After a juvenile-court judge orders a child detained pending an adjudication hearing, who is responsible for transporting the child to and from court?

Subject

How responsibility is allocated between law-enforcement officers and juvenile-detention-facility staff for transporting children placed in court-ordered pre-adjudication detention to and from court appearances.

Plain-English summary

Deputy Speaker Curtis Johnson asked a practical operational question: when a child is detained pending a delinquency hearing, who's on the hook for driving the child between the detention facility and court? Sheriff's deputies sometimes sit at courthouses for hours waiting to transport juveniles; detention-facility staff sometimes argue it's the sheriff's job; juvenile-court judges want clarity.

The AG laid out the two-phase rule:

Phase 1 (custody to detention facility). The person who took the child into custody, usually a law-enforcement officer, "shall deliver" the child to the court-ordered detention facility (§ 37-1-115(a)(2)). The Court of Criminal Appeals confirmed in State v. Carroll that this provision triggers the procedural protections for juveniles. So when an officer takes a child into custody, the officer transports the child to the designated facility. Period.

Phase 2 (court appearances after detention placement). Once the child is in the detention facility, DCS Rule 0250-04-08-.12(1) controls. The rule says: "All transportation … shall be provided by approved facility staff or law enforcement." The "or" matters. Facility staff have the primary obligation, but law enforcement shares responsibility. In practice, the local arrangements vary: some facilities transport with their own staff and vehicles, others coordinate with sheriff's offices, others split based on safety risk or staffing.

The AG's opinion confirms that both detention-facility staff and law enforcement have authority to transport, neither has an exclusive duty, and the local protocol can allocate the work in whatever way the facility, the sheriff's office, and the juvenile court agree on.

The opinion is short (two pages) and operational, but it resolves a real and recurring source of confusion in juvenile-justice operations.

What this means for you

Juvenile-court judges

Both detention staff and law enforcement can transport. If your court has been seeing the same allocation dispute repeatedly, the AG opinion supports a court-level memorandum of understanding among:
- The detention facility (or its DCS-licensed operator).
- The local sheriff's office or city police.
- Court administration.

A clean MOU specifies who transports for what kind of hearing, how delays and emergencies are handled, and how the parties communicate. The AG opinion gives you the legal scaffolding to draft and enforce that MOU.

Sheriff's offices and city police

You have an obligation to transport children you take into custody to the court-ordered detention facility (§ 37-1-115(a)(2)). After that, your transportation role is shared with detention-facility staff. If your county has a written allocation between facility staff and your office for court trips, follow it. If not, work with the detention facility and the juvenile court to establish one. The AG opinion confirms you have shared (not exclusive) responsibility.

Juvenile-detention-facility staff

DCS Rule 0250-04-08-.12(1) requires that all transportation be provided by "approved facility staff or law enforcement." Your facility's licensure under DCS rules contemplates that you have transportation capability. Confirm:

1. Your staffing pattern includes transportation-eligible personnel.
2. Your vehicles are appropriate for transport (secure, accessible, equipped per DCS standards).
3. Your protocols cover drives at all hours, multiple-child transports, and security escalations.
4. Your local MOU with sheriff's offices clarifies who transports when.

DCS officials

The AG opinion is a clean read of DCS Rule 0250-04-08-.12(1). The "or" between facility-staff and law-enforcement is doing the work. If DCS wants to clarify the allocation, the rule could be amended to specify primary and secondary responsibility. Until then, both have authority and shared responsibility.

Juvenile-defense attorneys

This opinion gives you a tool when transportation delays cause your client to miss a hearing or arrive in a way that affects representation. If a child is left in a detention facility for hours past their scheduled hearing because no one transported them, you can cite the AG opinion's clear answer: both detention staff and law enforcement have authority to transport. The remedy isn't usually a constitutional issue, but documenting transportation delays for the record may matter at disposition.

