table thoughts about practices that should be stopped, started or refined. Reflections from the Day (30 minutes) What are take-aways from today’s presentation and what actions and next steps will be taken?

EXHIBIT C

Monitoring Plan for the Riverside County Probation Department’s YAT Program, or Any Other Non-Court Ordered Supervision Program Scott MacDonald and Naomi Goldstein
Scope and Deliverables
• Monitoring duties will begin as of the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement and terminate when all obligations under the Settlement Agreement are met pursuant to the Agreement. The Agreement is anticipated to remain in effect for five years.
• Review written policy and practice changes and provide feedback to the County prior to completing annual progress reports.
• On site observation (3 visits to assess compliance with terms of the Settlement Agreement). This could include attending the annual JJCC meeting or more frequently depending on how often they meet.
• For YAT and any other non-court ordered supervision programs, review and assess the Probation Department’s practices that help reduce racial disparities and ensure that youth rights are protected.
• Compliance assessments to ensure that the terms of the settlement agreement are being implemented, through periodic data review; on-site observation; and interviews, which could include staff, family members, and youth.
• Periodic review of any RFP related to the distribution of funds as outlined in Section XII of the Settlement Agreement prior to publication to ensure that the RFP is designed to address the goals and purposes of the Settlement Agreement.
• Prepare and complete an annual progress report, due on or before July 1st each year beginning July 1, 2020. Includes review of all county data and narrative reports, observations and findings from site visits and interviews with staff, youth, and system partners.
Annual costs will include:
Scott MacDonald 12 days: 1 day per month, includes phone calls and discussion with Riverside County Probation Department staff; providing review and recommendations on written policy, practices, and data reports; and preparation for site visits.
9 days: 3 site visits at up to 3 days each, to include on-site review and meetings with administrative, supervisor and line staff, consumers, and partners.
8 days: Prepare and complete annual progress report. Includes reviewing all county data, narrative reports, observation and findings from site visits and interviews with staff, youth, and system partners.
Total 29 days Scott MacDonald, JustSolve Inc. @ $175 per hour = $40,600
Expenses: $3,000 covers meals, lodging, air travel, and ground transport for 3 site visits.
Total time and expenses per year = $43,600.

Naomi Goldstein 12 days: 1 day per month includes phone calls and discussion with Riverside staff, review and feedback on written policy, practices, data reports, preparation for site visits. 12 days = $24,000
2 days: one site visit per year for 2 days. On site review and discussion. Meeting with administrative, supervisor and line staff, consumers, and partners. (For cost effectiveness, the two days will be immediately before/after the trainings) 2 days = $4,000
8 days: preparation and completion of annual progress report. Includes review of all county data and narrative reports, observation and findings from site visits and interviews with staff, youth, and system partners. 8 days = $16,000
Total time and expenses per year = $44,000
Total Annual Monitoring Costs: $87,600

