(a) Prior to a custodial interrogation, and before the
6waiver of any Miranda rights, a youth under 18 years of age shall
7consult with counsel. The consultation may not be waived.
(b) If a custodial interrogation of a minor under 18 years of
9age occurs prior to the youth consulting with counsel, all of the
10following remedies shall be granted as relief for noncompliance
11with subdivision (a):
(1) The court shall, in adjudicating the admissibility of
13statements of a youth under 18 years of age made during or after
14a custodial interrogation, consider the effect of failure to comply
15with subdivision (a) and the factors specified in subdivision (c).
(2) Provided the evidence is otherwise admissible, the failure
17to comply with subdivision (a) shall be admissible in support of
18claims that the youth’s statement was obtained in violation of his
19or her Miranda rights, was involuntary, or is unreliable.
(3) If the court finds that a youth under 18 years of age was
21subject to a custodial interrogation in violation of subdivision (a),
22the court shall provide the jury, or if a bench trial, the trier of fact,
23with the instruction developed pursuant to subdivision (d).
(c) In determining whether an admission, statement, or
25confession made by a youth under 18 years of age was voluntarily,
26knowingly, and intelligently made, the court shall consider all the
27circumstances surrounding the statements, including, but not
28limited to, all of the following:
(1) The youth’s age, maturity, intellectual capacity, education
30level, and physical, mental, and emotional health.
(2) The capacity of the youth to understand Miranda rights,
32including the nature of the privilege against self-incrimination
33under the United States and California Constitutions, the
34consequences of waiving those rights and privileges, whether the
35youth perceived the adversarial nature of the situation, and whether
36the youth was aware of how counsel could assist the youth during
(3) The manner in which the youth was advised of his or her
39rights, and whether the rights specified in the Miranda rule were
40minimized by law enforcement.
(4) The youth’s reading and comprehension level and his or
2her understanding of the Miranda rights
given by law enforcement.
(5) Whether there was an express or implied waiver of Miranda
(6) Whether the youth asked to speak with a parent or other
6adult at any time while in law enforcement custody.
(7) Whether law enforcement offered to allow the youth to
8consult with a parent or guardian prior to the interrogation, or
9whether law enforcement took steps to prevent a parent or guardian
10from speaking to the youth prior to interrogation.
(8) Whether the youth had been interrogated previously by law
12enforcement and whether the youth invoked his or her Miranda
(9) Whether the youth requested to leave.
(10) Whether law enforcement either by express or implied
16conduct intimated that the youth could leave after speaking, or if
17any other promises of leniency were made.
(11) The manner in which the interrogation occurred, including
19length of time, method of interrogation, location, number of
20individuals present, the treatment of the youth by law enforcement,
21the tone and manner of questioning during interrogation, whether
22law enforcement personnel were in uniform, if ruses were used, if
23express or implied threats were made, and if applicable, the failure
24to comply with Section 627.
(12) Whether the youth consulted with counsel prior to waiver.
(13) Any other relevant evidence.
(d) The Judicial Council shall develop an instruction, to be used
pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), advising that
29statements made in a custodial interrogation in violation of
30subdivision (a) shall be viewed with caution.
(e) For purposes of this section, “Miranda rights” refers to the
32rights specified in subdivision (c) of Section 625.