BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 1052 Page 1 SENATE THIRD READING SB 1052 (Lara and Mitchell) As Amended August 1, 2016 Majority vote SENATE VOTE: 24-14 ------------------------------------------------------------------ |Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------| |Public Safety |5-2 |Jones-Sawyer, Lopez, |Melendez, Lackey | | | |Low, Quirk, Santiago | | | | | | | |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------| |Appropriations |14-6 |Gonzalez, Bloom, |Bigelow, Chang, | | | |Bonilla, Bonta, |Gallagher, Jones, | | | |Calderon, Daly, |Obernolte, Wagner | | | |Eggman, Eduardo | | | | |Garcia, Holden, | | | | |Quirk, Santiago, | | | | |Weber, Wood, McCarty | | | | | | | | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUMMARY: Requires that a youth under the age of 18 consult with SB 1052 Page 2 counsel prior to a custodial interrogation and before waiving any specified rights. Specifically, 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 forth in this bill; 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; and, c) If the court finds that youth under 18 years of age was subject to a custodial interrogation in violation of the consultation with counsel requirement the court shall provide the jury or the trier of fact with a 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: SB 1052 Page 3 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 SB 1052 Page 4 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; and, bb) Any other relevant evidence. 5)Specifies that the provisions of this bill do not apply to the admissibility of statements of a youth under 18 years of age if both of the following criteria are met: a) The officer who questioned the suspect reasonably believed the information he or she sought was necessary to protect life or property from a substantial threat. b) The officer's questions were limited to those questions that were reasonably necessary to obtain this information. EXISTING LAW: 1)Provides that a peace officer may, without a warrant, take into temporary custody a minor. 2)Provides that in any case where a minor is taken into temporary custody on the ground 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 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 SB 1052 Page 5 counsel appointed if he is unable to afford counsel. 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. FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee: 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. 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, this bill 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. SB 1052 Page 6 3)Minor costs to several state agencies with law enforcement responsibilities (other than CDCR), such as California Highway Patrol (CHP), Department of Justice, and Department of Fish and Wildlife, who may interact juvenile offenders, to update their regulations and procedures. COMMENTS: According to the author, "Currently in California, children-no matter how young - can waive their Miranda rights. 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. Miranda waivers by juveniles present distinct issues. 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." Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of this bill. Analysis Prepared by: Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0003997 SB 1052 Page 7