Sec. 52.02. RELEASE OR DELIVERY TO COURT. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (c), a person taking a child into custody, without unnecessary delay and without first taking the child to any place other than a juvenile processing office designated under Section 52.025, shall do one of the following:
(1) release the child to a parent, guardian, custodian of the child, or other responsible adult upon that person's promise to bring the child before the juvenile court as requested by the court;
(2) bring the child before the office or official designated by the juvenile board if there is probable cause to believe that the child engaged in delinquent conduct, conduct indicating a need for supervision, or conduct that violates a condition of probation imposed by the juvenile court;
(3) bring the child to a detention facility designated by the juvenile board;
(4) bring the child to a secure detention facility as provided by Section 51.12(j);
(5) bring the child to a medical facility if the child is believed to suffer from a serious physical condition or illness that requires prompt treatment;
(6) dispose of the case under Section 52.03; or
(7) if school is in session and the child is a student, bring the child to the school campus to which the child is assigned if the principal, the principal's designee, or a peace officer assigned to the campus agrees to assume responsibility for the child for the remainder of the school day.
(b) A person taking a child into custody shall promptly give notice of the person's action and a statement of the reason for taking the child into custody, to:
(1) the child's parent, guardian, or custodian; and
(2) the office or official designated by the juvenile board.
(c) A person who takes a child into custody and who has reasonable grounds to believe that the child has been operating a motor vehicle in a public place while having any detectable amount of alcohol in the child's system may, before complying with Subsection (a):
(1) take the child to a place to obtain a specimen of the child's breath or blood as provided by Chapter 724, Transportation Code; and
(2) perform intoxilyzer processing and videotaping of the child in an adult processing office of a law enforcement agency.
(d) Notwithstanding Section 51.09(a), a child taken into custody as provided by Subsection (c) may submit to the taking of a breath specimen or refuse to submit to the taking of a breath specimen without the concurrence of an attorney, but only if the request made of the child to give the specimen and the child's response to that request is videotaped. A videotape made under this subsection must be maintained until the disposition of any proceeding against the child relating to the arrest is final and be made available to an attorney representing the child during that period.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1460, ch. 544, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1973. Amended by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 495, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1013, Sec. 15, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1374, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 6.08, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1477, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1297, Sec. 12, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 283, Sec. 9, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 286 (H.B. 776), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2007.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
114
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case:
Roquemore v. State, 60 S.W.3d 862 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).
Roquemore v. State, 60 S.W.3d 862 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).
· cites it 16× “Laws 1738 , 1738-39 (amended 1999) (current version at Tex. Fam.Code § 52.02(a) (Vernon Supp.2001)).”
Gonzales v. State, 67 S.W.3d 910 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).
· cites it 15× “In Baptist Vie Le , we considered whether a violation of Texas Family Code § 52.02(a) required the suppression of an otherwise admissible statement.”
Pham v. State, 175 S.W.3d 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
· cites it 10× “The court held the statement inadmissible due to the State's violation of Texas Family Code § 52.02(b) [2] , and remanded the case *770 to the trial court.”
Dang v. State, 99 S.W.3d 172 (Tex. App. 2003).
· cites it 12× “See TEX. FAM.CODE §§ 52.02, 52.025(d). The State claims that appellant did not preserve error as to his fourth issue.”
Pham v. State, 125 S.W.3d 622 (Tex. App. 2003).
· cites it 17× “" Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 52.02 (b)(1) (emphasis added).”
Adams v. State, 180 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. App. 2005).
· cites it 6× “See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 52.02 (a) (Vernon 2002).”
Hampton v. State, 36 S.W.3d 921 (Tex. App. 2001).
· cites it 5× “We find this testimony, if presented to the jury, had a strong impeachment potential, may have created implications that Preston was an accomplice, even possibly creating a reasonable doubt theory as to Hampton’s culpability as a shooter.”
Baptist Vie Le v. State, 993 S.W.2d 650 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “Since the majority determines that the Court of Appeals erred in its resolution of the issue the court did decide the case on, we ought to remand the case to them to decide the custody issue. I respectfully dissent.”
