Bill Text: CA SB1052 | 2015-2016 | Regular Session | Enrolled
Bill Title: Custodial interrogation: juveniles.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 3-0)
Status: (Vetoed) 2016-11-30 - Last day to consider Governor's veto pursuant to Joint Rule 58.5. [SB1052 Detail]
Download: California-2015-SB1052-Enrolled.html
BILL NUMBER: SB 1052 ENROLLED
BILL TEXT
PASSED THE SENATE AUGUST 30, 2016
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY AUGUST 23, 2016
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 18, 2016
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 1, 2016
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 16, 2016
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 31, 2016
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 28, 2016
INTRODUCED BY Senators Lara and Mitchell
(Principal coauthor: Senator Leno)
FEBRUARY 16, 2016
An act to add Section 625.6 to the Welfare and Institutions Code,
relating to juveniles.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 1052, Lara. Custodial interrogation: juveniles.
Existing law authorizes a peace officer to take a minor into
temporary custody when that officer has reasonable cause to believe
that the minor has committed a crime or violated an order of the
juvenile court. In these circumstances, existing law requires the
peace officer to advise the minor that anything he or she says can be
used against him or her, that he or she has the right to remain
silent, that he or she has a right to have counsel present during any
interrogation, and that he or she has a right to have counsel
appointed if he or she is unable to afford counsel.
This bill would require that a youth under 18 years of age consult
with legal counsel in person, by telephone, or by video conference
prior to a custodial interrogation and before waiving any of the
above-specified rights. The bill would provide that consultation with
legal counsel cannot be waived. The bill would require the court to
consider the effect of the failure to comply with the above-specified
requirement in adjudicating the admissibility of statements of a
youth under 18 years of age made during or after a custodial
interrogation. The bill also clarifies that these provisions do not
apply to the admissibility of statements of a youth under 18 years of
age if certain criteria are met.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the
following:
(a) Developmental and neurological science concludes that the
process of cognitive brain development continues into adulthood, and
that the human brain undergoes "dynamic changes throughout
adolescence and well into young adulthood." (See Richard J. Bonnie,
et al., Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Approach,
National Academies of Science (2012), page 96, and Chapter 4.) As
recognized by the United States Supreme Court, children and youth "'
generally are less mature and responsible than adults,'" (J.D.B. v.
North Carolina (2011) 131 S.Ct. 2394, 2397, quoting Eddings v.
Oklahoma (1982) 455 U.S. 104, 115); "they 'often lack the experience,
perspective, and judgment to recognize and avoid choices that could
be detrimental to them,'" (J.D.B., 131 S.Ct. at 2397, quoting
Bellotti v. Baird (1979) 443 U.S. 622, 635); "they 'are more
vulnerable or susceptible to... outside pressures' than adults"
(J.D.B., 131 S.Ct. at 2397, quoting Roper v. Simmons (2005) 543 U.S.
551, 569); they "have limited understandings of the criminal justice
system and the roles of the institutional actors within it" (Graham
v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48, 78); and "children characteristically
lack the capacity to exercise mature judgment and possess only an
incomplete ability to understand the world around them" (J.D.B., 131
S.Ct. at 2397).
(b) Custodial interrogation of an individual by the state requires
that the individual be advised of his or her rights and make a
knowing, intelligent, and voluntarily waiver of those rights before
the interrogation proceeds. People under 18 years of age have a
lesser ability as compared to adults to comprehend the meaning of
their rights and the consequences of waiver. Additionally, a large
body of research has established that adolescent thinking tends to
either ignore or discount future outcomes and implications, and
disregard long-term consequences of important decisions. (See, e.g.,
Steinberg et al., "Age Differences in Future Orientation and Delay
Discounting"; William Gardner and Janna Herman, "Adolescent's AIDS
Risk Taking: A Rational Choice Perspective," in Adolescents in the
AIDS Epidemic, ed. William Gardner et al. (San Francisco: Jossey
Bass, 1990), pp. 17, 25-26; Marty Beyer, "Recognizing the Child in
the Delinquent," Kentucky Child Rights Journal, vol. 7 (Summer 1999),
pp. 16-17; National Juvenile Justice Network, "Using Adolescent
Brain Research to Inform Policy: A Guide for Juvenile Justice
Advocates," September 2012, pp. 1-2; Catherine C. Lewis, "How
Adolescents Approach Decisions: Changes over Grades Seven to Twelve
and Policy Implications," Child Development, vol. 52 (1981), pp. 538,
541-42). Addressing the specific context of police interrogation,
the United States Supreme Court observed that events that "would
leave a man cold and unimpressed can overawe and overwhelm a lad in
his early teens" (Haley v. Ohio, (1948) 332 U.S. 596 (plurality
opinion)), and noted that "'no matter how sophisticated,' a juvenile
subject of police interrogation 'cannot be compared' to an adult
subject" (J.D.B., 131 S.Ct. at 2394, quoting Gallegos v. Colorado
(1962) 370 U.S. 49, 54). The law enforcement community now widely
accepts what science and the courts have recognized: Children and
adolescents are much more vulnerable to psychologically coercive
interrogations and in other dealings with the police than resilient
adults experienced with the criminal justice system.
(c) For these reasons, in situations of custodial interrogation
and prior to making a waiver of rights under Miranda v. Arizona
(1966) 384 U.S. 436, youth under 18 years of age should consult with
legal counsel to assist in their understanding of their rights and
the consequences of waiving those rights.
SEC. 2. Section 625.6 is added to the Welfare and Institutions
Code, to read:
625.6. (a) Prior to a custodial interrogation, and before the
waiver of any Miranda rights, a youth under 18 years of age shall
consult with legal counsel in person, by telephone, or by video
conference. The consultation may not be waived.
(b) The court shall, in adjudicating the admissibility of
statements of a youth under 18 years of age made during or after a
custodial interrogation, consider the effect of failure to comply
with subdivision (a).
(c) This section does not apply to the admissibility of statements
of a youth under 18 years of age if both of the following criteria
are met:
(1) The officer who questioned the suspect reasonably believed the
information he or she sought was necessary to protect life or
property from a substantial threat.
(2) The officer's questions were limited to those questions that
were reasonably necessary to obtain this information.
(d) This section does not require a probation officer to comply
with subdivision (a) in the normal performance of his or her duties
under Sections 625, 627.5, or 628.
