JUVENILES COME TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT THROUGH PETITION OR THROUGH ARREST. THE DOMINANT STATUTORY SCHEME CALLS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SCREENING OF PETITIONS BEFORE FORMAL COURT ACTION IS INITIATED (36 STATES) BUT THE FORMAT OF SUCH SCREENING IS NOT SPECIFIED AND THE DECISION TO ISSUE A SUMMONS IS LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE JUDGE OR COURT PERSONNEL. ARREST STATUTES ARE SIMILARLY VAGUE. IN MANY STATES PROBATION OFFICERS HAVE AS BROAD AN AUTHORITY TO ARREST AS POLICE OFFICERS. IN 39 STATES AND D.C. THE CHILD'S PARENTS MUST BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY OF THE ARREST; IN 11 STATES NO SUCH PROVISION EXISTS. STATUTORY PROVISIONS LIMIT FINGERPRINTING OF THOSE UNDER 14 OR USE OF SUCH FINGERPRINTS IN 23 STATES. MORE RECENTLY REVISED CODES CONTAIN OTHER SAFEGUARDS. IN 39 STATES THE DECISION TO DETAIN CAN BE MADE BY THE ARRESTING OFFICER; IN 36 THE OFFICER MAY RELEASE THE CHILD AFTER OBTAINING A SIGNED PROMISE FROM THE PARENTS GUARANTEEING COURT APPEARANCE, WHILE IN 3 THE CHILD MAY BE RELEASED ON HIS OWN SIGNATURE (CALIFORNIA, MINNESOTA, NEBRASKA). BAIL IS PERMITTED IN 20 STATES. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE DETENTION DECISION IS REQUIRED BY 19 STATES, BUT THE TIME LIMIT VARIES FROM WITHIN 48 HOURS (9 STATES) TO NO SPECIFIED TIME OR ONLY IF REQUESTED (4 STATES). COURT ORDERS FOR DETENTION ARE REQUIRED BY 16 STATES. NEITHER COURT ORDER OR JUDICIAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED IN 15. THE DETENTION HEARING IS ANOTHER FEATURE OF NEWLY REVISED CODES. THE TYPE OF DETENTION FACILITY HAS ALSO BEEN A TARGET OF REFORM GROUPS. ONLY 5 STATES PROHIBIT PLACING JUVENILES IN JAIL ALTOGETHER. IN 13 A COURT ORDER IS REQUIRED BEFORE JAILING, 13 STATES APPLY AGE RESTRICTIONS TO JAILING, 13 MANDATE SEPARATE JAIL SECTIONS, AND 1 STATE HAD NO PROHIBITIONS (RHODE ISLAND). IN NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY THE APPROVAL OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES IS REQUIRED IN PLACE OF THE COURT ORDER. OPERATION OF DETENTION CENTERS VARIES WIDELY, OFTEN WITHIN THE SAME STATE. GENERALLY THE COURT SHARES JURISDICTION WIH THE WELFARE DEPARTMENT OR THE COUNTY OR CITY GOVERNMENT BOARD. THE STATUTES FREQUENTLY FAIL TO SET FORTH CLEAR LINES OF AUTHORITY FOR OPERATION OF THE CENTERS, A SOURCE OF MUCH ABUSE. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATIONS IN EXISTING CODES ARE NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF MINORS, PARTICULARLY STATUS OFFENDERS BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT FOR DETENTION... (GLR)