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