# data[].attributes.body
Was the arrest unconstitutional?Did he get his 14th amendment right to due process one equal protection of the law?

# data[].attributes.body
On June 9, 1967, the sheriff of Gila County, Arizona, took 15-year-old Francis Gault into custody, without notifying Gault's parents after a neighbor, Ora Cook, complained of receiving an inappropriate and offensive telephone call.After returning home from work that evening to find her son missing, Gault's mother eventually located him at the county jail, but was not permitted to take him home

# data[].attributes.body
When they arrested  him it was unconstitutional.They violated the 14th amendment by not telling him why he got arrested, not leaving notice to his parents, and he didn't have his rights protected.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In Re Gault was a landmark decision issued by the United States Supreme Court that ultimately established that under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a juvenile involved in a delinquency hearing must be afforded similar due process rights as is afforded to an adult.

Through the In Re Gault decision, the United States Supreme Court stated that an individual involved in a delinquency proceeding must be awarded the right to timely notification of charges, the right against self-incrimination, the right to confront a witness, and the right to counsel.

On June 8, 1964, the Sheriff of Gila County, Arizona took Gerald Gault, a 15-year old boy, into custody without notifying the youth's parents. Gault was apprehended after a neighbor complained of receiving offensive prank calls. Gault's mother eventually located the young boy, but he remained in custody. The only notification the Gaults received was a letter regarding Gault's future court date.

During the initial trial, neither the accuser, nor any witnesses, were there to testify against Gault. Gault was found guilty and was confined at the State Industrial School for the period of his minority. At the time, Arizona law did not permit an appeal process for juvenile cases. In response, Gault's parents petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus in order to obtain their son's release.

The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal and found that the Arizona Juvenile Code and the Gault proceedings did not specifically violate the due process clause. The case was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court where, in an 8-1 decision, the Federal court ruled that Gault's commitment to the State Industrial School was a blatant violation of the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court ruled in Gault's favor because the young man had been denied the right to an attorney, had never been formally notified of the charges against him, had not been informed of his right against self-incrimination, and did not possess the opportunity to confront his accuser. The Supreme Court, through this ruling, stated that the purpose of the juvenile court was correction and not punishment.
The Case Profile of In Re Gault
The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled 'In Re Gault':

Date of the Trial: In Re Gault was argued on December 16, 1966;

United States Reports Case Number: 387 U.S. 1;

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: In Re Gault was decided on May 15, 1967;

Legal Venue of In Re Gault: The United States Supreme Court;

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Earl Warren;

Verdict Delivered: The United States Supreme Court in In Re Gault stated that juveniles tried for crimes in a delinquency proceeding should have the right of due process as protected by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, including the right to confront witnesses and the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.

comments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In Re Gault - Criminal Justice | Laws.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In Re Gault was a landmark decision issued by the United States Supreme Court that ultimately established that under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a juvenile involved in a delinquency hearing must be afforded similar due process rights as is afforded to an adult.

# data[].attributes.body
The court held that the proceedings for juveniles had to comply with the requirements of the 14th amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
Children have the right to due process of the law.

# data[].attributes.headline
children have the right to our do process of law. Except for when kids are in school,  when kids are in school they have no rights.

# data[].attributes.subject
children have the right to our do process of law. Except for when kids are in school,  when kids are in school they have no rights.