EXHIBIT D

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF YOUTH INVOLVED IN THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY YOUTH ACCOUNTABILITY TEAM (“YAT”) PROGRAM
This notice is about a proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit against Riverside County involving alleged violations of the rights of youth who have been involved in the Youth Accountability Team (“YAT”) program run by the Riverside County Probation Department.
If you were ever referred to the YAT program, this proposed settlement may affect your rights.
ABOUT THE LAWSUIT:
On July 1, 2018, three youth living in Riverside County and a youth-mentoring organization filed this class action lawsuit, named Sigma Beta Xi, Inc. v. County of Riverside. The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the Youth Accountability Team (“YAT”) program, a juvenile diversion program run by Riverside County (the “County”).
The lawsuit raised numerous concerns over the penalties imposed on children accused of certain actions like school misbehavior. The lawsuit alleged that the YAT program had placed thousands of children on onerous YAT probation contracts on the basis of common teenage behavior, including for children’s “persistent or habitual refusal to obey the reasonable and proper orders or directions of school authorities” under California Welfare & Institutions Code (WIC) Section 601(b). The lawsuit further alleged that the YAT program violated children’s due process rights by failing to give them adequate notice of their rights and failing to provide them with counsel. The lawsuit further alleged that the program imposed intrusive and unconstitutional contract terms that allowed officers to search children in violation of their rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and imposed supervision conditions that restricted their expressive and associational rights. The lawsuit also alleged that the YAT program’s referral practices led to racial disparities.
The lawsuit primarily requested declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as nominal damages and Plaintiffs’ costs and attorneys’ fees. The lawsuit requested that the court:
• declare Section 601(b) WIC, as well as the County’s application of Section 601 WIC, to be unconstitutionally vague and prohibit the County from enforcing Section 601 WIC in the future;
• declare that the County’s placement of children on YAT probation without providing adequate notice and under coercive conditions to violate due process;
• prohibit the County from placing children on YAT contracts without due process of law and without providing access to an attorney;
• declare the County’s searches of homes, belongings, and persons and drug testing to violate children’s rights to be free from unreasonable searches;
• prohibit the County from conducting similar searches in the future; • declare that the County had violated children’s free speech and associational rights by
prohibiting children from associating with anyone not approved of by the County;
1

• prohibit the County from prohibiting children placed on YAT from associating with others not approved of by the County;
• declare that the County’s operation of the YAT program has a significant adverse impact on Black and Latinx children in violation of California Government Code section 11135;
• prohibit the County from continuing to operate YAT program in a way that violated California Government Code section 11135; and
• award nominal damages in the amount of one dollar for each violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and also Plaintiffs’ costs and attorneys’ fees.
The County denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing.
Plaintiffs filed this case in the United States District Court in the Central District of California on July 1, 2018. On November 19, 2018, the Court held an initial scheduling conference, setting August 5, 2019 as the last date to conduct a settlement conference, which the court later extended to September 4, 2019. After conducting an extensive series of settlement conferences, the parties have reached a settlement of the claims. This notice provides details of that settlement.
THE PARTIES:
Plaintiffs in this case are three youth who represent a class of youth and a youth-mentoring organization in Riverside County.
You are a member of the “plaintiff class” if you were ever referred to the YAT program under California Welfare & Instructions Code (WIC) Section 601. You can be a class member even if you were never placed on a YAT contract. “Section 601” usually includes behavior that is a “status offense,” meaning that it’s only an offense if done by someone under the age of 18. Examples of that kind of “offense” are being defiant to your teachers or parent, or truancy or curfew violations. If you were referred to the YAT program by your school, you may have been referred for a “Section 601” offense. If you don’t know if you are a class member, you can contact [XXX]
Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., is a non-profit community-based organization that provides mentoring and leadership development services to children of color in Riverside County.
The defendants in this case are the County of Riverside, Chief Probation Officer for the Riverside County Department of Probation Mark Hake, and Deputy Chief Probation Officer for the Riverside County Department of Probation Bryce Hulstrom. The individual defendants are sued only in their official capacities.
ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT:
The following is only a summary of the provisions of the settlement. The written agreement between the parties has the full terms of the proposed settlement that was preliminarily approved by the Court. There are instructions below if you want more information about this settlement, including a copy of the complete agreement. The settlement is for non-monetary relief only, which means that the parties are agreeing Riverside County will stop certain actions, continue
2

