OPINION
By the Court,
Alfred was arrested at the White Pine County Race Track on August 19, 1972.
During the entire time that Alfred was in custody no attempt was made to contact his mother or other members of the family or the probation officer or the juvenile detention facility. Alfred was carrying identification but it was not requested until he was booked.
Following booking Alfred was placed in the upper part of the jail where he destroyed various furnishings. He was then transferred to the adult section of the jail. The boy’s mother learned that her son was in jail through her daughter who had been so informed by a friend. The mother went to the jail at 20 minutes to 7. She does not say whether this occurred the same evening or the following morning. The sheriff initially refused her permission to see her son. Thereafter, the boy was released to her custody. Officer Piccinini testified that when they brought the boy out his mouth and hands were shaking very badly and that he was taken to the hospital.
On appeal, our function is to insure that the rights of the juvenile were observed in all of the proceedings of the arrest, custody, trial and disposition. The sheriff and his department were honorably motivated to restrain the sale and consumption of liquor by juveniles at the Ely race track festivities. They were alert to step in quickly before the use of liquor by children got out of control.
When Alfred was first spotted with the can of beer and then guzzled it in their presence the officers’ reaction to apprehend him and take him home was good judgment. Evidently the jeering and taunting of the gathered juveniles sparked Alfred’s violent resistance and the force employed by the officers to reduce him to custody became necessary.
From that point, however, failure to notify his mother or his uncle or to take him to the juvenile facilities separate from the adult place of detention was not justified. Forcing a hair shearing upon him was unnecessary and unwise. The hair was not unclean and Alfred was not an adult prisoner nor had he even been booked. To youngsters hair style is important. It is not
He was charged at trial with being under the influence of intoxicating liquor, destroying county property and resisting arrest. He admitted at trial the destruction of a light bulb and other items of equal value in anger at the county jail, that he purchased the beer at the race track and that he resisted arrest. No defense is made to the boy’s conduct. Counsel appears to present to this court these facts and proclaims that treating a young person in this manner was grossly unfair.
While the officers had the right to take into custody a juvenile found violating the law, the juvenile is entitled to the same Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment protection afforded to adults (see In re Gault,
Alfred is now over 18 years of age. His juvenile record would indicate that had his rights been observed the disposition by the trial court would have been warranted. Now because he
Had the statutory requirements of notification of his mother been observed or an attorney called, the forced haircut would probably not have occurred. Without it the destruction of property brought on by the boy’s frustration might not have resulted. We do not know what effect that conduct had upon the trial court’s decision to confine the boy at Elko. We decline to recognize the charge of destruction of county property because it flowed from the failure to observe the requirements of law when Alfred was taken into custody as a juvenile.
Since the boy is now over 18 years of age and different disposition must be made, we remand to the trial court for the purpose of appropriate disposition.
Remanded.
Notes
The following is an attempt to reconstruct what actually happened on that day. Despite Officer Piccinini’s admission that the officers involved in the case all got together on their report there were numerous discrepancies in their testimony at the hearing.