SB 395: Protections for juveniles during custodial interrogation

In October, Gov. Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 395, which protects California's youth from involuntarily and unknowingly waiving Miranda rights during custodial interrogation. The bill sets out robust, foundational findings and declarations that cite legal, scientific and academic authorities establishing that minors are less capable than adults of understanding both their Miranda rights and the consequences of waiving them. See, e.g., J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261, 272-73 (2011) ('"no matter how sophisticated,' a juvenile subject of police interrogation 'cannot be compared' to an adult subject") (quoting Gallegos v. Colorado, 370 U.S. 49, 54 (1962)). As a safeguard, the bill amends California's Welfare and Institutions Code to require that minors under age 15 consult with an attorney prior to a custodial interrogation and before waiving any Miranda rights. SB 395 also provides guidance to the courts for assessing the admissibility of juvenile statements made during and after custodial interrogation.

Functionally, SB 395 adds a new Section 625.6 to the Welfare and Institutions Code. Under subsection (a), minors age 15 or younger must consult with a lawyer (in person, by phone, or by video conference) prior to custodial interrogation and before waiving Miranda rights. The minor cannot waive the consultation. Subsection (b) requires that courts adjudicating the admissibility of a minor's statement during or after a custodial interrogation consider the effect of law enforcement's failure to comply with the consultation requirement. Subsection (c) makes clear that the consultation requirement does not affect the existing public safety exception under Miranda: consultation with counsel is not required where the officer reasonably believes the information sought is necessary to protect life or property from imminent threat and the officer's questions are limited to those reasonably necessary to obtain that specific information. Subsection (d) excepts probation officers performing their normal duties under the Welfare and Institutions Code from the consultation requirement. Subsection (e) requires the governor to convene a panel to investigate and report on the implementation of section 625.6 and its effects and outcomes, including findings about the appropriate age to which the consultation protection should apply.

SB 395 is similar to 2016's SB 1052, which Gov. Brown vetoed citing uncertainty about the potential effects that a consultation requirement could have on law enforcement's competing desire to interrogate minors as an investigative tool. SB 395 addressed this concern by requiring the governor to establish a panel of stakeholders to study and report the effects of SB 395's implementation. The bill also decreased the age for required consultation from 18 to 15. At least 30 state and national organizations officially supported SB 395. Only California's district attorneys, police chiefs and state sheriffs' associations, as well as the San Diego County district attorney, officially opposed the bill. Brown signed SB 395 on Oct. 11, 2017.