Amended IN Assembly July 13, 2020 Amended IN Senate January 06, 2020 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 20192020 REGULAR SESSION Senate Bill No. 203Introduced by Senator BradfordJanuary 31, 2019An act to repeal Section 872 of, and to repeal and add Section 878 of, the Public Utilities Code, relating to telecommunications. An act to amend Section 625.6 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to juveniles.LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGESTSB 203, as amended, Bradford. Telecommunications: Moore Universal Telephone Service Act. Juveniles: custodial interrogation.Existing law authorizes a peace officer to take a minor into temporary custody when that officer has reasonable cause to believe that the minor has committed a crime or violated an order of the juvenile court. In these circumstances, existing law requires the peace officer to advise the minor that anything the minor says can be used against the minor, that the minor has the right to remain silent, that the minor has the right to have counsel present during any interrogation, and that the minor has the right to have counsel appointed if the minor is unable to afford counsel. Existing law requires, until January 1, 2025, that a youth 15 years of age or younger consult with legal counsel in person, by telephone, or by video conference prior to a custodial interrogation and before waiving any of the above-specified rights. Existing law directs a court deciding the admissibility of statements made by a youth 15 years of age or younger during or after a custodial interrogation to consider the effects of failing to provide counsel before the custodial interrogation. Existing law directs the Governor to convene a panel of experts to examine the effects and outcomes of these provisions, including the appropriate age of youth to whom these provisions should apply.This bill would instead apply these provisions to a youth 17 years of age or younger, and would indefinitely extend the operation of these provisions. The bill would direct a court to consider any willful failure of a law enforcement officer to allow a youth 17 years of age or younger to speak with counsel before a custodial interrogation in determining the credibility of that law enforcement officer, and would eliminate the above-specified provisions requiring the Governor to convene a panel of experts.Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, including telephone corporations. The Moore Universal Telephone Service Act established the lifeline telephone service program in order to provide low-income households, as defined, with access to affordable basic residential telephone service. Existing law requires that a lifeline telephone service subscriber be provided with one lifeline subscription at the subscribers principal place of residence, and provides that no other member of that subscribers family or household who maintains residence at that place is eligible for lifeline telephone service.This bill would revise the definition of household for these purposes and would authorize multiple lifeline telephone service subscribers to maintain the same address if they are not of the same household. Digest Key Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: NO Bill TextThe people of the State of California do enact as follows:SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a) Developmental and neurological science concludes that the process of brain development continues into adulthood, and that the human brain undergoes significant changes throughout adolescence and well into young adulthood.(b) The United States Supreme Court has recognized the following:(1) Children are generally less mature and responsible than adults, often lacking the experience, perspective, and judgment to recognize and avoid choices that could be harmful to them.(2) Children characteristically lack the capacity to exercise mature judgment and possess only an incomplete ability to understand the world around them.(3) Children are generally more vulnerable to outside influences than adults and have limited understandings of the criminal justice system and the roles of the institutional actors within it.(c) (1) Custodial interrogation of an individual by the state requires that the individual be advised of the individuals rights and make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of those rights before the interrogation proceeds.(2) Youth under 18 years of age have a lesser ability than adults to comprehend the meaning of their rights and the consequences of waiving those rights.(3) A large body of research has established that adolescent thinking tends to either ignore or discount future outcomes and implications, and disregard long-term consequences of important decisions.(d) Addressing the specific context of police interrogation, the United States Supreme Court observed that events that would have a minimal impact on an adult can overwhelm an early teen child, noting that no matter how sophisticated the child may be, the interrogation of a child cannot be compared to the interrogation of an adult.(e) The law enforcement community now widely accepts what science and the courts have recognized: that children and adolescents are much more vulnerable to psychologically coercive interrogations and other psychologically coercive dealings with the police than resilient adults experienced with the criminal justice system.(f) For these reasons, in situations of custodial interrogation and prior to making a waiver of rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, a youth under 18 years of age should consult with legal counsel to assist in their understanding of their rights and the consequences of waiving those rights.SEC. 2. Section 625.6 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:625.6. (a) Prior to a custodial interrogation, and before the waiver of any Miranda rights, a youth 15 17 years of age or younger shall consult with legal counsel in person, by telephone, or by video conference. The consultation may not be waived.