BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                                                                    SB 1052  

                                                                    Page  1

          Date of Hearing:  August 3, 2016


                               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


          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  


          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)