Judges: WINSTON BRYANT, Attorney General
Filed Date: 10/31/1995
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The Honorable Mark Stodola Prosecuting Attorney Sixth Judicial District 122 South Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Dear Mr. Stodola:
This letter is a response to your request for an opinion regarding certain issues arising out of the provisions of A.C.A. §
(1) Is there an irreconcilable conflict between A.C.A. §§
9-27-309 (e),9-27-309 (d)(2), and9-27-309 (f)?
(2) If so, why is there such a conflict?
(3) If not, what state or federal privacy laws, if any, impact the issue of whether the prosecutor should or must disclose adjudication information to school superintendents pursuant to the above statutes?
(4) In light of A.C.A. §
9-27-309 (a), should juvenile intake officers or juvenile courts make "prior" adjudication information about juveniles immediately available to police and prosecutors in order to assist them in exercising discretion under A.C.A. §9-27-318 (b)(4) as to which system (juvenile or adult) in which to prosecute a juvenile?
RESPONSE
Question 1 — Is there an irreconcilable conflict between A.C.A. §§
It is my opinion that there is not an irreconcilable conflict between A.C.A. §§
The pertinent sections of A.C.A. §
(d) Nothing in this subchapter shall preclude prosecuting attorneys or the juvenile court from providing information, upon written request, concerning the disposition of juveniles who have been adjudicated delinquent to:
* * *
(2) The school superintendent of the school district in which the juvenile is currently enrolled;
* * *
(e) When a juvenile is adjudicated delinquent for an offense for which he could have been charged as an adult or for unlawful possession of a handgun, the prosecuting attorney shall notify the school superintendent of the school in which the juvenile is currently enrolled.
* * *
(f) Information provided pursuant to subsections (d) and (e) of this section shall not be released in violation of any state or federal law protecting the privacy of the juvenile.
A.C.A. §
A reading of these provisions clearly indicates that Section (d), which addresses delinquency adjudications generally, is permissive, whereas Section (e), which addresses certain specific types of delinquency adjudications, is mandatory. Section (d) allows the prosecuting attorney to inform school superintendents that a juvenile has been adjudicated as a delinquent. Section (e) requires the prosecuting attorney to inform the school superintendent of the delinquency adjudication if the adjudication was for an offense for which the juvenile could have been charged as an adult or was for the unlawful possession of a handgun. These two provisions do not conflict.
Neither does Section (f) conflict with Sections (d) or (e). Rather, Section (f) addresses the release by school officials of information that has been provided pursuant to the provisions of Sections (d) and (e). Because Section (f) addresses release of information by a different entity than those addressed in Sections (d) and (e), it presents no conflict with those sections.
Question 2 — If so, why is there such a conflict?
Because I have opined that no conflict exists among the three sections about which you inquired in Question 1, it is unnecessary to answer Question 2.
Question 3 — If not, what state or federal privacy laws, if any, impactthe issue of whether the prosecutor should or must disclose adjudicationinformation to school superintendents pursuant to the above statutes?
I have located no state statutes that would operate to prohibit the release of information pursuant to the provisions of A.C.A. §
As to the impact of federal statutory law on the release of information pursuant to A.C.A. §
Question 4 — In light of A.C.A. §
In setting forth Question 4, you have indicated a particular concern about police having access to prior delinquency adjudication information at night, when many arrests are made.
It is my opinion, given the provisions of A.C.A. §§
A.C.A. §
Under A.C.A. §
(1) Because the stated purpose of providing prior delinquency adjudication information is to assist the prosecutor in determining whether to prosecute the juvenile as an adult, such information is not required to be provided to police. Prosecutors, not police, make the determination of whether to prosecute the juvenile as an adult. (However, as noted previously, police may have a legitimate need for the information, and can obtain the information through the discretionary provisions, as discussed below.)
(2) The determination of whether to prosecute a juvenile as an adult is not made at the time of arrest. Therefore, the information is not required to be provided "immediately." That is, it would appear to be unnecessary to make the information available at the time of arrest, at least for purposes of making prosecution decisions. Moreover, the statute sets forth no time frame within which such information must be provided. (However, as noted previously and discussed below, there may be other legitimate reasons for providing the information "immediately," or at night.)
Despite these general conclusions, it is my opinion that the juvenile court can order that all prior delinquency adjudication information be made available to police, as well as to prosecutors, and that it be made available "immediately," i.e., at night. I base this conclusion on the provisions of A.C.A. §
(a) All records may be closed and confidential within the discretion of the court. . . .
A.C.A. §
This provision appears to give the juvenile court the option of not keeping the juvenile's prior adjudication information confidential at all.3 It may therefore be concluded that the court certainly has the discretion to make the information available to police. Because the provision of information under this discretionary provision would be in the control of the juvenile court, the court could, in its discretion, order that the information be made available "immediately," including at night. A presentation to the juvenile court of the police's need for the information and the time frame within which they would need it could assist the court in its exercise of discretion to make the information available in accordance with those needs.
The foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve, was prepared by Assistant Attorney General Suzanne Antley.
Sincerely,
WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General
WB:SBA/cyh