BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 1052 Page 1 SENATE THIRD READING SB 1052 (Lara and Mitchell) As Amended August 18, 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 to assist in their understanding of their rights and the consequences of waiving those rights. 2)Specifies that consultation with legal counsel may be in person, by telephone, or by video teleconference, and the consultation may not be waived. 3)States that the court, in adjudicating the admissibility of statements of a youth offender under 18-years of age made during a custodial interrogation, shall consider the effect of a failure to comply with the requirement that they consult with counsel. 4)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. 5)Clarify that the provisions of this bill do not require a probation officer to comply with interviews in the normal performance of his or her duties, as specified. EXISTING LAW: 1)Provides that a peace officer may, without a warrant, take into temporary custody a minor. SB 1052 Page 3 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 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 SB 1052 Page 4 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. 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." SB 1052 Page 5 Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of this bill. Analysis Prepared by: Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0004415