Shelby County Commissioners approved a handful of reform-minded ordinances that extend the rights of youthful offenders – including requiring legal representation and recorded interrogations – during the Monday, Oct. 14 meeting.
The proposal would only apply to the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office. The Memphis Police Department, along with departments from other municipalities, would be exempt.
“What it does add is some portions under legal representation. It requires the presence of an interested adult, which is not in the state statute. It also requires a prohibition on waiver, meaning that a child cannot waive that right,” said Jamika White, special counsel to the commission.
Unlike adults, recorded interrogations of youthful suspects aren’t required by state statute either. The proposal would add the requirements within the county, while not contradicting state law.
“I want to make sure all justice-involved youth have an opportunity to have their interrogations recorded. Just like adults,” said sponsor Erika Sugarmon.
Sugarmon also suggested interrogations sometimes result in “false confessions” from suspects.
The item passed on its first reading 7-0-4.
Voting in favor of the proposed ordinance were Chair Miska Clay-Bibbs, Charlie Caswell, Edmund Ford, Jr., Britney Thornton, Henri Brooks, Mark Whaley and Sugarmon.
Members Amber Mills, Mick Wright, David Bradford and Brandon Morrison abstained.
The first proposal offered by Sugarmon locally codifies a law recently added to the state’s books.
It requests the SCSO to provide rehabilitative services to youths in their custody. Along with the main lockup at 201 Poplar, Shelby County Sheriff Floyd Bonner is also responsible for youth lockup facilities.
Along with programs geared towards re-entry, the request includes the education programs for youths, so they can transition to classroom settings once released. The request includes the possibility of vocational training.
The SCSO currently provides education services to youths in custody. The ordinance also calls for those services to extend to youths that age into the adult system when they turn 18. Many are still in high school, or of age.
Annual “data-driven” updates are included in the request.
“We would like to also keep up with things that are going on. You hear things out in the street about not receiving services, or not being taken to court. The best way to obviously to debunk, or if it’s true, hold people accountable,” said Sugarmon.
The proposal hasn’t been discussed with Bonner yet.
“This particular ordinance, no we have not. Again, we have two more readings and I welcome hearing from him. It’s open,” said Sugarmon. “Again, it’s not a requirement, it’s requests. I would love for him to address this ordinance, to see if it needs some tweaking, or whatever.”
It was approved on a 4-1-5 vote.
Those in favor were Caswelll, Sugarmon, Thornton and Brooks. Member Mick Wright was the lone “no” vote. Abstaining were Clay-Bibbs, Mills, Bradford, Thornton and Brooks.
The second ordinance offered by Sugarmon requests the juvenile court judge to provide juveniles, their parents or caregivers with written notification of the youth’s possible expungement rights.
If offered, expungement effectively wipes the slate clean, legally speaking. The youth’s criminal record is erased when they become adults.
The problem is, due to the “fluid” living situations of many in the system, notification of expungement gets lost in the mail.
“It requests that juvenile court, on the front end through the judge, state the expungement and also put it in writing. As well as have the juvenile and an adult – whether it’s a guardian or a parent – to also receive a copy, so that travels with them wherever they go,” explained Sugarmon.
If notification isn’t received, it can have a potentially disastrous effect on the youth’s future.
Like with the other ordinances, Caswell commended the proposal.
“This is something that the parents most definitely need to know, if this opportunity is afforded to them, that they take advantage of it at that time. These parents move from these addresses and they don’t follow through, or don’t know that later it can come back to haunt them…Hopefully, it’s in line with the state laws.”
Sugarmon has reached out to Shelby County Juvenile Court Judge Tarik B. Sugarmon and Juvenile Court Clerk Janeen Gordon about the proposal. They are “looking at it.”
The ordinance passed on a 6-1-4 vote.
In favor were Clay-Bibbs, Caswell, Sugarmon, Ford, Thornton and Brooks. Mick Wright voted against the proposal. Members Mills, Bradford, Morrison and Whaley again abstained.
The items are expected to be brought up again. During the discussion it was suggested the “requests” were better suited as resolutions, as opposed to ordinances. However, the latter path was chosen because they are “stronger.” County Attorney Marcy Ingram said both have the “same effect.”
Nevertheless, Sugarmon is open to change.
“These ordinance are fluid because it’s a first reading.”
If those happen at the next Law Enforcement, Corrections, and Courts Committee meeting, they won’t be done by Sugarmon. She will be absent at the next several Wednesday get-togethers.
Three items came down without recommendation from the committee meeting on Wednesday, Oct. 9, after the commissioner was unable to attend.
Second reading votes require a seven vote majority to go on to a third and final reading.
