Bill Text: CA SB1052 | 2015-2016 | Regular Session | Amended
NOTE: There are more recent revisions of this legislation. Read Latest Draft
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-Amended.html
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-Amended.html
BILL NUMBER: SB 1052 AMENDED BILL TEXT 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, as amended, 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.If a custodial interrogation takes place before the youth has consulted with legal counsel, theThe bill would require the court to consider the effect of the failure to comply with the above-specifiedrequirement and to consider the circumstances surrounding statements made without the assistance of legal counsel. The bill would make a failure to comply with its provisions admissible in support of claims that the youth's statement was obtained in violation of his or her rights, was involuntary, or is unreliable.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. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no. 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 legalcounsel prior to making a waiver of rights. In the determination of whether a child or youth has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his or her rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, a court must take into account the special concerns that are present when a young person is involved, including a child or youth's limited experience, education and immature judgment (Fare v. Michael C. (1979) 442 U.S. 707, 725). These concerns must also take into consideration whether a child's or youth's age or experience indicates that his or her request for a probation officer, parent, or other adult is in fact an invocation of his or her right to remain silent (Fare, 442 U.S. at 725).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 legalcounsel.counsel in person, by telephone, or by video conference. The consultation may not be waived.(b) If a custodial interrogation of a minor under 18 years of age occurs prior to the youth consulting with legal counsel, both of the following remedies shall be granted as relief for noncompliance with subdivision (a):(1)(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) and the factors specified in subdivision (c).(a).(2) Provided the evidence is otherwise admissible, the failure to comply with subdivision (a) shall be admissible in support of claims that the youth's statement was obtained in violation of his or her Miranda rights, was involuntary, or is unreliable.(c) In determining whether an admission, statement, or confession made by a youth under 18 years of age was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made, the court shall consider all the circumstances surrounding the statements, including, but not limited to, all of the following:(1) The youth's age, maturity, intellectual capacity, education level, and physical, mental, and emotional health.(2) The capacity of the youth to understand Miranda rights, including the nature of the privilege against self-incrimination under the United States and California Constitutions, the consequences of waiving those rights and privileges, whether the youth perceived the adversarial nature of the situation, and whether the youth was aware of how legal counsel could assist the youth during interrogation.(3) The manner in which the youth was advised of his or her rights, and whether the rights specified in the Miranda rule were minimized by law enforcement.(4) The youth's reading and comprehension level and his or her understanding of the Miranda rights given by law enforcement.(5) Whether there was an express or implied waiver of Miranda rights.(6) Whether the youth asked to speak with a parent or other adult at any time while in law enforcement custody.(7) Whether law enforcement offered to allow the youth to consult with a parent or guardian prior to the interrogation, or whether law enforcement took steps to prevent a parent or guardian from speaking to the youth prior to interrogation.(8) Whether the youth had been interrogated previously by law enforcement and whether the youth invoked his or her Miranda rights previously.(9) Whether the youth requested to leave.(10) Whether law enforcement either by express or implied conduct intimated that the youth could leave after speaking, or if any other promises of leniency were made.(11) The manner in which the interrogation occurred, including length of time, method of interrogation, location, number of individuals present, the treatment of the youth by law enforcement, the tone and manner of questioning during interrogation, whether law enforcement personnel were in uniform, if ruses were used, if express or implied threats were made, and if applicable, the failure to comply with Section 627.(12) Whether the youth consulted with legal counsel prior to waiver.(13) Any other relevant evidence.(d)(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.(e) For purposes of this section, "Miranda rights" refers to the rights specified in subdivision (c) of Section 625.(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.