other certain actions that they already take, and will take certain additional actions to ensure compliance with children’s rights and to address the claims in the lawsuit. The settlement does not entitle you or any member of the Plaintiff Class to money damages (which means a cash payment).
THE CONTENTS OF THE SETTLEMENT:
The proposed settlement covers the following areas:
1. Plaintiff Class Releases
The Plaintiff Class will release all claims for declaratory or injunctive relief that were brought on behalf of Sigma Beta Xi, Inc. or the Class based on the allegations and claims outlined above.
2. Individual Injunctive Relief
a. The County will immediately end the YAT program for certain youth. Effective the date of the fully executed Settlement Agreement, the Probation Department shall end the YAT contract and/or consequence agreement for any youth referred to the program under Section 601 WIC and immediately notify all youth and their parent or guardian of the end of the YAT contract.
b. The County will seal and destroy YAT case files for certain youth. Within 180 days of the Date of Settlement, the Probation Department shall:
i. seal and destroy the YAT case files for youth who were referred or placed on a YAT contract without an application for a petition;
ii. seal and destroy the YAT case files for youth who were referred or placed on a YAT contract through application for a petition under the jurisdiction of Section 601 WIC, subject to the Probation Department’s two-year records retention policy; and
iii. maintain or seal the YAT case files for youth who were referred or placed on a YAT contract through application for a petition under the jurisdiction of Section 602 WIC in accordance with Welfare & Institutions Code § 781 and § 786.5. The parties shall file a joint application to the Presiding Judge of the Riverside County Juvenile Court, requesting that the court seal all juvenile case files that would be eligible for sealing in accordance with Welfare & Institutions Code § 781 and § 786.5.
c. The County will provide defense counsel to all youth currently on a YAT contract. The parties shall file a joint application to the Presiding Judge of the Riverside County Juvenile Court, requesting that the court appoint counsel for youth in all YAT-related cases.
3

3. Class-Wide Injunctive Relief
a. The County will no longer accept referrals to the YAT program under Section 601 WIC. Youth who have allegedly committed an offense under Section 601 WIC or engaged in other non-criminal behavior (such as breaking school rules) will not be placed on a YAT contract or consequence agreement. In addition, for youth that have allegedly committed certain minor offenses under Section 602 WIC (for example, possession of cigarettes), there shall be a presumption that such youth will not be placed on a YAT contract or consequence agreement.
b. The County will provide defense counsel to all youth referred to YAT. Youth will consult with defense counsel, at no expense to the youth or family, before meeting with the Probation Department. If the youth elects to participate in the YAT program, the counsel will continue to advise the youth throughout the youth’s participation in the YAT program.
c. The County will provide robust notice to youth and their guardians. The County will provide several categories of information in writing to ensure youth can make a knowing, voluntary, and informed decision about whether to participate in the YAT program and at other critical stages.
d. The County will provide training and guidelines to ensure the reliability of its risk assessment tool. The County uses a risk assessment tool to determine which youth should be on the YAT Program. The County will provide training each year to staff who use that risk assessment tool and their supervisors.
e. The County will use YAT contracts that provide better notice, focus more on positive development, and exclude allegedly unconstitutional terms. YAT contracts will provide written information about the charges or allegations made against the youth, identify a jointly-created list of supports to meet the specific needs of the youth, and exclude terms prohibiting the youth from associating with others or related to searches of the youth.
f. The County will limit its collection, creation, and retention of records that include information about youth. The County will not collect or maintain information about youth who do not fall under Section 601 or 602 WIC, and the County will narrowly limit the information it maintains for youth who fall under Section 601 WIC.
g. The County will regularly collect and analyze data around the referrals, participation, and outcomes for youth who are placed into the YAT program. The County will disaggregate all data to show any disparities by race / ethnicity, gender, age at time of alleged offense, and foster youth status. The County will publish a written, publicly available report each year sharing its analysis of this data.
4

