Title: In Re: Amendments To The Florida Rules Of Criminal Procedure, The Florida Rules Of Juvenile Procedure, And The Florida Family Law Rules – Report Of The Task Force On Treatment – Based Drug Courts
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC06-434
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: June 21, 2007

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC06-434 
____________ 
 
 
IN RE:  AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA  RULES OF CRIMINAL 
PROCEDURE, THE FLORIDA RULES OF JUVENILE PROCEDURE, 
AND THE FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES — REPORT OF THE TASK 
FORCE ON TREATMENT-BASED DRUG COURTS. 
 
[October 16,2008] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
By previous opinion in this matter, the Court adopted several rule 
amendments based on recommendations made by the Task Force on Treatment-
Based Drug Courts (Task Force).  In re: Amend. to Fla. Rules of Crim. Pro., Fla. 
Rules of Juv. Pro., & Fla. Fam. Law Rules—Report of Task Force on Treatment-
Based Drug Courts, 959 So. 2d 250, 251 (Fla. 2007).1  Some of the Task Force’s 
recommendations, however, were not adopted and were instead referred to various 
                                          
 
 
1.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.  The Task Force was 
“authorized to propose amendments to rules of court procedure on issues involving 
drug courts, as well as pursue those amendments with the appropriate Florida Bar 
rules committees.”  In re Task Force on Treatment-Based Drug Courts, Fla. 
Admin. Order No. AOSC04-27 (July 26, 2004) (on file with Clerk, Fla. Sup.Ct.). 
 
rules committees for consideration.  One such recommendation was the Task 
Force’s recommendation to amend Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.010 
(Detention Hearing) to add the following provision to the list of issues, set forth in 
this rule, to be determined at a detention hearing:  “The court shall consider the 
nature and circumstances of the offense charged, the child’s need for substance 
abuse evaluation and/or treatment, and the child’s mental condition.”  In a 
comment filed with the Court, the Juvenile Court Rules Committee opposed this 
amendment, and as a result, the Court declined to adopt it and instead referred it 
back to the Task Force and to the Juvenile Court Rules Committee for joint 
consideration.  Id. at 252.     
 
On October 8, 2007, the Juvenile Court Rules Committee responded to the 
Court’s referral.  The Committee reported that the Committee and the Task Force 
had been unable to agree to a revised version of the proposed amendment.  The 
Committee also reiterated its objections to the proposed amendment.  The 
Committee stated that its position was that the criteria for determining whether 
probable cause exists to detain a child is circumscribed by statute and that those 
criteria do not include a child’s mental condition or need for substance abuse 
evaluation or treatment.  § 985.255, Fla. Stat. (2007).  The Committee also stated: 
Pursuant to F.S. 985.145, the court is limited to what it may consider 
before adjudication.  One of the current hot topics in juvenile law has 
been the improper use of information learned from the child at intake 
that is provided to the court prior to disposition in violation of F.S. 
 
- 2 -
985.145(4).  Obviously a detention hearing is prior to disposition.  
This is primarily a problem from an information-gathering instrument 
called the PACT.  Mental health and substance abuse issues are 
discussed as part of the PACT, before the child even has counsel.  
Such information is prohibited without the child’s written consent, 
and when written consent is provided it’s not informed, voluntary 
consent. 
 
Thus, the Committee believes that the amendment proposed by the Task Force is 
contrary to law.  The Committee stated that it had voted 24-3-1 to again adopt its 
previous position opposing the amendment. 
 
On December 28, 2007, the Task Force responded, acknowledging the 
concerns of the Committee, but requesting that the Court adopt its proposed 
amendment.  The Task Force stated that the amendment was “never intended to 
alter or supplement the statutory requirements for detention, circumvent statutory 
requirements, or enhance the Risk Assessment Instrument.”2  The Task Force 
further recommended that a note be added to rule 8.010 to clarify that the 
“amended rule provisions can only be used to facilitate early substance abuse and 
mental health evaluations consistent with the clear legislative intent to expedite the 
processing of juvenile delinquency cases” and to specify that the “amendment does 
                                          
 
 
2.  Section 985.245, Florida Statutes (2007), requires that, in the absence of 
a specific statutory exception, an order placing a child in detention must be based 
on a risk assessment of the child.  The risk assessment is done uniformly 
throughout the state on a standardized document known as a Risk Assessment 
Instrument.  See K.E. v. Dep’t of Juv. Justice, 963 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).   
 
- 3 -
 
- 4 -
not alter detention criteria, enhance the Risk Assessment Instrument, or change 
statutory detention considerations.” 
 
We appreciate the input of both the Committee and the Task Force in this 
matter.  After consideration, due to the objections of the Committee, we decline to 
adopt the amendment to rule 8.010 proposed by the Task Force.   
 
It is so ordered. 
QUINCE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, and LEWIS, JJ., concur. 
CANADY and POLSTON, JJ., did not participate. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
Original Proceeding – Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure  
 
Judge Terry David Terrell, Chair, Task Force on Treatment-Based Drug Courts, 
First Judicial Circuit, Pensacola, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
David N. Silverstein, Chair, Juvenile Court Rules Committee, Tampa, Florida, and 
Robert W. Mason, Past Chair, Juvenile Court Rules Committee, Jacksonville, 
Florida, 
 
 
Responding with comments