## Facts

- A juvenile petition was filed seeking to have sixteen-year-old John Doe declared delinquent based on an allegation that he sold drugs (LSD).
- Doe appeared in children’s court on Friday, January 9, 1970, with his parents; the court appointed counsel, and Doe denied the petition.
- The court initially contemplated an immediate adjudication, but Doe’s attorney requested a continuance to prepare a defense.
- The court granted the continuance and set the adjudication hearing for the following Monday.
- The State asked the court to detain Doe over the weekend, asserting that Doe had threatened a witness and referring generally to threats in the community; the State did not present live testimony at that time.
- The court ordered Doe committed to detention for the weekend and stated in court that detention was necessary to ensure Doe’s presence at Monday’s hearing.
- The written detention/commitment order stated a different ground: that Doe would harm himself or others if released.
- Doe was later adjudicated delinquent, and he appealed, challenging the legality of the pre-adjudication detention order (even though the detention had already ended).

## Issues

1. Whether the Alaska Supreme Court should decide the legality of a short, already-served juvenile detention order that was technically moot on appeal.
2. Whether the children’s court complied with Alaska’s Children’s Rules governing pre-adjudication detention when it detained Doe over the weekend based on the stated reasons and the record made at the hearing.
3. Whether the inconsistency between the court’s oral explanation (to secure appearance) and the written order (risk of harm) showed that detention was ordered without the required findings.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court decided to reach the detention issue even though the detention period had already ended, because the question was of serious public importance and likely to recur yet evade appellate review due to the short duration of such detentions.
- The court held that the weekend detention did not satisfy the Children’s Rules governing when a juvenile may be detained before adjudication because the record did not support the grounds recited, and the court did not make the necessary, rule-based findings tied to permissible detention criteria.
- The court made clear that detention cannot be ordered as a routine response to a continuance or for court convenience; it must rest on a permissible ground supported in the record.
- The court did not set aside the delinquency adjudication on the detention issue alone, because the improper weekend detention, by itself, did not require reversal of the adjudication absent a showing of resulting prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- Alaska appellate courts may decide an otherwise moot issue when it involves serious public importance and is likely to recur while avoiding review because it is typically short-lived.
- Pre-adjudication detention of a juvenile is permitted only on specific grounds listed in the Children’s Rules, and the court must base detention on findings supported by the record.
- A detention order is defective when the court’s stated reason for detention is not one authorized by the governing rules, or when the written order recites a ground not supported by evidence presented at the hearing.
- The children’s court must make detention decisions based on the rule criteria and the facts shown at the time of the detention hearing, not on generalized allegations or scheduling concerns.

## Conclusion

*Doe v. State* held that the Alaska Supreme Court may review a technically moot juvenile detention order because such orders frequently expire before appellate review, and it ruled that Doe’s weekend detention was improper because the children’s court did not make record-supported findings on a permissible detention ground under the Children’s Rules, even though the delinquency adjudication itself was not reversed on that basis alone.


Doe v. State, 487 P.2d 47 (1971)