h. The County will implement a mandatory training plan for all YAT personnel. Two experts will lead annual trainings and use research-based practices to emphasize engaging youth for better probation outcomes and best probation practices to increase youth motivation and engagement, to better incorporate families and community, and to promote equity.
i. The County will add additional community representatives to the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (“JJCC”). In addition to the JJCC’s statutory duties of overseeing and distributing funding for County programs, the JJCC will have additional responsibilities regarding community feedback and the new training and data reports provided under the Settlement. Community representatives will make up at least 45% of the JJCC.
j. The County will increase the amount of funds it directs to community organizations that provide services to youth. Starting in 2020-2021, the County will provide a minimum of $1.4 million annually for five years to community service providers, subject to a request for proposal process and review by the JJCC.
k. The County will provide information to Plaintiffs’ counsel, and the parties will jointly appoint two experts as third-party monitors, to ensure compliance with the settlement.
4. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
The Court will be asked to award Class Counsel $_________ in statutory attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. The Court can award less than that amount, but not more.
5. Continuing Jurisdiction of the District Court
The Court will retain jurisdiction to oversee compliance with the settlement agreement, enforce the agreement’s terms, and hear any disputes that cannot be informally resolved by a dispute resolution process set forth in the settlement agreement.
IF YOU WANT MORE DETAILS:
There is a group of lawyers, Sigma Beta Xi Plaintiffs Class Counsel, representing Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class in this case. You can get a list of these lawyers and a copy of the settlement agreement from the following website: []
You can get an easy-to-read version of the settlement agreement at this website: []
To ask questions about the settlement of this case, you can:
[]
5

IF YOU DO NOT OBJECT TO THIS SETTLEMENT AND THE ATTORNEYS’ FEES: You do not have to do anything.
IF YOU OBJECT TO THIS SETTLEMENT OR THE ATTORNEYS’ FEES: You must mail a statement explaining why you object to the settlement or the attorneys’ fees. The deadline is [], 2019. Please be sure to include your name, address (if available), telephone number (if available), your signature, a reference to this settlement or the case (Sigma Beta Xi, Inc. v. County of Riverside), the portions of the settlement to which you object, and the reasons you object. Mail your objection to:
[] Sigma Beta Xi Plaintiffs Class Counsel will provide your objection to the federal judge assigned to this matter, the Honorable Jesus G. Bernal, and to Defendants’ Counsel. You must mail your objection by the above deadline; you cannot object to this settlement after the deadline has passed. Even if you object, you do not have the ability to “opt out” of this settlement if the Court approves it.
HEARING REGARDING FINAL APPROVAL OF THIS SETTLEMENT: The Court will also hold a hearing about this settlement on [], 2019. The hearing date could change. Please check any of the websites listed above close to the date of the hearing for information about any possible change in the hearing date. The Court gets to decide whether to allow members of the Plaintiff Class who timely served objections to this settlement to speak at the hearing. The address for the court is:
George E. Brown, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse Courtroom 1
3470 Twelfth Street Riverside, CA 92501-3801 You can get more details about the hearing from the places listed above.
6

NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT ABOUT THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY YOUTH ACCOUNTABILITY TEAM (“YAT”) PROGRAM
Have you ever been referred to Riverside County’s informal probation program called Youth Accountability Team (“YAT”)? Have you ever signed a YAT contract?
If so, there is a lawsuit that might affect you. The lawsuit claims the program was unconstitutional and violated your rights.
Last year, three youth and a youth-mentoring organization filed the lawsuit. The lawsuit is called Sigma Beta Xi, Inc. v. County of Riverside. The lawsuit was filed in a federal court in Riverside County. The lawsuit claimed the County had placed unfair and illegal penalties against youth for misbehaving at school. The judge agreed that the lawsuit would be a “class action,” on behalf of a large group of people who were ever referred to the YAT program or put on a probation contract through the YAT program. You may be one of those people.
The people involved in the lawsuit agreed on what changes need to happen and settled the lawsuit. If the judge thinks the settlement is fair and approves the settlement, you may have rights that you should know about. Before the Court approves the settlement, you can learn what was agreed to in the settlement, ask any questions you may have, and if you disagree with something, you can share your objections with the judge.
How do I know if I am a class member? You are a member of the “plaintiff class” if were ever referred to the YAT program under California Welfare & Instructions Code section 601. You can be a class member even if you were never placed on a YAT contract.
“Section 601” usually includes behavior that is a “status offense,” meaning that it’s only an offense if done by someone under the age of 18. Examples of that kind of “offense” are being defiant to your teachers or parent, or being truant in school, or violating curfew. If you were referred to the YAT program by your school, you may have been referred for a “Section 601” offense.
What is the settlement about? The proposed settlement is for injunctive relief. This means that Riverside County will have to make important changes to the YAT program that were identified in the lawsuit and do some things differently to protect youth’s rights. For example, the County will no longer accept referrals from schools to the YAT program for anything under section 601. As another example, the County will now make sure youth have a lawyer before they have to agree to anything in the YAT program. The settlement is for non-monetary relief and does not give any class member any money. The settlement does pay the plaintiffs’ lawyers for the costs related to the lawsuit and for the fees charged by the plaintiffs’ lawyers for their time spent on the lawsuit.
1

