Relates to procedures required for the custodial interrogation of children

Showing the cosponsors who are on Agora, A to Z. The official record may list more.

• Democratic94

Shown in neutral colors by design; Agora is non-partisan.

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Jamaal Bailey says this is needed

The bill makes three crucial changes to § 305.2 of the Family Court Act and to § 140.20(6), 140.27(5) and 140.40(5) of the Criminal Procedure Law. First, it clarifies that law enforcement cannot take a child to the station house until they have notified a parent or person legally responsible. Second, it requires that juveniles consult with counsel before they can waive their rights under Miranda. The bill also makes the first two changes to Family Court Act § 724. Family Court Act § 5 305.2 and 724 and Criminal Procedure Law § 140.20(6), 140.27(5) and 140.40(5) already require that law enforcement immediately notify an arrested child's parent or legally responsible adult that the child has been taken into custody; this proposal clari- fies that immediate notification must take place before the officer takes the child to another location. In an era in which all officers are equipped with mobile phones, they are able to make contact with parents without first taking children to the station house. In most cases, this will also mean the officer will be able to make a more immediate deter- mination whether to bring the child to the station house, to the family court, or to another location permitted by statute. Under this proposal, unless questioning is necessary, after notifying a parent, the officer may transport a child to his home, to another greed upon location, or to the station house for purposes of releasing the child to the parent with a desk appearance ticket under Family Court Act 5 305.2 or after securing a written promise from the parent to bring the child to the designated lead agency at specified time and place under Family Court Act § 724. When the officer does not have reason to believe that the parent will appear for the child, unless questioning is neces- sary, the officer may bring the child straightaway to family court, before a designated magistrate, to the designated lead agency, or to another location specified in § 305.2(4) or § 724. Under the proposed Criminal Procedure Law provisions, unless questioning is necessary, after notifying the parent, the officer may release the youth with a desk appearance ticket or bring the youth to the appropriate court or otherwise proceed according to the provisions of the CPL. This bill would also establish that under Family Court Act § 3052 and Criminal Procedure Law § 140.20(6), 140.27(5) and 140.40(5), a child suspect can only be questioned after consulting with an attorney by phone, video, or in person. That consultation would be non-waivable, and the taking of a statement without consultation with counsel, necessity, or waiver of Miranda rights by a parent if present, would result in suppression of the statement. Under Family Court Act § 724, a statement would not be admissible into evidence at a fact-finding hearing since the petitioner is usually a parent and thus the child can never have the advice and assistance of a parent who does not have a conflict of inter- est. This treatment is comparable to those statements given to the designated lead agency before fact-finding. The decision to waive one's constitutional right to be silent has enormous consequences, which is why the law requires. that the decision be "knowing, voluntary, and intelligent." See Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Because chil- dren are fundamentally different from adults, different safeguards are required in order for a child to make a knowing, voluntary, and intelli- gent decision about a Miranda waiver. The importance of additional Miranda protections for adolescents is well-grounded in science. It is firmly established that brain develop- ment continues into adulthood, and in recent years, the scientific community has come to a resounding consensus that the prefrontal cortex of the brain which largely governs decision-making, and judgment gener- ally does not mature until well after the teenage years.* In fact, the research demonstrates that the brain undergoes a "rewiring" process

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.