(b) The court shall, in adjudicating the admissibility of statements of a youth15 17 years of age or younger made during or after a custodial interrogation, consider the effect of failure to comply with subdivision (a). (a) and, additionally, shall consider any willful violation of subdivision (a) in determining the credibility of a law enforcement officer under Section 780 of the Evidence Code.(c) This section does not apply to the admissibility of statements of a youth 15 17 years of age or younger if both of the following criteria are met:(1) The officer who questioned the youth reasonably believed the information he or she the officer sought was necessary to protect life or property from an imminent threat.(2) The officers questions were limited to those questions that were reasonably necessary to obtain that information.(d) This section does not require a probation officer to comply with subdivision (a) in the normal performance of his or her the probation officers duties under Section 625, 627.5, or 628.(e)(1)The Governor, or his or her designee, shall convene a panel of at least seven experts, including all of the following:(A)A representative of the California Public Defenders Association.(B)A representative of the California District Attorneys Association.(C)A representative of a statewide association representing law enforcement.(D)A representative of the judiciary.(E)A member of the public possessing expertise and experience in any or all of the following:(i)The juvenile delinquency or dependency systems.(ii)Child development or special needs children.(iii)The representation of children in juvenile court.(F)A member of the public who, as a youth, was involved in the criminal justice system.(G)A criminologist with experience in interpreting crime data.(2)(A)The panel shall be convened no later than January 1, 2023, and shall review the implementation of this section and examine the effects and outcomes related to the implementation of this section, including, but not limited to, the appropriate age of youth to whom this section should apply.(B)No later than April 1, 2024, the panel shall provide information to the Legislature and the Governor, including, but not limited to, relevant data on the effects and outcomes associated with the implementation of this section. A report submitted to the Legislature pursuant to this subparagraph shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code.(3)Members of the panel shall serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties on the panel.(f)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2025, and as of that date is repealed.SECTION 1.Section 872 of the Public Utilities Code is repealed.SEC. 2.Section 878 of the Public Utilities Code is repealed.SEC. 3.Section 878 is added to the Public Utilities Code, to read:878.(a)For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:(1)Adult means any person 18 years of age or older.(2)Economic unit means all adult individuals contributing to and sharing in the income and expenses of a household.(3)Household means any group of individuals, including the subscriber, who are living together at the same address and as one economic unit. A household may include related and unrelated persons. If an adult has no, or minimal, income and lives with someone who provides financial support to that adult, both persons shall be part of the same household. A child under 18 years of age and living with a parent or guardian shall be part of the same household as the parent or guardian.(b)A lifeline telephone service subscriber shall be provided with one lifeline subscription, as defined by the commission, per household and, no other member of that household is eligible for lifeline telephone service. A lifeline telephone service subscriber is eligible for lifeline service at only one address.(c)Multiple lifeline telephone service subscribers may maintain the same address if they are not of the same household.
Amended IN Assembly July 13, 2020 Amended IN Senate January 06, 2020 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 20192020 REGULAR SESSION Senate Bill No. 203Introduced by Senator BradfordJanuary 31, 2019An act to repeal Section 872 of, and to repeal and add Section 878 of, the Public Utilities Code, relating to telecommunications. An act to amend Section 625.6 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to juveniles.LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGESTSB 203, as amended, Bradford. Telecommunications: Moore Universal Telephone Service Act. Juveniles: custodial interrogation.Existing law authorizes a peace officer to take a minor into temporary custody when that officer has reasonable cause to believe that the minor has committed a crime or violated an order of the juvenile court. In these circumstances, existing law requires the peace officer to advise the minor that anything the minor says can be used against the minor, that the minor has the right to remain silent, that the minor has the right to have counsel present during any interrogation, and that the minor has the right to have counsel appointed if the minor is unable to afford counsel. Existing law requires, until January 1, 2025, that a youth 15 years of age or younger consult with legal counsel in person, by telephone, or by video conference prior to a custodial interrogation and before waiving any of the above-specified rights. Existing law directs a court deciding the admissibility of statements made by a youth 15 years of age or younger during or after a custodial interrogation to consider the effects of failing to provide counsel before the custodial interrogation. Existing law directs the Governor to convene a panel of experts to examine the effects and outcomes of these provisions, including the appropriate age of youth to whom these provisions should apply.This bill would instead apply these provisions to a youth 17 years of age or younger, and would indefinitely extend the operation of these provisions. The bill would direct a court to consider any willful failure of a law enforcement officer to allow a youth 17 years of age or younger to speak with counsel before a custodial interrogation in determining the credibility of that law enforcement officer, and would eliminate the above-specified provisions requiring the Governor to convene a panel of experts.Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, including telephone corporations. The Moore Universal Telephone Service Act established the lifeline telephone service program in order to provide low-income households, as defined, with access to affordable basic residential telephone service. Existing law requires that a lifeline telephone service subscriber be provided with one lifeline subscription at the subscribers principal place of residence, and provides that no other member of that subscribers family or household who maintains residence at that place is eligible for lifeline telephone service.This bill would revise the definition of household for these purposes and would authorize multiple lifeline telephone service subscribers to maintain the same address if they are not of the same household. Digest Key Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: NO
Amended IN Assembly July 13, 2020 Amended IN Senate January 06, 2020
Amended IN Assembly July 13, 2020
Amended IN Senate January 06, 2020
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 20192020 REGULAR SESSION
Senate Bill
No. 203
Introduced by Senator BradfordJanuary 31, 2019
Introduced by Senator Bradford
January 31, 2019
An act to repeal Section 872 of, and to repeal and add Section 878 of, the Public Utilities Code, relating to telecommunications. An act to amend Section 625.6 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to juveniles.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
## LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 203, as amended, Bradford. Telecommunications: Moore Universal Telephone Service Act. Juveniles: custodial interrogation.
Existing law authorizes a peace officer to take a minor into temporary custody when that officer has reasonable cause to believe that the minor has committed a crime or violated an order of the juvenile court. In these circumstances, existing law requires the peace officer to advise the minor that anything the minor says can be used against the minor, that the minor has the right to remain silent, that the minor has the right to have counsel present during any interrogation, and that the minor has the right to have counsel appointed if the minor is unable to afford counsel. Existing law requires, until January 1, 2025, that a youth 15 years of age or younger consult with legal counsel in person, by telephone, or by video conference prior to a custodial interrogation and before waiving any of the above-specified rights. Existing law directs a court deciding the admissibility of statements made by a youth 15 years of age or younger during or after a custodial interrogation to consider the effects of failing to provide counsel before the custodial interrogation. Existing law directs the Governor to convene a panel of experts to examine the effects and outcomes of these provisions, including the appropriate age of youth to whom these provisions should apply.This bill would instead apply these provisions to a youth 17 years of age or younger, and would indefinitely extend the operation of these provisions. The bill would direct a court to consider any willful failure of a law enforcement officer to allow a youth 17 years of age or younger to speak with counsel before a custodial interrogation in determining the credibility of that law enforcement officer, and would eliminate the above-specified provisions requiring the Governor to convene a panel of experts.Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, including telephone corporations. The Moore Universal Telephone Service Act established the lifeline telephone service program in order to provide low-income households, as defined, with access to affordable basic residential telephone service. Existing law requires that a lifeline telephone service subscriber be provided with one lifeline subscription at the subscribers principal place of residence, and provides that no other member of that subscribers family or household who maintains residence at that place is eligible for lifeline telephone service.This bill would revise the definition of household for these purposes and would authorize multiple lifeline telephone service subscribers to maintain the same address if they are not of the same household.
Existing law authorizes a peace officer to take a minor into temporary custody when that officer has reasonable cause to believe that the minor has committed a crime or violated an order of the juvenile court. In these circumstances, existing law requires the peace officer to advise the minor that anything the minor says can be used against the minor, that the minor has the right to remain silent, that the minor has the right to have counsel present during any interrogation, and that the minor has the right to have counsel appointed if the minor is unable to afford counsel. Existing law requires, until January 1, 2025, that a youth 15 years of age or younger consult with legal counsel in person, by telephone, or by video conference prior to a custodial interrogation and before waiving any of the above-specified rights. Existing law directs a court deciding the admissibility of statements made by a youth 15 years of age or younger during or after a custodial interrogation to consider the effects of failing to provide counsel before the custodial interrogation. Existing law directs the Governor to convene a panel of experts to examine the effects and outcomes of these provisions, including the appropriate age of youth to whom these provisions should apply.
This bill would instead apply these provisions to a youth 17 years of age or younger, and would indefinitely extend the operation of these provisions. The bill would direct a court to consider any willful failure of a law enforcement officer to allow a youth 17 years of age or younger to speak with counsel before a custodial interrogation in determining the credibility of that law enforcement officer, and would eliminate the above-specified provisions requiring the Governor to convene a panel of experts.
Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, including telephone corporations. The Moore Universal Telephone Service Act established the lifeline telephone service program in order to provide low-income households, as defined, with access to affordable basic residential telephone service. Existing law requires that a lifeline telephone service subscriber be provided with one lifeline subscription at the subscribers principal place of residence, and provides that no other member of that subscribers family or household who maintains residence at that place is eligible for lifeline telephone service.
This bill would revise the definition of household for these purposes and would authorize multiple lifeline telephone service subscribers to maintain the same address if they are not of the same household.
## Digest Key
## Bill Text
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a) Developmental and neurological science concludes that the process of brain development continues into adulthood, and that the human brain undergoes significant changes throughout adolescence and well into young adulthood.(b) The United States Supreme Court has recognized the following:(1) Children are generally less mature and responsible than adults, often lacking the experience, perspective, and judgment to recognize and avoid choices that could be harmful to them.(2) Children characteristically lack the capacity to exercise mature judgment and possess only an incomplete ability to understand the world around them.(3) Children are generally more vulnerable to outside influences than adults and have limited understandings of the criminal justice system and the roles of the institutional actors within it.(c) (1) Custodial interrogation of an individual by the state requires that the individual be advised of the individuals rights and make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of those rights before the interrogation proceeds.(2) Youth under 18 years of age have a lesser ability than adults to comprehend the meaning of their rights and the consequences of waiving those rights.(3) A large body of research has established that adolescent thinking tends to either ignore or discount future outcomes and implications, and disregard long-term consequences of important decisions.(d) Addressing the specific context of police interrogation, the United States Supreme Court observed that events that would have a minimal impact on an adult can overwhelm an early teen child, noting that no matter how sophisticated the child may be, the interrogation of a child cannot be compared to the interrogation of an adult.(e) The law enforcement community now widely accepts what science and the courts have recognized: that children and adolescents are much more vulnerable to psychologically coercive interrogations and other psychologically coercive dealings with the police than resilient adults experienced with the criminal justice system.(f) For these reasons, in situations of custodial interrogation and prior to making a waiver of rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, a youth under 18 years of age should consult with legal counsel to assist in their understanding of their rights and the consequences of waiving those rights.SEC. 2. Section 625.6 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:625.6. (a) Prior to a custodial interrogation, and before the waiver of any Miranda rights, a youth 15 17 years of age or younger shall consult with legal counsel in person, by telephone, or by video conference. The consultation may not be waived.(b) The court shall, in adjudicating the admissibility of statements of a youth15 17 years of age or younger made during or after a custodial interrogation, consider the effect of failure to comply with subdivision (a). (a) and, additionally, shall consider any willful violation of subdivision (a) in determining the credibility of a law enforcement officer under Section 780 of the Evidence Code.(c) This section does not apply to the admissibility of statements of a youth 15 17 years of age or younger if both of the following criteria are met:(1) The officer who questioned the youth reasonably believed the information he or she the officer sought was necessary to protect life or property from an imminent threat.(2) The officers questions were limited to those questions that were reasonably necessary to obtain that information.(d) This section does not require a probation officer to comply with subdivision (a) in the normal performance of his or her the probation officers duties under Section 625, 627.5, or 628.(e)(1)The Governor, or his or her designee, shall convene a panel of at least seven experts, including all of the following:(A)A representative of the California Public Defenders Association.(B)A representative of the California District Attorneys Association.(C)A representative of a statewide association representing law enforcement.(D)A representative of the judiciary.(E)A member of the public possessing expertise and experience in any or all of the following:(i)The juvenile delinquency or dependency systems.(ii)Child development or special needs children.(iii)The representation of children in juvenile court.(F)A member of the public who, as a youth, was involved in the criminal justice system.(G)A criminologist with experience in interpreting crime data.(2)(A)The panel shall be convened no later than January 1, 2023, and shall review the implementation of this section and examine the effects and outcomes related to the implementation of this section, including, but not limited to, the appropriate age of youth to whom this section should apply.(B)No later than April 1, 2024, the panel shall provide information to the Legislature and the Governor, including, but not limited to, relevant data on the effects and outcomes associated with the implementation of this section. A report submitted to the Legislature pursuant to this subparagraph shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code.(3)Members of the panel shall serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties on the panel.