How can I learn more? To learn more, go to: <<>> What can I do? • If you have a question about the settlement, you can <<>>. • If you agree with the settlement and the attorneys’ fees, you do not have to do anything. • If you object to (meaning that you disagree with) the settlement or attorneys’ fees, you
must mail a statement explaining why you object to <<>> by this date <<>>. Class counsel will give your objection to the federal judge assigned to this matter, the Honorable Jesus G. Bernal. • If you want to go the Court’s hearing about the settlement, you can go to the hearing on <<>> at George E. Brown, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse, Courtroom 1, 3470 Twelfth Street Riverside, CA 92501-3801. Only class members who file a written statement by the deadline above can speak at the hearing. Because the hearing date could change, please check the website listed above for updates.
2

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT IN LAWSUIT AGAINST RIVERSIDE COUNTY CHALLENGING THE YOUTH ACCOUNTABILITY TEAM (“YAT”) PROGRAM
Have you ever been referred to Riverside County’s informal probation program called Youth Accountability Team (“YAT”)? Have you ever signed a YAT contract?
If so, there is a lawsuit that might affect you. The lawsuit claims the program was unconstitutional and violated your rights.
Last year, three youth and a youth-mentoring organization filed the lawsuit. The lawsuit is called Sigma Beta Xi, Inc. v. County of Riverside. The lawsuit was filed in a federal court in Riverside County. The lawsuit claimed the County had placed unfair and illegal penalties against youth for doing small misbehavior at school. The judge agreed that the lawsuit would be a “class action,” on behalf of a big group of people who were ever referred to the YAT program or put on a probation contract through the YAT program.
The people involved in the lawsuit agreed on what changes need to happen and settled the lawsuit. If the judge thinks the settlement is fair and helps the youth and approves the settlement, you may have rights that you should know about. Before the Court finally approves the settlement, you can check to see what was agreed to in the settlement. You can also ask any questions you may have, and if you disagree with something, you can share any objections with the judge.
To learn more, keep reading this notice.
What is the lawsuit about?
The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the Youth Accountability Team (“YAT”) program. The YAT program is an informal juvenile probation program run by Riverside County (the “County”).
The lawsuit talks about many concerns about the YAT program’s penalties for youth accused of only minor school misbehavior. For example, the lawsuit said:
• the County had thousands of youth sign YAT contracts for common teenage behavior, such as being “defiant” or truant in school;
• YAT contracts included illegal conditions, like home searches and “no association” terms that limited who you can hang out with;
• the County forced youth to sign YAT contracts and agree to whatever terms the Probation Department wanted; and
• youth of color were more likely to be referred to the YAT program.
1

