Moss v. Weaver
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
525 F.2d 1258 (1976)
- Written by Deanna Curl, JD
Facts
Florida law required a juvenile taken into custody and charged with a crime to appear before a juvenile-court judge for a pre-determination hearing within 48 hours of being taken into custody. To determine whether to release or detain the juvenile pending the adjudication hearing, the judge was statutorily mandated to consider whether detention was necessary to protect the life or property of the juvenile or others, whether a parent or guardian was available to provide adequate care and supervision of the juvenile, and whether the parent or guardian could assure the court of the juvenile’s appearance for the adjudication hearing. In practice, the judge would also consider the seriousness of the offense at the pre-determination hearing. Ronald Moss (plaintiff) filed a class-action lawsuit against the juvenile-court judges and state attorney for Dade County, Florida (the juvenile-court administrators) (defendants) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Moss alleged that the juvenile-court practice of holding juveniles in pretrial detention without considering whether there was probable cause to believe the juvenile had committed the charged offense violated the due-process rights of charged juveniles. The district court found that juveniles were constitutionally entitled to an adversarial hearing with a finding of probable cause before being held in pretrial detention. An appeal followed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Godbold, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.