BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1052|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 1052
Author: Lara (D) and Mitchell (D), et al.
Amended: 8/18/16
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-1, 4/19/16
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Leno, Liu, Monning
NOES: Stone
NO VOTE RECORDED: Glazer
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/27/16
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza
NOES: Bates, Nielsen
SENATE FLOOR: 24-14, 6/1/16
AYES: Allen, Beall, Block, Cannella, De León, Hall, Hancock,
Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu,
McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Pavley, Roth,
Wieckowski, Wolk
NOES: Anderson, Bates, Berryhill, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani,
Glazer, Huff, Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Stone, Vidak
NO VOTE RECORDED: Jackson, Runner
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 50-28, 8/23/16 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Custodial interrogation: juveniles
SOURCE: Human Rights Watch
DIGEST: This bill requires that a youth under the age of 18
consult with counsel prior to a custodial interrogation and
before waiving any specified rights.
Assembly Amendments (1) clarify that the consultation with
SB 1052
Page 2
counsel can be in person, by telephone or by video conference;
(2) remove the provision requiring Judicial Council to develop a
jury instruction and the courts to use it; (3) delete the
factors the court must consider when the requirement that a
juvenile consult with counsel before being interrogated was not
complied with; (4) delete the factors the court shall consider
when determining whether a statement by a juvenile was made
voluntarily; and (5) make other technical changes.
Existing law:
1)Provides that a peace officer may, without a warrant, take
into temporary custody a minor. (Welfare and Institutions Code
§ 625)
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. (Welfare
and Institutions Code § 625 (c))
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. (Welfare and Institutions Code § 627)
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.
SB 1052
Page 3
3)Provides that consultation with counsel may be in person, by
telephone or by video conference.
4)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.
5)Provides this bill does 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
6)Does not require a probation officer to comply with the
consultation with counsel requirement in the normal
performance of his or her duties.
Comments
Miranda v. Arizona
In Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct.
1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, the Court (5-4) decided four cases
(Miranda v. Arizona, Vignera v. New York, Westover v.
United States, and California v. Stewart) and imposed
new constitutional requirements for custodial police
interrogation, beyond those laid down [previously]. The
Court required that a person be informed of his or her
right to remain silent and stated that the right can be
waived it must be made voluntarily, knowingly and
intelligently. If a person indicates that he or she
wishes to speak to an attorney or states that he or she
does not wish to be interrogated at any time in the
process there can be no further questioning. "The mere
fact that he may have answered some questions or
volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive
SB 1052
Page 4
him of the right to refrain from answering any further
inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and
thereafter consents to be questioned." (86 S.Ct. 1612,
16 L.Ed.2d 706.) (5 Witkin Cal. Crim. Law Crim Trial §
107)
Minors and Miranda. Under this bill, a youth under 18 years of
age would be required to consult with legal counsel prior to
waiving his or her rights under Miranda. The right to legal
counsel cannot be waived.
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. In a
Policy Statement dated March 7, 2013 the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry expressed its beliefs that
juveniles should have counsel present when interrogated by law
enforcement:
Research has demonstrated that brain development
continues throughout adolescence and into early
adulthood. The frontal lobes, responsible for mature
thought, reasoning and judgment, develop last.
Adolescents use their brains in a fundamentally
different manner than adults. They are more likely to
act on impulse, without fully considering the
consequences of their decisions or actions.
The Supreme Court has recognized these biological and
developmental differences in their recent decisions on
the juvenile death penalty, juvenile life without parole
and the interrogations of juvenile suspects. In
particular, the Supreme Court has recognized that there
is a heightened risk that juvenile suspects will falsely
confess when pressured by police during the
interrogation process. Research also demonstrates that
when in police custody, many juveniles do not fully
understand or appreciate their rights, options or
alternatives.
Accordingly, the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry believes that juveniles should
have an attorney present during questioning by police or
other law enforcement agencies. While the Academy
SB 1052
Page 5
believes that juveniles should have a right to consult
with parents prior to and during questioning, parental
presence alone may not be sufficient to protect juvenile
suspects. Moreover, many parents may not be competent to
advise their children on whether to speak to the police
and may also be persuaded that cooperation with the
police will bring leniency. There are numerous cases of
juveniles who have falsely confessed with their parents
present during questioning?. [citations
omitted](https://www.aacap.org/aacap/policy_statements/20
13/Interviewing_and_Interrogating_Juvenile_Suspects.aspx)
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:NoLocal: No
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis:
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, SB 1052 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
SB 1052
Page 6
legal services to DJJ wards.
3)Minor costs to several state agencies with law enforcement
responsibilities (other than CDCR), such as CHP, Department of
Justice, and Department of Fish and Wildlife, who may interact
juvenile offenders, to update their regulations and
procedures.