County commissions and budgeting

The shared-responsibility framework affects county budgets. If your sheriff's office is absorbing most of the juvenile-transport load, the budget may need to reflect that. If the detention facility is doing most of the work, its operational budget should reflect transport costs. The AG opinion supports either allocation and lets local governance decide.

Juvenile-justice advocacy organizations

The opinion confirms that transportation responsibilities are clearly defined in statute and DCS rules. Advocacy efforts on juvenile-detention reform can use this framework to ask: are kids being transported in vehicles appropriate for juveniles? Are there delays that affect court appearances? Are kids missing school transportation because of inefficient court trips? The AG opinion is a reference point, not the end of the analysis.

Common questions

Q: Does this apply to children held in shelter care (rather than secure detention)?

Shelter care is one of the placements the juvenile court can order under § 37-1-114 and Tenn. R. Juv. P. 203. The DCS rules at 0250-04-08 cover secure detention specifically. Shelter-care transportation is governed by separate DCS rules and may have different allocation. Check the specific facility type.

Q: Who pays for the transportation?

The opinion is silent on financing. In practice, sheriff's offices absorb law-enforcement transportation costs; DCS facilities absorb facility-staff transportation costs; and counties and the state share larger juvenile-justice funding through DCS appropriations. Local MOUs sometimes include cost-sharing for shared trips.

Q: What if the detention facility is in a different county from the court?

The same rule applies. Inter-county transports are common in Tennessee because not every county has a juvenile-detention facility. The transporting entity (facility staff or law enforcement) needs to make the trip; jurisdictional lines don't change the duty.

Q: Does law enforcement have to provide an escort for facility-staff transports?

Not necessarily. The rule says "facility staff or law enforcement." Escorts may be appropriate for high-risk juveniles or specific security concerns; that's a judgment call for the facility, the sheriff, and the court. The AG opinion doesn't mandate escorts.

Q: What if a child is in custody but the court hasn't yet ordered detention?

This opinion addresses post-order detention transportation. Pre-order, the child is in police custody, and § 37-1-115(a) governs: police must release to parents, bring to court, or place in a detention facility within a reasonable time. Once that placement happens (with court order), this opinion's framework kicks in.

Q: Are there special rules for children with disabilities or medical needs?

The opinion doesn't address this. ADA, IDEA, and DCS health-services rules add requirements on top of the basic transportation duty. Coordinate with your facility's medical staff and ADA-compliance officer.

Q: Can a parent or guardian transport the child between the detention facility and court?

Generally no, once the child is in court-ordered detention. The detention placement displaces parental custody for transportation and movement purposes. The facility and law enforcement are the authorized transporters.

Background and statutory framework

§§ 37-1-114, 37-1-116(a)(3), Tenn. R. Juv. P. 203(b)-(d). Authorize a juvenile court to order pre-adjudication detention or shelter-care placement when statutory criteria are met. The order designates the specific facility.

§ 37-1-115(a)(2). Requires "the person taking a child into custody [to] … deliver such child to a detention or shelter care facility designated by the court." The Court of Criminal Appeals applied this in State v. Carroll (1999) for the proposition that within a reasonable time of taking a child into custody, the police must release to parents, bring to court, or place in a detention facility, "thereby triggering procedural protections."

§§ 37-5-109(1), -501(b)(10)(B), -502(a) and Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0250-04-08-.02(2). Require that pre-adjudication detention be in a facility "specifically licensed" by DCS.

Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0250-04-08-.12(1). "All transportation … shall be provided by approved facility staff or law enforcement." This is the operative rule for transport between detention and court once the child is in the facility.

§ 37-5-105(3) and § 37-5-106(a)(1). Authorize DCS to promulgate the chapter 0250-04-08 rules and to inspect/license detention facilities.

The framework split, two-phase rule (custody-to-facility = officer; facility-to-court = facility staff or law enforcement), is the AG's reading of the statutes plus the DCS rule.