The County denies it did anything wrong but has agreed to settle the lawsuit and make important changes to the YAT program.
Who is involved in the lawsuit?
The lawsuit was filed by three youth in high school who were put on YAT contracts and an organization in Moreno Valley that mentors youth. They are the “plaintiffs” in this lawsuit. All three youth were high school students in Riverside County when the lawsuit was filed. To protect the students, the youth filed the case using fake names or just their initials: Andrew M., Jacob T., and J.F. The name of the organization that mentors youth is Sigma Beta Xi, Inc.
The lawsuit is a class action. This means the three youth represent similar youth in Riverside County who have been sent to the YAT program or put on a YAT probation contract. The three youth are “class representatives” and represent “class members” in this lawsuit.
The lawsuit was filed against Riverside County and two people in the Riverside County Probation Department: Chief Probation Officer Mark Hake and Deputy Chief Probation Officer Bryce Hulstrom. They are the “defendants” in this lawsuit.
What is the lawsuit asking for?
The lawsuit asks the County to change its behavior to fix the concerns the plaintiffs have about the YAT program. For example, the lawsuit asks the County to:
• stop placing youth on YAT contracts for common teenager behavior, such as being “defiant” or truant in school;
• stop making youth sign YAT contracts that include conditions, like home searches and “no association” terms;
• give youth access to attorneys and information to tell them about what could happen if they do not join the YAT program
The lawsuit does not ask for money for the people or organization that filed the lawsuit or for any of the plaintiff class members. The lawsuit does ask the County to pay the plaintiffs back for the money spent to file the lawsuit and to pay the plaintiffs’ attorneys for the time they spent on the case.
Why is this a class action?
In a class action, one or more persons—called the “class representatives”—sue on behalf of a group of people who would complain about the same problem—the “class members.” One judge can decide how to fix the problem for class representatives and class members at the same time.
In this case, three youth who have been involved in the YAT program represent similar youth across Riverside County.
2

Who is in the class?
You are a member of the “plaintiff class” if you were ever referred to the YAT program under California Welfare & Instructions Code Section 601. You can be a class member even if you were never placed on a YAT contract.
“Section 601” usually includes behavior that is a “status offense,” meaning that it’s only an offense if done by someone under the age of 18. Examples of that kind of “offense” are being defiant to your teachers or parent, or truancy or curfew violations. If you were referred to the YAT program by your school, you were probably referred for a “Section 601” offense.
If you don’t know if you are a class member, you can contact [XXX]
What is a settlement?
A settlement means that both sides—the youth and the probation department—have agreed to fix problems in the lawsuit without a trial. If the parties can agree to a solution to the lawsuit, that can save a lot of time and money and get help to class members faster.
Because the settlement in this case fixes issues for class members who are not directly involved in the lawsuit, the Court must approve the settlement. The class representatives and their lawyers in this case think that the proposed settlement is fair to the class members and the parties in this case.
Are there lawyers representing you?
Yes. The Court approved a team of lawyers to represent the class representatives and class members, called “class counsel.” These are the lawyers that have been handling the lawsuit since it was filed on July 1, 2018. They include lawyers from the ACLU, the National Center for Youth Law, and the law firm called Sheppard Mullin.
You do not have to pay for any of the work the lawyers did on this lawsuit. These lawyers will not charge you or any other class members for their work on the lawsuit. The County will have to pay the lawyers once the judge approves the amount that the attorneys will be paid.
Only class counsel may act on behalf of the class. However, you may hire your own lawyer to give you advice. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire your own lawyer and pay for the lawyer.
What does the settlement provide?
Under the proposed settlement, the County will make important changes to the YAT program. The settlement does not give the class representatives or class members any money. The
3