(f)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2025, and as of that date is repealed.SECTION 1.Section 872 of the Public Utilities Code is repealed.SEC. 2.Section 878 of the Public Utilities Code is repealed.SEC. 3.Section 878 is added to the Public Utilities Code, to read:878.(a)For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:(1)Adult means any person 18 years of age or older.(2)Economic unit means all adult individuals contributing to and sharing in the income and expenses of a household.(3)Household means any group of individuals, including the subscriber, who are living together at the same address and as one economic unit. A household may include related and unrelated persons. If an adult has no, or minimal, income and lives with someone who provides financial support to that adult, both persons shall be part of the same household. A child under 18 years of age and living with a parent or guardian shall be part of the same household as the parent or guardian.(b)A lifeline telephone service subscriber shall be provided with one lifeline subscription, as defined by the commission, per household and, no other member of that household is eligible for lifeline telephone service. A lifeline telephone service subscriber is eligible for lifeline service at only one address.(c)Multiple lifeline telephone service subscribers may maintain the same address if they are not of the same household.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
## The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a) Developmental and neurological science concludes that the process of brain development continues into adulthood, and that the human brain undergoes significant changes throughout adolescence and well into young adulthood.(b) The United States Supreme Court has recognized the following:(1) Children are generally less mature and responsible than adults, often lacking the experience, perspective, and judgment to recognize and avoid choices that could be harmful to them.(2) Children characteristically lack the capacity to exercise mature judgment and possess only an incomplete ability to understand the world around them.(3) Children are generally more vulnerable to outside influences than adults and have limited understandings of the criminal justice system and the roles of the institutional actors within it.(c) (1) Custodial interrogation of an individual by the state requires that the individual be advised of the individuals rights and make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of those rights before the interrogation proceeds.(2) Youth under 18 years of age have a lesser ability than adults to comprehend the meaning of their rights and the consequences of waiving those rights.(3) A large body of research has established that adolescent thinking tends to either ignore or discount future outcomes and implications, and disregard long-term consequences of important decisions.(d) Addressing the specific context of police interrogation, the United States Supreme Court observed that events that would have a minimal impact on an adult can overwhelm an early teen child, noting that no matter how sophisticated the child may be, the interrogation of a child cannot be compared to the interrogation of an adult.(e) The law enforcement community now widely accepts what science and the courts have recognized: that children and adolescents are much more vulnerable to psychologically coercive interrogations and other psychologically coercive dealings with the police than resilient adults experienced with the criminal justice system.(f) For these reasons, in situations of custodial interrogation and prior to making a waiver of rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, a youth under 18 years of age should consult with legal counsel to assist in their understanding of their rights and the consequences of waiving those rights.
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a) Developmental and neurological science concludes that the process of brain development continues into adulthood, and that the human brain undergoes significant changes throughout adolescence and well into young adulthood.(b) The United States Supreme Court has recognized the following:(1) Children are generally less mature and responsible than adults, often lacking the experience, perspective, and judgment to recognize and avoid choices that could be harmful to them.(2) Children characteristically lack the capacity to exercise mature judgment and possess only an incomplete ability to understand the world around them.(3) Children are generally more vulnerable to outside influences than adults and have limited understandings of the criminal justice system and the roles of the institutional actors within it.(c) (1) Custodial interrogation of an individual by the state requires that the individual be advised of the individuals rights and make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of those rights before the interrogation proceeds.(2) Youth under 18 years of age have a lesser ability than adults to comprehend the meaning of their rights and the consequences of waiving those rights.(3) A large body of research has established that adolescent thinking tends to either ignore or discount future outcomes and implications, and disregard long-term consequences of important decisions.(d) Addressing the specific context of police interrogation, the United States Supreme Court observed that events that would have a minimal impact on an adult can overwhelm an early teen child, noting that no matter how sophisticated the child may be, the interrogation of a child cannot be compared to the interrogation of an adult.(e) The law enforcement community now widely accepts what science and the courts have recognized: that children and adolescents are much more vulnerable to psychologically coercive interrogations and other psychologically coercive dealings with the police than resilient adults experienced with the criminal justice system.(f) For these reasons, in situations of custodial interrogation and prior to making a waiver of rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, a youth under 18 years of age should consult with legal counsel to assist in their understanding of their rights and the consequences of waiving those rights.
