BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                                                                    SB 1052

                                                                    Page  1


          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  

          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  

          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  

             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  

          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:  


                                                                    SB 1052

                                                                    Page  7