## Facts

- When A.J. was 15 years old, she was recruited into a Las Vegas sex-trafficking operation.
- A police officer saw A.J. walking on the street and stopped her.
- A.J. initially refused to provide identification, but later provided it.
- A.J. told the officer she had been working as a prostitute for about three months.
- Police arrested A.J. for soliciting prostitution and loitering for the purpose of prostitution, but prosecutors ultimately charged her only with obstructing an officer.
- A.J. pleaded guilty to obstruction and was placed in state-operated youth housing.
- A.J. ran away from placement, was later found soliciting prostitution again, and was arrested for soliciting prostitution.
- Instead of filing a new prostitution charge, the State proceeded against A.J. for violating probation.
- A.J. ran away again and again faced probation-violation allegations.
- A.J. was detained pending a plea; she admitted to one probation violation and was placed in a placement home.
- A.J. ran away again, was arrested again, and was ultimately committed to a state-run youth center.
- A.J. sought appellate relief asking for the delinquency adjudication and related orders to be vacated and for Nevada’s statutory protections for minors engaged in prostitution to apply to her circumstances.

## Issues

1. Whether Nevada’s safe-harbor protections for minors engaged in prostitution apply when the State proceeds through delinquency and probation-violation orders arising from the minor’s prostitution-related conduct.
2. Whether the juvenile court may continue to treat a minor as a delinquent (including detention and commitment) when the record shows the minor was a sex-trafficking victim engaged in commercial sex as a child.
3. Whether A.J. was entitled to relief vacating delinquency and probation-violation orders entered without applying the statutory scheme intended to treat prostituted minors as victims rather than offenders.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court considered A.J.’s request for relief from juvenile-court orders that resulted in her continued detention and commitment.
- The court interpreted Nevada’s statutory protections for minors involved in prostitution as directing that such minors be treated as victims of sex trafficking for purposes of how the legal system responds to the conduct.
- The court concluded that the juvenile delinquency process could not be used in a way that functionally punished A.J. for prostitution-related conduct that the Legislature directed to be handled under victim-centered protections.
- The court granted relief directing the district court to vacate the challenged delinquency-related orders to the extent they conflicted with the statutory protections and to proceed in a manner consistent with treating A.J. as a protected minor rather than prosecuting prostitution-related conduct through delinquency sanctions.

## Legal Principles

- Nevada law provides special protections for minors who engage in prostitution, treating them as victims of sex trafficking rather than as offenders for prostitution conduct.
- Courts may not allow the delinquency system to serve as a substitute path for imposing detention and punishment that the safe-harbor statutory scheme was designed to prevent for prostitution-related conduct by minors.
- When the record shows a minor’s commercial sex activity is connected to trafficking victimization, the court must apply the statutory protections and direct the matter toward services and protection rather than delinquency punishment for prostitution-related conduct.
- Extraordinary appellate relief is available to correct juvenile-court orders that subject a minor to unlawful detention or commitment contrary to the governing statutory framework.

## Conclusion

A.J. arose from repeated arrests and juvenile-court orders that treated a trafficked child as a delinquent through obstruction and probation-violation proceedings tied to prostitution-related conduct. The Nevada Supreme Court held that Nevada’s safe-harbor protections for minors engaged in prostitution require a victim-centered response and do not permit the delinquency system to be used to impose custody and commitment for prostitution-related conduct that the Legislature has chosen to address through protection and services, and it ordered corrective relief consistent with that statutory scheme.


A.J. v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 394 P.3d 1209 (2017)