settlement does pay the plaintiffs’ lawyers for the costs related to the lawsuit and for the fees charged by the plaintiffs’ lawyers for their time spent on the lawsuit. In exchange, plaintiffs and class members agree to give up their rights to bring a different lawsuit in the future against the County for the problems raised about the YAT program in this lawsuit. The County agrees to pay two people to monitor what happens in the YAT program and to report to the Court about the YAT program for the next five years.
The proposed settlement makes important changes to the program for youth who have been or are currently involved in the YAT program and for youth who might be involved in the program in the future.
For youth who are currently in the YAT program, the County will: • Immediately end the YAT program for youth referred under “Section 601” for behavior such as being defiant to your teachers or parents, or for school truancy or curfew violations; • Seal and destroy YAT case files for certain youth so the youth don’t have a record for having been in the YAT program before (see below for more information about whether your file will be sealed); • Give a lawyer to all youth in the YAT program right now; and • Limit the records the County makes or keeps about youth involved in the YAT program.
For youth who were in the YAT program in the past, the County will: • Seal and destroy YAT case files for certain youth (see below for more information about whether your file will be sealed).
For youth who may be in the YAT program in the future, the County will: • Not put youth in the YAT program for “Section 601” referrals for behavior such as being defiant to your teachers or parents, or being truant in school, or curfew violations; • Give a lawyer to all youth before they have to meet with the Probation Department or anyone else on the YAT team; • Give more information to youth and their parents or guardians about the YAT program; • Give more training for staff who decide whether a youth should be in the YAT program; • Use YAT probation contracts that identify the youth’s goals and do not generally contain conditions such as home searches and “no association” terms that limit who you can hang out with; • Limit the records the County makes or keeps about youth involved in the YAT program; • Increase the number of community representatives on the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (“JJCC”), which oversees and distributes funds for County programs; • Increase the money the County gives to community-based organizations to help youth, to at least $1.4 million each year; and • Give more training for YAT program staff.
4

How do I know if the County will end the YAT program for me?
As noted above, the YAT program will end immediately for youth who were referred for “Section 601” for conduct such as defiance, incorrigibility, truancy, or curfew violations. Under the settlement, the County will end the program for these youth on July 1, 2019. The County will send these youth and their parent(s) or guardian(s) a letter explaining that their YAT contract has ended.
How do I know if the County will seal and destroy my YAT case file?
It depends on whether a petition was received in your case and what the petition said: • If no petition was ever received, the County will seal and destroy your YAT case file within 6 months of settlement; • If a petition was received and claimed that your behavior broke “Section 601” the County will destroy your YAT case file after it has existed for at least two years; and • If a petition was received claiming that your behavior broke other laws, the County may destroy your YAT case file in certain circumstances (for example, if you have turned 18).
Will I receive anything from the settlement?
The settlement makes important changes to the YAT program for youth who used to be on a YAT contract, are currently on a YAT contract, or who might be on a YAT contract in the future. However, the settlement does not provide monetary relief (meaning a cash payment) for plaintiffs or plaintiff class members.
What is the release of claims?
In exchange for the settlement, you release, or give up, the claims included in the lawsuit. This means that you will not be able to file a different lawsuit about the same issues. Instead, you agree that the settlement changes enough of the YAT program.
You are giving up the right to file a lawsuit about all claims for non-monetary relief that were brought on behalf of the plaintiffs and the class based on the allegations outlined above.
You are not giving up the right to file a lawsuit about other issues that you may have related to the County.
What will the Court’s role be after the settlement is approved?
As part of the settlement, the parties will ask the Court to keep the case. This way, the Court can make sure the County follows the settlement agreement.
5

How much will the lawyers be paid? You will not be asked to personally pay any attorneys’ fees to class counsel. Instead, the County will pay class counsel, after approval by the Court. The Court will be asked to award class counsel $1 million. The Court can award less than that amount, but not more. What can I do about the settlement?
• If you have a question about the settlement, you can <<>>. • If you agree with the settlement and the attorneys’ fees, you do not have to do
anything. • If you object to (meaning that you disagree with) the settlement or attorneys’ fees, you
must mail a statement explaining why you object to <<>> by this date <<>>. Class counsel will give your objection to the federal judge assigned to this matter, the Honorable Jesus G. Bernal. • If you want to go the Court’s hearing about the settlement, you can go to the hearing on <<>> at George E. Brown, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse, Courtroom 1, 3470 Twelfth Street Riverside, CA 92501-3801. Only class members who file a written statement by the deadline above are eligible to speak at the hearing. Because the hearing date could change, please check the website listed below for updates. Are there more details about the settlement? Yes. To learn more, go to: <<>>
6