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