Marsh v. State, 140 S.W.3d 901 (Tex. App. 2004).
· cites it 3× “12(j); (5) bring the child to a medical facility if the child is believed to suffer from a serious physical condition or illness that requires prompt treatment; or (6) dispose of the case without referral to the court as authorized under section 52.”
Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993).
“Codified Laws § 26-7A-89 (1992) (release to probation officer or any other suitable person appointed by the court); Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 52.02 (Supp. 1993) (release to "parent, guardian, custodian of the child, or other responsible adult"); Utah Code Ann.”
Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).
“02(b) provides: A person taking a child into custody shall promptly give notice of his action and a statement of the reason for taking the child into custody, to: (1) the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian; and (2) the office or official designated by the juvenile court.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 52.02(7) — 1 case
— Tex. Fam. Code § 52.02(a) — 40 cases
Roquemore v. State, 60 S.W.3d 862 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).
“Laws 1738 , 1738-39 (amended 1999) (current version at Tex. Fam.Code § 52.02(a) (Vernon Supp.2001)).”
Gonzales v. State, 67 S.W.3d 910 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).
“In Baptist Vie Le , we considered whether a violation of Texas Family Code § 52.02(a) required the suppression of an otherwise admissible statement.”
Dang v. State, 99 S.W.3d 172 (Tex. App. 2003).
“See TEX. FAM.CODE §§ 52.02, 52.025(d). The State claims that appellant did not preserve error as to his fourth issue.”
Adams v. State, 180 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. App. 2005).
“See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 52.02 (a) (Vernon 2002).”
Hampton v. State, 36 S.W.3d 921 (Tex. App. 2001).
“We find this testimony, if presented to the jury, had a strong impeachment potential, may have created implications that Preston was an accomplice, even possibly creating a reasonable doubt theory as to Hampton’s culpability as a shooter.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 52.02(a)(1) — 1 case
Adams v. State, 180 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. App. 2005).
“See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 52.02 (a) (Vernon 2002).”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 52.02(a)(2) — 6 cases
Baptist Vie Le v. State, 993 S.W.2d 650 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
“Since the majority determines that the Court of Appeals erred in its resolution of the issue the court did decide the case on, we ought to remand the case to them to decide the custody issue. I respectfully dissent.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 52.02(a)(2)(3) — 1 case
— Tex. Fam. Code § 52.02(a)(3) — 4 cases
Baptist Vie Le v. State, 993 S.W.2d 650 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
“Since the majority determines that the Court of Appeals erred in its resolution of the issue the court did decide the case on, we ought to remand the case to them to decide the custody issue. I respectfully dissent.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 52.02(a)(4) — 1 case
Roquemore v. State, 60 S.W.3d 862 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).
“Laws 1738 , 1738-39 (amended 1999) (current version at Tex. Fam.Code § 52.02(a) (Vernon Supp.2001)).”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 52.02(b) — 26 cases
Pham v. State, 175 S.W.3d 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
“The court held the statement inadmissible due to the State's violation of Texas Family Code § 52.02(b) [2] , and remanded the case *770 to the trial court.”
Gonzales v. State, 67 S.W.3d 910 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).
“In Baptist Vie Le , we considered whether a violation of Texas Family Code § 52.02(a) required the suppression of an otherwise admissible statement.”
Pham v. State, 125 S.W.3d 622 (Tex. App. 2003).
“" Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 52.02 (b)(1) (emphasis added).”
Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).
“02(b) provides: A person taking a child into custody shall promptly give notice of his action and a statement of the reason for taking the child into custody, to: (1) the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian; and (2) the office or official designated by the juvenile court.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 52.02(b)(1) — 8 cases
Marsh v. State, 140 S.W.3d 901 (Tex. App. 2004).
“12(j); (5) bring the child to a medical facility if the child is believed to suffer from a serious physical condition or illness that requires prompt treatment; or (6) dispose of the case without referral to the court as authorized under section 52.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 52.02(b)(2) — 1 case
— Tex. Fam. Code § 52.02(g) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.