SUPPORT: (Verified8/23/16)
Human Rights Watch (source)
American Civil Liberties Union
Asian Law Alliance
California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Catholic Conference
California Public Defenders Association
Campaign for Youth Justice
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth
Children's Defense Fund - California
Coalition for Justice and Accountability
Disability Rights California
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Fathers and Families of San Joaquin
First Focus Campaign for Children
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Justice Not Jails
Law Office of Jeremy D. Blank
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
National Center for Youth Law
National Council on Crime and Delinquency
National Lawyers Guild
Pacific Juvenile Defender Center
San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP
Services, Immigrant Rights & Education Network
SFChildrenslaw
SB 1052
Page 7
Silicon Valley De-Bug
The Peace and Justice Commission of St. Mark Presbyterian Church
Youth Justice Coalition
Youth United for Community Action
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/23/16)
California District Attorneys Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The National Center for Youth Law
supports this bill stating:
Currently, youth in California can waive their Miranda
rights on their own, as long as the waiver is made in a
voluntary, knowing, and intelligent manner. Yet
research demonstrates that young people often fail to
comprehend the meaning of Miranda rights. Even more
troubling is the fact that young people are unlikely to
appreciate the consequences of giving up those rights.
They are also more likely than adults to waive their
rights and confess to crimes they did not commit.
Widely accepted research concludes that young people
have less capacity to exercise mature judgment and are
more likely than adults to disregard the long-term
consequences of their behavior. Over the last 10
years, the United States and California Supreme Courts,
recognizing that developmental abilities of youth are
relevant to criminal culpability and the capacity to
understand procedures of the criminal justice system,
have enunciated a new jurisprudence grounded in this
research.
Moreover, courts have noted that young people are more
vulnerable than adults to interrogation and have a
limited understanding of the criminal justice system.
These problems are amplified for youth who are very
young, or who have developmental disabilities,
SB 1052
Page 8
cognitive delays or mental health challenges. A recent
study of exonerations found that 42 percent of
juveniles had falsely confessed as compared to just 13
percent of adults. The ramifications for both the
individual and society of soliciting unreliable
evidence and false confessions are far-reaching?.
People who work closely with youth and help them
navigate legal decision-making know that a young person
can understand the literal meanings of Miranda rights,
but fail to appreciate the implications of giving up
those rights.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the California
District Attorneys Association:
We believe that the procedure sought by this bill
would frustrate criminal investigations and cast doubt
upon voluntary confessions introduced at trial.
As subdivision (c) of Section 1 of the bill notes,
juveniles already receive a more generous
interpretation of Miranda rights, in that the court
must take the juvenile's age, education, and
immaturity into account when considering whether there
has been a valid Miranda waiver. (Fare v. Michael C.
(1979) 442 U.S. 707, 725).
SB 1052 would expand those protections even further,
by mandating a consultation between a juvenile and an
attorney - a consultation that the juvenile is
prohibited from waiving. Failure to follow this
procedure would result in a host of sanctions designed
to undermine the credibility of any statements made by
the juvenile, regardless of whether any actual
coercion took place.
To illustrate one such problem with this approach,
consider the following example. A juvenile is
arrested, and properly advised of his Miranda rights.
SB 1052
Page 9
While in custody, and being transported to the police
station, he makes statements incriminating himself, or
perhaps even confesses to the crime for which he has
been arrested. Upon reaching the police station, the
juvenile consults with counsel, per the mandate in SB
1052.
According to the language of the bill, this would be a
"failure to comply" since the statement was made in a
custodial setting prior to the juvenile consulting
with counsel. Under proposed Welfare & Institutions
Code section 625.6(b)(2), this failure" would be
admissible in support of a claim that the statement
was made in violation of the juvenile's Miranda
rights, was involuntary, or is unreliable.
That, of course, is simply untrue. There was no
violation of the juvenile's Miranda rights, as he was
properly advised of them, and the court is already
required to consider the additional factors pertaining
to juveniles under Fare. The only "right" that was
arguably violated was this new statutory right under
WIC 625.6 - and even then, the arresting officers
attempted to comply at the first available
opportunity. Unless every officer is going to have a
defense attorney at his or her side when taking
juveniles into custody, it's unclear how this would
work in practice.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 50-28, 8/23/16
AYES: Alejo, Atkins, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke,
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh,
Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson,
Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin,
Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lopez, Low, McCarty, Medina, Mullin,
Nazarian, O'Donnell, Olsen, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez,
Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Williams,
Wood, Rendon
NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Arambula, Baker, Bigelow,
Brough, Chang, Chávez, Dahle, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Gatto,
Grove, Hadley, Harper, Jones, Kim, Lackey, Linder, Mathis,
Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Steinorth, Wagner,
SB 1052
Page 10
Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Frazier, Maienschein
Prepared by:Mary Kennedy / PUB. S. /
8/29/16 10:34:44
**** END ****