BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1052|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1052
Author: Lara (D) and Mitchell (D)
Amended: 5/31/16
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-1, 4/19/16
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Leno, Liu, Monning
NOES: Stone
NO VOTE RECORDED: Glazer
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/27/16
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza
NOES: Bates, Nielsen
SUBJECT: Custodial interrogation: juveniles
SOURCE: Human Rights Watch
DIGEST: This bill requires that a youth under the age of 18
consult with counsel prior to a custodial interrogation and
before waiving any specified rights.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Provides that a peace officer may, without a warrant, take
into temporary custody a minor. (Welfare and Institutions Code
§ 625)
2)Provides that in any case where a minor is taken into
temporary custody on the ground that there is reasonable cause
SB 1052
Page 2
for believing that such minor will be adjudged a ward of the
court or charged with a criminal action, or that he has
violated an order of the juvenile court or escaped from any
commitment ordered by the juvenile court, the officer shall
advise such minor that anything he says can be used against
him and shall advise him of his constitutional rights,
including his right to remain silent, his right to counsel
present during any interrogation, and his right to have
counsel appointed if he is unable to afford counsel. (Welfare
and Institutions Code § 625 (c))
3)Provides that when a minor is taken into a place of
confinement the minor shall be advised that he has the right
to make at least two telephone calls, one completed to a
parent or guardian, responsible adult or employer and one to
an attorney. (Welfare and Institutions Code § 627)
This bill:
1)Provides that 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.
2)Provides that the consultation with legal counsel shall not be
waived.
3)Provides that if a custodial interrogation of a minor under 18
years of age occurs prior to the youth consulting with legal
counsel, all of the following remedies shall be granted as a
relief for noncompliance:
a) The court shall, in adjudicating the admissibility of
statements of youth under 18 years of age made during or
after a custodial interrogation, consider the effect of
failure to comply with the consultation to counsel
requirement and factors set in subdivision (c) of the
section.
b) Provided the evidence is otherwise admissible, the
failure to comply with the consultation with counsel
requirement 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) If the court finds that youth under 18 years of age was
subject to a custodial interrogation in violation of the
SB 1052
Page 3
consultation with counsel requirement the court shall
provide the jury or the trier of fact with the specified
jury instruction.
4)Provides that 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 circumstances surrounding the statement,
including, but not limited to all of the following:
a) The youth's age, maturity, intellectual capacity,
education level, and physical, mental and emotional health.
b) The capacity of the youth to understand Miranda rights,
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 counsel
could assist the youth during interrogation.
c) 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.
d) The youth's reading and comprehension level and his or
her understanding of Miranda rights given by law
enforcement.
e) Whether the youth asked to speak with a parent or other
adult at any time while in law enforcement custody.
f) 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.
g) Whether the youth had been interrogated previously by
law enforcement and whether the youth invoked his or her
Miranda rights previously.
h) Whether the youth requested to leave.
i) 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.
j) The manner in which the interrogation occurred.
aa) Whether the youth consulted with counsel prior to
waiver.
bb) Any other relevant evidence.
5)Provides that the Judicial Council shall develop an
instruction advising that statements made in a custodial
SB 1052
Page 4
interrogation in violation of this bill shall be viewed with
caution.
Comments
Miranda v. Arizona
In Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct.
1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, the Court (5-4) decided four cases
(Miranda v. Arizona, Vignera v. New York, Westover v.
United States, and California v. Stewart) and imposed
new constitutional requirements for custodial police
interrogation, beyond those laid down [previously]. The
Court required that a person be informed of his or her
right to remain silent and stated that the right can be
waived it must be made voluntarily, knowingly and
intelligently. If a person indicates that he or she
wishes to speak to an attorney or states that he or she
does not wish to be interrogated at any time in the
process there can be no further questioning. "The mere
fact that he may have answered some questions or
volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive
him of the right to refrain from answering any further
inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and
thereafter consents to be questioned." (86 S.Ct. 1612,
16 L.Ed.2d 706.) (5 Witkin Cal. Crim. Law Crim Trial §
107)
Minors and Miranda. Under this bill, a youth under 18 years of
age would be required to consult with legal counsel prior to
waiving his or her rights under Miranda. The right to legal
counsel cannot be waived.
