A-23-0071 In re Interest of Sayrah P. A Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, State of Nebraska (Appellee) v Sayrah P. (Appellant)
Appeal from Separate Juvenile Court for Sarpy County, Judge Sarah M. Moore
Attorneys: Dennis P. Marks (Deputy Sarpy County Public Defender for Appellant) and Gary Brollier (Deputy Sarpy County Attorney for Appellee).
Juvenile: Juvenile Detention Alternative
Proceedings below: The State charged Sayrah P. with minor in possession of alcohol, obstructing a police officer, and attempted third degree assault on an officer. Although the juvenile court initially released Appellant home on electronic monitoring, the juvenile court later ordered her to be detained at a staff secure detention facility. On its own motion, the Supreme Court ordered this case to be transferred from the docket of the Court of Appeals to its docket.
Issues: Appellant makes the following assignments of error: 1) The record is totally devoid of any facts finding that probable cause existed to find that Sayrah would come under the court’s jurisdiction based on the offenses for which she was charged; 2) The Juvenile Judge erred by not finding the original basis for utilizing an alternative to detention, the “protection of the juvenile,” ceased to be a lawful basis to commence a detention screening intake effective July 1, 2019, pursuant to section §43-250.01(5)(a) Neb. Rev. Stat. at the January 3, 2023, detention review hearing; 3) Plain error is evidenced here by the Court allowing the alternative to detention for Sayrah with no probable cause found; 4) At the January 3, 2023 detention review hearing, the Juvenile Judge erred in finding that Sayrah constitued “a physical safety to persons in the community and they would not be seriously threatened but for being on an electronic monitor.” because the record was devoid of any facts supporting this conclusion; 5) The Juvenile Judge erred by allowing probation to verbally modify the authorization for the use of an alternative to detention in the middle of a detention review hearing. 6) On February 1, 2023, the Juvenile Judge erred by ordering Sayrah into staff secure detention at a hearing to expedite when no evidence was offered or received, no sworn testimony was taken, and the Court instead relied on judicial notice which included another hearing with unsworn testimony and evidence at the January 23, 2023, arraignment hearing. 7) The Juvenile Judge erred by converting the hearing on a motion to expedite to a detention hearing without prior notice to Sayrah or defense counsel; 8) The Juvenile Court Judge lacked any statutory authority to order Sayrah into staff secure detention at the hearing on the motion to expedite on February 1, 2023; 9) The Juvenile Judge erred by finding Sayrah’s “failure to comply with the court orders, specifically an alternative to detention (electronic monitoring), designed to keep her safely within the community, coupled with her ongoing aggressive behaviors, places the community at risk” at the February 1, 2023 hearing.; 10) The Juvenile Judge erred in finding that the physical safety of persons within the community would be seriously threatened if Sayrah were not detained at the February 1, 2023, hearing.; and 11) The Juvenile Court Judge should not have substituted judicial notice for unsworn testimony and evidence that was never offered nor received in depriving the Juvenile of her freedom.