When kids commit crimes, they can end up in the juvenile justice system.  In many ways, juvenile criminal law is its own unique system.  There is some overlap with the adult criminal justice system, but there are many key differences.  

The ostensible purpose of the juvenile justice system is to try to rehabilitate children who have gone astray.  The theory is that children who have committed crimes may simply be misguided, and there is still hope to save them from a life of crime.  For the most part, adult offenders are considered to be beyond rehabilitation, and the primary goals of the criminal justice system are to punish and prevent further crime through deterrence and incapacitation.

Juveniles have different courts and different rights.  Usually children have less rights than adults.  On the flip side, juvenile offenses usually do not carry the same stigma or harsh consequences as adult convictions.   

Like adults, juveniles have a right to an attorney.  Unlike adults, however, they have no right to a jury trial.  Juvenile court judges  have tremendous discretion when deciding what happens to a child who has committed a crime - they can send the child home, to a group home placement, to treatment, or to juvenile hall.  If a minor fails in one setting, the judge may try a different one.  Minors also have less right to privacy compared to adults, so they can be searched under circumstances where an adult could not, like at school. 

Sometimes a court will decide that a particular child who committed a particular crime should be tried as an adult.  This may happen if the child is particularly mature or the crime was particularly sophisticated or violent.  When that happens, the case is transferred to a regular adult criminal court.  At that point, all the rights, procedures and protections that normally apply to adults then apply to the child.

The Fourth Amendment states, in part, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

The test for whether the Fourth Amendment applies to protect a particular place or circumstance depends on whether a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in that place or circumstance.  For example, the Supreme Court has determined that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in one's trash once it has been placed on the curb.  That means the police can rummage through your garbage on trash day without a warrant and without probable cause.

Facebook, Myspace, Twitter and other social networking sites encourage their users to share information through their services.  Users can "check in" to where they are physically located at any moment.  They can post about what they are doing and who they are with.  They can upload photos and videos to document their activities.

These sites have created a culture, particularly in younger generations, that anything and everything is worth sharing.  It has also prompted people to become "friends" with people they barely know, sharing all their information along the way.  One can debate the merits of this culture shift, but my concern is its impact on our constitutional rights.  If people are willing to share this information online, how can one claim an expectation of privacy in it?

Although users can control their privacy settings to some degree, information posted online is never truly private.  The information posted on social networking sites is recorded, gathered for marketing purposes, and sold to advertisers.  The more people use these sites, and the more intimate and widespread their posts become, the less "expectation of privacy" anyone can truly claim, no matter what the circumstance.