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. In a
Policy Statement dated March 7, 2013 the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry expressed its beliefs that
juveniles should have counsel present when interrogated by law
enforcement:
Research has demonstrated that brain development
continues throughout adolescence and into early
adulthood. The frontal lobes, responsible for mature
thought, reasoning and judgment, develop last.
Adolescents use their brains in a fundamentally
SB 1052
Page 5
different manner than adults. They are more likely to
act on impulse, without fully considering the
consequences of their decisions or actions.
The Supreme Court has recognized these biological and
developmental differences in their recent decisions on
the juvenile death penalty, juvenile life without parole
and the interrogations of juvenile suspects. In
particular, the Supreme Court has recognized that there
is a heightened risk that juvenile suspects will falsely
confess when pressured by police during the
interrogation process. Research also demonstrates that
when in police custody, many juveniles do not fully
understand or appreciate their rights, options or
alternatives.
Accordingly, the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry believes that juveniles should
have an attorney present during questioning by police or
other law enforcement agencies. While the Academy
believes that juveniles should have a right to consult
with parents prior to and during questioning, parental
presence alone may not be sufficient to protect juvenile
suspects. Moreover, many parents may not be competent to
advise their children on whether to speak to the police
and may also be persuaded that cooperation with the
police will bring leniency. There are numerous cases of
juveniles who have falsely confessed with their parents
present during questioning?. [citations
omitted](https://www.aacap.org/aacap/policy_statements/20
13/Interviewing_and_Interrogating_Juvenile_Suspects.aspx)
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Local law enforcement agencies: Major non-reimbursable local
costs, potentially in the millions of dollars (Local Funds)
annually to provide legal counsel to minors prior to custodial
interrogations, to the extent local law enforcement agencies
(482 cities and 58 counties) incur additional costs to provide
SB 1052
Page 6
counsel and/or incur operational delays. The DOJ Juvenile
Justice in California report indicates nearly 87,000 juvenile
arrests reported in 2014. A portion of these costs could
potentially be subject to Proposition 30 funding requirements
(General Fund*).
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR): One-time
costs of up to $50,000 (General Fund) to revise regulations.
Ongoing minor costs of $37,000 (General Fund) annually to the
Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) to have legal counsel
available for DJJ youth. The DJJ has indicated an average of
six DJJ youth subject to custodial interrogation per month.
California Highway Patrol: Minor, absorbable costs (Special
Fund) to modify juvenile interrogation policy and training.
Court instruction: Minor one-time cost (General Fund) to the
Judicial Council to develop the court instruction, as
specified.
Court workload: No significant impact estimated to ongoing
court workload (General Fund) resulting from this measure.
Proposition 30*: Exempts the State from mandate reimbursement
for realigned responsibilities for "public safety services"
including the provision of services for, and supervision of,
juvenile offenders. However, legislation enacted after
September 30, 2012, that has an overall effect of increasing
the costs already borne by a local agency for public safety
services applies to local agencies only to the extent that the
State provides annual funding for the cost increase. The
provisions of Proposition 30 have not been interpreted through
the formal court process to date, however, to the extent local
agency costs to county probation and sheriff departments
resulting from this measure are determined to be applicable
under the provisions of Proposition 30, could potentially
result in additional costs to the State.