Citations

• Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-114 (juvenile-court detention orders)
• Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-115(a)(2) (officer's duty to deliver child to designated facility)
• Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-116(a)(3) (criteria for detention)
• Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-5-105(3) (DCS rulemaking authority)
• Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-5-106(a)(1) (DCS licensing authority)
• Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-5-109(1) (DCS-licensed facilities)
• Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-5-501(b)(10)(B), -502(a) (juvenile-detention facility licensure)
• Tenn. R. Juv. P. 203(b)-(d) (detention rule)
• Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0250-04-08 (DCS juvenile-detention chapter)
• Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0250-04-08-.02(2), (9)(b), (c) (placement requirements)
• Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0250-04-08-.12(1) (transportation rule)
• State v. Carroll, 36 S.W.3d 854 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) (interpretation of § 37-1-115(a))

Source

• Landing page: https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/opinions.html
• Original PDF: https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/attorneygeneral/documents/ops/2022/op22-13.pdf

Original opinion text

STATE OF TENNESSEE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
November 15, 2022
Opinion No. 22-13
Responsibility for Transporting Children in Court-ordered Pre-adjudication Detention
Question
Once a judge decides to place a child in detention before the adjudication of a delinquency
petition, who or what entity is responsible for the transportation of the child to and from court?
Opinion
Once a court orders a child to be placed in pre-adjudication detention, the person who took
the child into custody is responsible for transporting the child from the court to the court-ordered
detention facility. Once the child has been placed in a court-ordered detention facility, the
detention facility is responsible for transporting the child to and from court, but law enforcement
shares that transportation responsibility.
ANALYSIS
Under certain circumstances, a juvenile court may order that a child taken into custody and
brought before the court on a delinquency petition under title 37, ch. 1, part 1 of the Tennessee
Code be detained or placed in shelter care pending the hearing and adjudication on the petition.
Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 37-1-114; -116(a)(3); Tenn. R. Juv. P. 203(b)-(d); Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs.
0250-04-08-.02(9)(b), (c). When the court determines that pre-adjudication detention is
appropriate, the child must be placed in a detention or care facility that is "specifically licensed"
by Department of Children's Services ("DCS"). Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0250-04-08-.02(2); see
also Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 37-5-109(1), -501(b)(10)(B), -502(a). And the "person taking a child
into custody shall … deliver such child to a detention or shelter care facility designated by the
court." Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-115(a)(2).
Thus, the person who took the child into custody is responsible for transporting the child
to the court-ordered detention facility. For example, if a law enforcement officer took the child
into custody, then the law enforcement officer "shall deliver" the child to the court-ordered
detention facility. As the Court of Criminal Appeals noted, "[i]n essence, [§ 37-1-115(a)] provides
that within a reasonable time of taking a child into custody, the police must either release the child
to his parents' custody, bring the child before the court, or place the child in an appropriate
detention facility for juveniles, thereby triggering procedural protections relating to the detention
of juveniles." State v. Carroll, 36 S.W.3d 854, 863 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) (emphasis in
original).
Once the child is in the court-ordered detention facility, those procedural protections are
triggered, including the applicable rules promulgated by DCS. Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-5-105(3);
see also § 37-5-106(a)(1); -502(a); Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0250-04-08. And Tenn. Comp. R. &
Regs. 0250-04-08-.12(1) deals specifically with transportation of a child in detention. Under that
DCS rule, the responsibility to transport the child rests with both the staff of the detention facility
and with law enforcement: "All transportation," which would include transportation of a child
between the detention center and the court, "shall be provided by approved facility staff or law
enforcement." Id. (emphasis added).
JONATHAN SKRMETTI
Attorney General and Reporter
ANDRÉE SOPHIA BLUMSTEIN
Solicitor General
LIZ EVAN
Assistant Attorney General
Requested by:
Deputy Speaker Curtis Johnson, District 68
425 Rep. John Lewis Way N.
Suite 612, Cordell Hull Bldg.
Nashville, TN 37243