18 U.S.C. § 5033

Custody prior to appearance before magistrate judge

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

Whenever a juvenile is taken into custody for an alleged act of juvenile delinquency, the arresting officer shall immediately advise such juvenile of his legal rights, in language comprehensive to a juvenile, and shall immediately notify the Attorney General and the juvenile’s parents, guardian, or custodian of such custody. The arresting officer shall also notify the parents, guardian, or custodian of the rights of the juvenile and of the nature of the alleged offense.

The juvenile shall be taken before a magistrate judge forthwith. In no event shall the juvenile be detained for longer than a reasonable period of time before being brought before a magistrate judge.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 80 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1960–2021 · leading case: United States v. John Doe, a Juv., 219 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2000).
United States v. John Doe, a Juv., 219 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2000). · cites it 13× “SILVERMAN, Circuit Judge: 18 U.S.C. § 5033 prescribes the procedure to be followed when a juvenile is arrested by federal law enforcement officers.”
United States v. Juv. Male, 595 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 12× “" 18 U.S.C. § 5033 . The arresting officer must also "notify the parents, guardian or custodian of the rights of the juvenile," and the juvenile must "be taken before a magistrate judge forthwith.”
United States v. Male Juv. (95-Cr-1074), 121 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 1997). · cites it 3× “18 U.S.C. § 5033 requires "[w]henever a juvenile is taken into custody .”
United States v. C.M. (A Juv.), 485 F.3d 492 (9th Cir. 2007). · cites it 9× “Title 18 U.S.C. § 5033 of the Juvenile Delinquency Act (“JDA”) prescribes the process due to a juvenile who is placed in federal custody.”
Hall v. Thomas, 611 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2010). · cites it 6× “[38] In Kerr , the defendant specifically argued, inter alia, that his confessions should be suppressed under 18 U.S.C. § 5033 . Kerr, 120 F.3d at 241 .”
United States v. Indian Boy X, 565 F.2d 585 (9th Cir. 1977). · cites it 6× “) agents with 18 U.S.C. § 5033 , which requires the “forthwith” presentation of an arrested juvenile before a United States Magistrate.”
United States v. Juv. (Rra-A), 229 F.3d 737 (9th Cir. 2000). · cites it 6× “She contends that the district court made three errors: (1) failing to suppress the fruits of a war-rantless arrest not based on probable cause; (2) finding no prejudicial violations of 18 U.S.C. § 5033’s notification requirements; and (3) failing to find that the government…”
United States v. Mitchell, 502 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “5(a)(1), are substantively similar to the corresponding rights for a juvenile in 18 U.S.C. § 5033 . 4 Mitchell developed no record that distinguishes his situation from Orsinger’s; indeed, he developed no record on the point at all.”
United States v. Juv. Male, 528 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 12× “" 18 U.S.C. § 5033 . The arresting officer must also "notify the parents, guardian or custodian of the rights of the juvenile," and the juvenile must "be taken before a magistrate judge forthwith.”
United States v. Doe, 155 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 1998). · cites it 14× “Second, whether § 5033 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5033 et seq. (“JJA”), applies where a juvenile is questioned by federal agents while he is held in tribal custody pursuant to tribal charges.”
United States v. Jose D.L. (Juv.), 453 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2006). · cites it 4× “Whether a juvenile’s parents have been properly notified pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 5033 is a predominately factual question that is reviewed for clear error.”
Nieves v. United States, 280 F. Supp. 994 (S.D.N.Y. 1968). · cites it 7× “In reliance upon the reasoning of Gault , plaintiff and his counsel have caused a three-judge panel to be convened to determine whether the absence of a petit jury, as mandated by the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (“FJDA”), 18 U.S.C. § 5033 (1964), is at variance with the…”
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.