Members Present Judge William Herauf, Chair Judge David Reich Karen Kringlie, Juvenile Court Director, Unit 2 Dale Thompson, Referee
Members Absent Justice Mary Muehlen Maring Judge Dan Narum Judge Doug Mattson
Staff Present Louie Hentzen, Asst. State Court Administrator Lana Zimmerman, Scribe
Guests Cory Pedersen, Juvenile Court Director, Unit 3 Shawn Peterson, Juvenile Court Director, Unit 1 Scott Hopwood, Juvenile Court Director, Unit 4
Judge Herauf called the meeting to order. A motion was made by Karen Kringlie to
approve the February 24, 2012, minutes. The motion was seconded by Judge Reich, motion
The first draft of the proposed Extended Juvenile Jurisdiction (EJJ), has been distributed.
This is a subject of study by the Judiciary Interim Committee. During the Judicial Planning
Committee meeting, Mr. Hentzen asked Aaron Birst with the Association of Counties if they had
adopted a position with the State’s Attorney’s Association. Mr. Birst stated that they are
uncertain if it will move forward. Mr. Hentzen stated the next interim committee meeting is
scheduled August 15, 2012.
Ms. Kringlie shared that in Minnesota it is still up to the discretion of the judge if they
want to impose the prison sentence for violations of probation. The only time in Clay County
that a judge ever imposes the full prison sentence is when a person that commits a new adult
offense is looking at prison time. The judge then revokes the EJJ and imposes the sentence. It usually runs concurrently with the new sentence. The only benefit to revoking is for purposes
of adult sentencing. Guidelines earn more points to enhance the adult sentence. From a
rehabilitation standpoint, it seems pointless from a public safety standpoint since judges in the
district rarely impose the adult sentence for technical violations. The other issue that came up in
Minnesota is that kids receive credit for time served, anytime they are locked in a correctional
facility as a juvenile. If a youth goes to a juvenile correctional facility on an EJJ offense, most of
the juveniles serve 12-15 months in a treatment facility. That counts as time served towards any
of their stayed adult prison time. There are EJJ juveniles that have no time left on their adult
sentence, because they had already served the time.
Judge Herauf stated there is a concern to go with EJJ. The practical is there are more
juveniles who are going to have adult sentences due to it being easier to move it to adult court.
The juvenile may not understand that making one mistake may cause them to acquire an adult
Mr. Shawn Peterson stated it also puts the probation officers in a tough situation. It could
be a very minor curfew violation and the State’s Attorney wants to run with a revocation that
could get them an adult sentence. Then the probation officer is not holding juveniles
Judge Herauf stated in regards to Ms. Haley Wamstad’s testimony that there was a
suggestion that judges are violating the law on a regular basis when it comes to automatic
transfers. Judge Herauf asked the Director’s of Juvenile Court Services if they have come across
a case where a judge has violated the law? The Director’s answered“No” and that none of them
knows what the basis could be with this type of comment.
Juvenile Director’s Report
Ms. Kringlie distributed the state wide statistics. Please refer to handout. The referrals
for the past year, are behind in 2012 in comparison to last year’s filings total state wide. Last
year’s trend in deprivation is slightly increased. The highlighted is a head count of
referrals/cases. These are referrals for abuse and neglect, shelter care, file of petition, services
required, or custody. The felonies and misdemeanor cases are in juvenile court. The primary
charge is the most serious count.
Ms. Kringlie is a member of the state Juvenile Justice Advisory Board. The Board is
conducting a survey of the Fargo and Bismarck Police Departments this summer. The Federal
Department of Justice looks at Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) and compares state by
state for compliance with OJJDP Act and different points of contact in the juvenile justice
system, whether there is higher rates for minority youth than white youth. The first page is the
four counties with more than 1,000 minority youth. The second page shows some of the different
points of contact. For example: In Burleigh county, if you are a minority you are 4 times as
likely to be arrested than a white youth. The good news for the court system is that the courts
have control over delinquency, and probation commitment. Minority youth are more likely than
a white youth to be arrested or detained. The third page shows the four largest counties and the
minority groups Native American, Black, and Hispanic. Black youth in Cass County tend to
have more people crimes than status offenses. People that commit crimes against people are
more likely to be detained for those reasons. The last page shows the rate of detention for some
of those groups. The state Juvenile Justice Advisory Board is going to survey some of the
officers in those two cities to see if they need more training, more interpreters and what type of
issues could be used to address those problems. Ms. Kringlie will bring back the survey results
at the fall JPB meeting.
Ms. Kringlie reports this fall the Juvenile Court Officer’s are being trained in restorative
justice, which is the mission statement. This summer the CMS audit is auditing the database to
make sure that all cases are consistently being entered.
Best Practice Manual
Mr. Hentzen is quite pleased with the participation and interaction of the Best Practices
Manual sub-committee. This is a cross section of employees, supervisors, line staff and
secretaries. The Juvenile Court Directors will serve as the executive committee of the sub-committee. There hasn’t been any best practices identified that could be rolled over into a
policy as of yet, but a few have been discussed to be rolled into the 400 series of the policies.
The next meeting is June 14, 2012 in Grand Forks.
Mr. Hentzen discussed the make up of the Juvenile Policy Board Committee.
Administrative Rule 35 in regards to the membership states that 1 juvenile court officer is
appointed by the Chief Justice from a list submitted by the Juvenile Court Association. Ms.
Kringlie is the current member and was appointed 9 years ago by the association, which was
before 6.1 reorganization of the court, which created the Director’s positions. The inquiry is
what it would take to have a rule change and say it should be a Juvenile Court Director and not a
juvenile court officer appointed by the association, or submitted to the Chief by the association.
The response is that it should come from the Juvenile Policy Board Committee and have a
language change to the rule. Ms. Kringlie stated the Juvenile Director’s job description is
helping implement policy. The list should be presented to the Chief as Ms. Kringlie’s
membership is up at the end of the year. Mr. Hentzen asked if there should be a language change
in AR 35 to the Supreme Court which states Juvenile Director appointed by the Chief or leave it
and add a member appointed by the Chief from a list submitted by the association and also a
juvenile director? Judge Herauf stated he isn’t opposed to a rule change and suggested the
association can give a list of names to the Chief and he could pick from the names out of the
Juvenile Director’s. Mr. Hentzen will complete a language change to incorporate and bring back
to the next meeting.
Next meeting scheduled August 31, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. in Bismarck.