SUPPORT: (Verified 5/31/16)
Human Rights Watch (source)
American Civil Liberties Union
Asian Law Alliance
California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Catholic Conference
California Public Defenders Association
Campaign for youth Justice
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
SB 1052
Page 7
Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth
Children's Defense Fund - California
Coalition for Justice and Accountability
Disability Rights California
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Fathers and Families of San Joaquin
First Focus Campaign for Children
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Justice Not Jails
Law Office of Jeremy D. Blank
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
National Center for Youth Law
National Council on Crime and Delinquency
National Lawyers Guild
Pacific Juvenile Defender Center
San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP
Services, Immigrant Rights & Education Network
SFChildrenslaw
Silicon Valley De-Bug
The Peace and Justice Commission of St. Mark Presbyterian Church
Youth Justice Coalition
OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/31/16)
California District Attorneys Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:
The National Center for Youth Law supports this bill stating:
Currently, youth in California can waive their Miranda
rights on their own, as long as the waiver is made in a
voluntary, knowing, and intelligent manner. Yet
research demonstrates that young people often fail to
comprehend the meaning of Miranda rights. Even more
troubling is the fact that young people are unlikely to
appreciate the consequences of giving up those rights.
They are also more likely than adults to waive their
rights and confess to crimes they did not commit.
Widely accepted research concludes that young people
have less capacity to exercise mature judgement and are
more likely than adults to disregard the long-term
SB 1052
Page 8
consequences of their behavior. Over the last 10
years, the United States and California Supreme Courts,
recognizing that developmental abilities of youth are
relevant to criminal culpability and the capacity to
understand procedures of the criminal justice system,
have enunciated a new jurisprudence grounded in this
research.
Moreover, courts have noted that young people are more
vulnerable than adults to interrogation and have a
limited understanding of the criminal justice system.
These problems are amplified for youth who are very
young, or who have developmental disabilities,
cognitive delays or mental health challenges. A recent
study of exonerations found that 42 percent of
juveniles had falsely confessed as compared to just 13
percent of adults. The ramifications for both the
individual and society of soliciting unreliable
evidence and false confessions are far-reaching?.
People who work closely with youth and help them
navigate legal decision-making know that a young person
can understand the literal meanings of Miranda rights,
but fail to appreciate the implications of giving up
those rights.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:
According to the California District Attorneys Association:
We believe that the procedure sought by this bill
would frustrate criminal investigations and cast doubt
upon voluntary confessions introduced at trial.
As subdivision (c) of Section 1 of the bill notes,
juveniles already receive a more generous
interpretation of Miranda rights, in that the court
must take the juvenile's age, education, and
immaturity into account when considering whether there
has been a valid Miranda waiver. (Fare v. Michael C.
(1979) 442 U.S. 707, 725).
SB 1052 would expand those protections even further,
SB 1052
Page 9
by mandating a consultation between a juvenile and an
attorney - a consultation that the juvenile is
prohibited from waiving. Failure to follow this
procedure would result in a host of sanctions designed
to undermine the credibility of any statements made by
the juvenile, regardless of whether any actual
coercion took place.
To illustrate one such problem with this approach,
consider the following example. A juvenile is
arrested, and properly advised of his Miranda rights.
While in custody, and being transported to the police
station, he makes statements incriminating himself, or
perhaps even confesses to the crime for which he has
been arrested. Upon reaching the police station, the
juvenile consults with counsel, per the mandate in SB
1052.
According to the language of the bill, this would be a
"failure to comply" since the statement was made in a
custodial setting prior to the juvenile consulting
with counsel. Under proposed Welfare & Institutions
Code section 625.6(b)(2), this failure" would be
admissible in support of a claim that the statement
was made in violation of the juvenile's Miranda
rights, was involuntary, or is unreliable.
That, of course, is simply untrue. There was no
violation of the juvenile's Miranda rights, as he was
properly advised of them, and the court is already
required to consider the additional factors pertaining
to juveniles under Fare. The only "right" that was
arguably violated was this new statutory right under
WIC 625.6 - and even then, the arresting officers
attempted to comply at the first available
opportunity. Unless every officer is going to have a
defense attorney at his or her side when taking
juveniles into custody, it's unclear how this would
work in practice.
Prepared by:Mary Kennedy / PUB. S. /
5/31/16 20:45:42
SB 1052
Page 10
**** END ****