The Alameda County Juvenile Justice Center and Camp Wilmont Sweeney are under intense scrutiny following a lawsuit filed in the Alameda County Superior Court. The legal action alleges that approximately 150 children were subjected to sexual abuse by staff members of the Alameda County Probation Department during their confinement, primarily in the 2000s.
The lawsuit paints a disturbing picture of systemic failure within the county’s juvenile facilities. According to the plaintiffs’ attorneys, the abuse was not isolated incidents but rather a result of longstanding negligence by county officials. The complaint highlights a failure to address red flags, properly supervise staff, and create conditions that could have prevented such abuse.
Graphic Allegations and Legal Violations
The 224-page complaint, filed a couple months ago, contains graphic descriptions of alleged rapes, sexual assaults, and violence experienced by teenagers during their confinement. Many of these incidents reportedly occurred during strip searches and cavity searches procedures that are strictly regulated by California law.
California law mandates that cavity searches must be conducted under sanctuary conditions and only by licensed medical professionals. Similarly, strip searches must be performed without touching the breasts, buttocks, or genitalia of the person being searched. The lawsuit alleges that numerous minors reported being groped during strip searches, violating these legal standards.
Other incidents involve male and female staff members who allegedly used force or threats to rape and assault children under their charge. For instance, one 15-year-old plaintiff claims that in 2002, a male staffer sexually assaulted him behind an administration building. The unnamed staffer reportedly threatened to file a negative report if the child reported the incident.
Multiple plaintiffs reported staffers physically restraining and sexually assaulting them in various locations, including bunk spaces, kitchens, and laundry rooms. The complaint also alleges that many of the abusers attempted to bribe their victims with treats and other perks to keep them silent. One teenager who was allegedly raped on a regular basis claims that his abuser provided him with cocaine and alcohol.
Long-Term Impact on Victims
The victims claim to have experienced a range of long-term mental, emotional, and psychological harms, including anxiety, depression, insomnia, and difficulty in establishing intimate relationships. The lawsuit underscores the profound and lasting impact of such abuse on the lives of the victims.
This is not the first time Alameda County’s juvenile justice system has faced such allegations. In 2007, teenage plaintiffs claimed that after being arrested for misdemeanors, they were subjected to illegal strip searches at a San Leandro facility. The county resolved this suit with a $4.3 million settlement. More recently, in 2026, county prosecutors charged a juvenile institutional officer with sexually assaulting a 15-year-old boy while he was in custody in 2004 and 2005.
The Broader Context of Juvenile Facility Abuse
Doug Rochen, whose firm Dicello Levitt is representing the plaintiffs, highlighted that abuse in juvenile facilities is not unique to Alameda County. His firm has filed similar lawsuits in Nevada, Illinois, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Rochen described the issue as a pandemic emphasizing the widespread nature of the problem.
Dicello Levitt has a track record of holding counties accountable for sexual misconduct against youth. Rochen, the lead attorney in the Alameda County case, was part of a similar lawsuit against Los Angeles County over sexual abuse in juvenile detention and foster care facilities. That suit settled for $4 billion earlier this year, marking the largest municipal sex abuse settlement in history. The Los Angeles County case included more than 7,000 claims of sexual abuse.
The Alameda County Probation Department has stated that it has a zero-tolerance policy for any form of sexual misconduct perpetrated against youth in its care and custody. However, the recent lawsuit raises serious questions about the effectiveness of these policies and the county’s commitment to preventing such abuse.
