BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1052
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 3, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
SB 1052
(Lara) - As Amended August 1, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Public Safety |Vote:|5 - 2 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill requires that a youth under the age of 18 consult with
counsel prior to a custodial interrogation and before the waiver
of any Miranda rights, as specified. This bill provides that the
consultation may not be waived.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Significant non-reimbursable annual costs, potentially in the
millions of dollars, to local agencies to provide legal
counsel to minors prior to custodial interrogations.
SB 1052
Page 2
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, SB 1052 could
potentially result in additional costs to the State
2)Minor one-time cost in the $50,000 range, and ongoing cost in
the $50,000 range to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) in
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(CDCR). One-time cost to update DJJ regulations and
procedures, and ongoing costs to provide a higher level of
legal services to DJJ wards.
3)Minor costs to several state agencies with law enforcement
responsibilities (other than CDCR), such as CHP, Department of
Justice, and Department of Fish and Wildlife, who may interact
juvenile offenders, to update their regulations and
procedures.
COMMENTS:
1)Background. Current law provides that in any case where a
minor is taken into temporary custody on grounds that there is
reasonable cause 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
SB 1052
Page 3
or escaped from any commitment ordered by the juvenile court,
the officer must advise such minor that anything he says can
be used against him and must 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.
When law enforcement conducts a custodial interrogation, they
are required to recite basic constitutional rights to the
individual, known as Miranda rights, and secure a waiver of
those rights before proceeding. The waiver must be
voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made.
2)Purpose. According to the author, "Currently in California,
children-no matter how young- can waive their Miranda rights.
Recent advances in cognitive science research have shown that
the capacity of youth to grasp legal rights is less than that
of an adult.
"SB 1052 will require youth under the age of 18 to consult
with legal counsel before they waive their constitutional
rights. The bill also provides guidance for courts in
determining whether a youth's Miranda waiver was made in a
voluntary, knowing, and intelligent manner as required under
existing law."
3)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. In part, the Academy states:
Adolescents use their brains in a fundamentally
different manner than adults. They are more likely to
SB 1052
Page 4
act on impulse, without fully considering the
consequences of their decisions or actions.
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.
4)Support. According to Human Rights Watch, "This bill
recognizes both the vulnerability and potential of children
and youth, and would create a process to protect their
constitutional rights. If passed, a person under the age of 18
will consult with legal counsel before waiving constitutional
rights. Youth not only have reduced capacity as compared to
adults in comprehending complex legal issues, they also
frequently lack the ability to appreciate the consequences of
their actions."
5)Opposition: According to the California District Attorneys
Association. "Given the additional protections in place to
guard against unlawfully obtained juvenile confessions, we
believe this bill creates an unworkable and costly process
that would frustrate our criminal justice system."
SB 1052
Page 5
Analysis Prepared by:Pedro Reyes / APPR. / (916)
319-2081