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
### SECTION 1.
(a) Developmental and neurological science concludes that the process of brain development continues into adulthood, and that the human brain undergoes significant changes throughout adolescence and well into young adulthood.
(b) The United States Supreme Court has recognized the following:
(1) Children are generally less mature and responsible than adults, often lacking the experience, perspective, and judgment to recognize and avoid choices that could be harmful to them.
(2) Children characteristically lack the capacity to exercise mature judgment and possess only an incomplete ability to understand the world around them.
(3) Children are generally more vulnerable to outside influences than adults and have limited understandings of the criminal justice system and the roles of the institutional actors within it.
(c) (1) Custodial interrogation of an individual by the state requires that the individual be advised of the individuals rights and make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of those rights before the interrogation proceeds.
(2) Youth under 18 years of age have a lesser ability than adults to comprehend the meaning of their rights and the consequences of waiving those rights.
(3) A large body of research has established that adolescent thinking tends to either ignore or discount future outcomes and implications, and disregard long-term consequences of important decisions.
(d) Addressing the specific context of police interrogation, the United States Supreme Court observed that events that would have a minimal impact on an adult can overwhelm an early teen child, noting that no matter how sophisticated the child may be, the interrogation of a child cannot be compared to the interrogation of an adult.
(e) The law enforcement community now widely accepts what science and the courts have recognized: that children and adolescents are much more vulnerable to psychologically coercive interrogations and other psychologically coercive dealings with the police than resilient adults experienced with the criminal justice system.
(f) For these reasons, in situations of custodial interrogation and prior to making a waiver of rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, a youth under 18 years of age should consult with legal counsel to assist in their understanding of their rights and the consequences of waiving those rights.
SEC. 2. Section 625.6 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:625.6. (a) Prior to a custodial interrogation, and before the waiver of any Miranda rights, a youth 15 17 years of age or younger shall consult with legal counsel in person, by telephone, or by video conference. The consultation may not be waived.(b) The court shall, in adjudicating the admissibility of statements of a youth15 17 years of age or younger made during or after a custodial interrogation, consider the effect of failure to comply with subdivision (a). (a) and, additionally, shall consider any willful violation of subdivision (a) in determining the credibility of a law enforcement officer under Section 780 of the Evidence Code.(c) This section does not apply to the admissibility of statements of a youth 15 17 years of age or younger if both of the following criteria are met:(1) The officer who questioned the youth reasonably believed the information he or she the officer sought was necessary to protect life or property from an imminent threat.(2) The officers questions were limited to those questions that were reasonably necessary to obtain that information.(d) This section does not require a probation officer to comply with subdivision (a) in the normal performance of his or her the probation officers duties under Section 625, 627.5, or 628.(e)(1)The Governor, or his or her designee, shall convene a panel of at least seven experts, including all of the following:(A)A representative of the California Public Defenders Association.(B)A representative of the California District Attorneys Association.(C)A representative of a statewide association representing law enforcement.(D)A representative of the judiciary.(E)A member of the public possessing expertise and experience in any or all of the following:(i)The juvenile delinquency or dependency systems.(ii)Child development or special needs children.(iii)The representation of children in juvenile court.(F)A member of the public who, as a youth, was involved in the criminal justice system.(G)A criminologist with experience in interpreting crime data.(2)(A)The panel shall be convened no later than January 1, 2023, and shall review the implementation of this section and examine the effects and outcomes related to the implementation of this section, including, but not limited to, the appropriate age of youth to whom this section should apply.(B)No later than April 1, 2024, the panel shall provide information to the Legislature and the Governor, including, but not limited to, relevant data on the effects and outcomes associated with the implementation of this section. A report submitted to the Legislature pursuant to this subparagraph shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code.(3)Members of the panel shall serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties on the panel.(f)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2025, and as of that date is repealed.
