Whitney v. DIV. OF JUVENILE JUSTICE SERV., 274 P.3d 906

Dillon Whitney, a sixteen-year-old juvenile delinquent, was adjudicated delinquent and placed in state custody for a community-based program by Juvenile Services.
He initially joined a wilderness diversion program, was removed after running away, and was held at Salt Lake Valley Detention Center pending a hearing.
Juvenile court ordered transfer to a community-based placement, specifically the unsecured proctor home of H. Kaufusi, where Dillon could come and go.
Dillon was not allowed to stay at his parents’ homes; he could visit briefly with permission, and the home had no locks restricting him in the basement.
Dillon died after leaving the proctor home and suffering injuries from a fall; plaintiffs sued the state for negligence in state court, which was removed to federal court.
The district court denied the state's motion to dismiss invoking the Governmental Immunity Act; the Tenth Circuit certified the question to Utah Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the incarceration exception applies to community-based proctor placements	Whitney argues no physical/spatial confinement exists, so no incarceration.	State contends any state control and restriction qualifies as incarceration.	Incarceration exception does not apply; not incarcerated in a place of legal confinement.

Peck v. State, 2008 UT 39 (Utah Supreme Court 2008) (control without release permission not always confinement; physical restraints matter)
Madsen v. State, 583 P.2d 92 (Utah 1978) (prison confinement constitutes incarceration)
Emery v. State, 483 P.2d 1296 (Utah 1971) (in-patient confinement at state hospital equals confinement)
Epting v. State, 546 P.2d 242 (Utah 1976) (state control may indicate confinement in some contexts)
Pace v. St. George City Police Dep't, 153 P.3d 789 (Utah App. 2006) (arrested individuals under police control may be incarcerated)