BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                    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