SEC. 2. Section 625.6 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:
### SEC. 2.
625.6. (a) Prior to a custodial interrogation, and before the waiver of any Miranda rights, a youth 15 17 years of age or younger shall consult with legal counsel in person, by telephone, or by video conference. The consultation may not be waived.(b) The court shall, in adjudicating the admissibility of statements of a youth15 17 years of age or younger made during or after a custodial interrogation, consider the effect of failure to comply with subdivision (a). (a) and, additionally, shall consider any willful violation of subdivision (a) in determining the credibility of a law enforcement officer under Section 780 of the Evidence Code.(c) This section does not apply to the admissibility of statements of a youth 15 17 years of age or younger if both of the following criteria are met:(1) The officer who questioned the youth reasonably believed the information he or she the officer sought was necessary to protect life or property from an imminent threat.(2) The officers questions were limited to those questions that were reasonably necessary to obtain that information.(d) This section does not require a probation officer to comply with subdivision (a) in the normal performance of his or her the probation officers duties under Section 625, 627.5, or 628.(e)(1)The Governor, or his or her designee, shall convene a panel of at least seven experts, including all of the following:(A)A representative of the California Public Defenders Association.(B)A representative of the California District Attorneys Association.(C)A representative of a statewide association representing law enforcement.(D)A representative of the judiciary.(E)A member of the public possessing expertise and experience in any or all of the following:(i)The juvenile delinquency or dependency systems.(ii)Child development or special needs children.(iii)The representation of children in juvenile court.(F)A member of the public who, as a youth, was involved in the criminal justice system.(G)A criminologist with experience in interpreting crime data.(2)(A)The panel shall be convened no later than January 1, 2023, and shall review the implementation of this section and examine the effects and outcomes related to the implementation of this section, including, but not limited to, the appropriate age of youth to whom this section should apply.(B)No later than April 1, 2024, the panel shall provide information to the Legislature and the Governor, including, but not limited to, relevant data on the effects and outcomes associated with the implementation of this section. A report submitted to the Legislature pursuant to this subparagraph shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code.(3)Members of the panel shall serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties on the panel.(f)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2025, and as of that date is repealed.
625.6. (a) Prior to a custodial interrogation, and before the waiver of any Miranda rights, a youth 15 17 years of age or younger shall consult with legal counsel in person, by telephone, or by video conference. The consultation may not be waived.(b) The court shall, in adjudicating the admissibility of statements of a youth15 17 years of age or younger made during or after a custodial interrogation, consider the effect of failure to comply with subdivision (a). (a) and, additionally, shall consider any willful violation of subdivision (a) in determining the credibility of a law enforcement officer under Section 780 of the Evidence Code.(c) This section does not apply to the admissibility of statements of a youth 15 17 years of age or younger if both of the following criteria are met:(1) The officer who questioned the youth reasonably believed the information he or she the officer sought was necessary to protect life or property from an imminent threat.(2) The officers questions were limited to those questions that were reasonably necessary to obtain that information.(d) This section does not require a probation officer to comply with subdivision (a) in the normal performance of his or her the probation officers duties under Section 625, 627.5, or 628.(e)(1)The Governor, or his or her designee, shall convene a panel of at least seven experts, including all of the following:(A)A representative of the California Public Defenders Association.(B)A representative of the California District Attorneys Association.(C)A representative of a statewide association representing law enforcement.(D)A representative of the judiciary.(E)A member of the public possessing expertise and experience in any or all of the following:(i)The juvenile delinquency or dependency systems.(ii)Child development or special needs children.(iii)The representation of children in juvenile court.(F)A member of the public who, as a youth, was involved in the criminal justice system.(G)A criminologist with experience in interpreting crime data.(2)(A)The panel shall be convened no later than January 1, 2023, and shall review the implementation of this section and examine the effects and outcomes related to the implementation of this section, including, but not limited to, the appropriate age of youth to whom this section should apply.(B)No later than April 1, 2024, the panel shall provide information to the Legislature and the Governor, including, but not limited to, relevant data on the effects and outcomes associated with the implementation of this section. A report submitted to the Legislature pursuant to this subparagraph shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code.(3)Members of the panel shall serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties on the panel.(f)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2025, and as of that date is repealed.
