T.K.B. v. Durham
63 So. 3d 60
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- T.K.B., a child, petitioned for habeas corpus to challenge secure detention pending juvenile delinquency proceedings.
- Detention followed a guilty plea to resisting an officer without violence and a failure to appear at adjudication, leading to custody and then secure detention.
- Statutes authorize detention only for specific purposes; risk assessments (RAI) guide detention determinations if no statutory exception applies.
- DJJ scored the child at 22 on the RAI, including ten for absconding, plus points for a pending misdemeanor and alleged aggravation.
- The court found issues with the RAI scoring: improper absconding score, improper inclusion of pending misdemeanor, and unsupported aggravation points.
- The decision noted prior Florida cases directing strict statutory compliance and concluded detention was not authorized under the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether detention is authorized under statute and RAI | T.K.B. argues detention exceeds statutory authorization. | DJJ contends RAI supports detention due to risk of reoffense and absconding. | Detention not authorized; statutory limits require proper scoring. |
| Whether RAI scoring errors invalidated detention | Errors in points (absconning, pending misdemeanor, aggravation) misstate risk. | Scores reflect risk assessment as applied by DJJ. | Eight valid points; not enough for secure detention. |
| Whether absconding as used by DJJ is consistent with statute | Absconding is not defined in statute; DJJ rule misapplies term. | Rule defines absconding to justify detention. | Strict statutory interpretation; absconding cannot justify detention here. |
| Whether court could detain for lack of better alternatives | Detention cannot be used as a placeholder for lack of alternatives. | Detention justified by concern for well-being and lack of placement options. | Detention improper when statute does not authorize it for those grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- R.W. v. Soud, 639 So.2d 25 (Fla. 1994) (detention must comply with statute for juveniles)
- R.A.P. v. Parkins, 994 So.2d 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (RAI scoring governs detention decisions)
- J.J. v. State, 31 So.3d 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (detention based on welfare grounds not authorized)
- K.E. v. Dep't of Juvenile Justice, 963 So.2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (detention cannot be based on parental fear without statutory authorization)
- W.C. v. Smith, 898 So.2d 1137 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (strict compliance with detention statutes required)
- S.W. v. Woolsey, 673 So.2d 152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (juvenile detention authority is statutory and limited)
- Z.B. v. Dep't of Juvenile Justice, 938 So.2d 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (court should not detain where statute does not authorize it)