625.6. (a) Prior to a custodial interrogation, and before the waiver of any Miranda rights, a youth 15 17 years of age or younger shall consult with legal counsel in person, by telephone, or by video conference. The consultation may not be waived.(b) The court shall, in adjudicating the admissibility of statements of a youth15 17 years of age or younger made during or after a custodial interrogation, consider the effect of failure to comply with subdivision (a). (a) and, additionally, shall consider any willful violation of subdivision (a) in determining the credibility of a law enforcement officer under Section 780 of the Evidence Code.(c) This section does not apply to the admissibility of statements of a youth 15 17 years of age or younger if both of the following criteria are met:(1) The officer who questioned the youth reasonably believed the information he or she the officer sought was necessary to protect life or property from an imminent threat.(2) The officers questions were limited to those questions that were reasonably necessary to obtain that information.(d) This section does not require a probation officer to comply with subdivision (a) in the normal performance of his or her the probation officers duties under Section 625, 627.5, or 628.(e)(1)The Governor, or his or her designee, shall convene a panel of at least seven experts, including all of the following:(A)A representative of the California Public Defenders Association.(B)A representative of the California District Attorneys Association.(C)A representative of a statewide association representing law enforcement.(D)A representative of the judiciary.(E)A member of the public possessing expertise and experience in any or all of the following:(i)The juvenile delinquency or dependency systems.(ii)Child development or special needs children.(iii)The representation of children in juvenile court.(F)A member of the public who, as a youth, was involved in the criminal justice system.(G)A criminologist with experience in interpreting crime data.(2)(A)The panel shall be convened no later than January 1, 2023, and shall review the implementation of this section and examine the effects and outcomes related to the implementation of this section, including, but not limited to, the appropriate age of youth to whom this section should apply.(B)No later than April 1, 2024, the panel shall provide information to the Legislature and the Governor, including, but not limited to, relevant data on the effects and outcomes associated with the implementation of this section. A report submitted to the Legislature pursuant to this subparagraph shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code.(3)Members of the panel shall serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties on the panel.(f)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2025, and as of that date is repealed.
625.6. (a) Prior to a custodial interrogation, and before the waiver of any Miranda rights, a youth 15 17 years of age or younger shall consult with legal counsel in person, by telephone, or by video conference. The consultation may not be waived.
(b) The court shall, in adjudicating the admissibility of statements of a youth15 17 years of age or younger made during or after a custodial interrogation, consider the effect of failure to comply with subdivision (a). (a) and, additionally, shall consider any willful violation of subdivision (a) in determining the credibility of a law enforcement officer under Section 780 of the Evidence Code.
(c) This section does not apply to the admissibility of statements of a youth 15 17 years of age or younger if both of the following criteria are met:
(1) The officer who questioned the youth reasonably believed the information he or she the officer sought was necessary to protect life or property from an imminent threat.
(2) The officers questions were limited to those questions that were reasonably necessary to obtain that information.
(d) This section does not require a probation officer to comply with subdivision (a) in the normal performance of his or her the probation officers duties under Section 625, 627.5, or 628.
(e)(1)The Governor, or his or her designee, shall convene a panel of at least seven experts, including all of the following:
(A)A representative of the California Public Defenders Association.
(B)A representative of the California District Attorneys Association.
(C)A representative of a statewide association representing law enforcement.
(D)A representative of the judiciary.
(E)A member of the public possessing expertise and experience in any or all of the following:
(i)The juvenile delinquency or dependency systems.
(ii)Child development or special needs children.
(iii)The representation of children in juvenile court.
(F)A member of the public who, as a youth, was involved in the criminal justice system.
(G)A criminologist with experience in interpreting crime data.
(2)(A)The panel shall be convened no later than January 1, 2023, and shall review the implementation of this section and examine the effects and outcomes related to the implementation of this section, including, but not limited to, the appropriate age of youth to whom this section should apply.
(B)No later than April 1, 2024, the panel shall provide information to the Legislature and the Governor, including, but not limited to, relevant data on the effects and outcomes associated with the implementation of this section. A report submitted to the Legislature pursuant to this subparagraph shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code.
(3)Members of the panel shall serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties on the panel.
(f)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2025, and as of that date is repealed.
(a)For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1)Adult means any person 18 years of age or older.
(2)Economic unit means all adult individuals contributing to and sharing in the income and expenses of a household.
(3)Household means any group of individuals, including the subscriber, who are living together at the same address and as one economic unit. A household may include related and unrelated persons. If an adult has no, or minimal, income and lives with someone who provides financial support to that adult, both persons shall be part of the same household. A child under 18 years of age and living with a parent or guardian shall be part of the same household as the parent or guardian.
(b)A lifeline telephone service subscriber shall be provided with one lifeline subscription, as defined by the commission, per household and, no other member of that household is eligible for lifeline telephone service. A lifeline telephone service subscriber is eligible for lifeline service at only one address.
(c)Multiple lifeline telephone service subscribers may maintain the same address if they are not of the same household.