NY State Senate Bill 2023-S1099A: Relates to procedures required for the custodial interrogation of children

You can read the text of the bill at the link below, but I have pasted in 
below the "purpose" and "justification" content that 
summarzies the proposed legislation:

PURPOSE:

This bill makes several changes to the Family Court Act to clarify and
protect the rights of children in the custody of law enforcement and
makes corresponding changes to the Criminal Procedure Law to address
children arrested as juvenile offenders and consult with an attorney
before they can be subjected to custodial interrogation by law enforce-
ment, thereby ensuring any waiver of rights under Miranda is genuinely
knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. The bill also requires that a child
arrested without a warrant be brought directly to court, as opposed to
the police station, if a parent or legally responsible adult is not
expected to appear for them and they are not being questioned, unless
otherwise required under the Criminal Procedure Law.

JUSTIFICATION:

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 §§ 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
§ 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
interest. 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 enor-
mous 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 children are fundamentally different from adults,
different safeguards are required in order for a child to make .a know-
ing, voluntary, and intelligent 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 that
is not complete until approximately 25 years of age.** As a result,
youth are not yet able to consider the longterm consequences of their
actions or to resist environmental pressures as well as adults. The
ability to consider the consequences of one's actions and vulnerability
to environmental pressure are precisely the kinds of issues at play in a
custodial interrogation setting.*** Adolescents especially struggle to
process information and make sound decisions in stressful situations,
such as during interrogation.**** Additionally, research shows that
adolescents especially those in the justice system, who have high rates
of intellectual disability - often do not have the cognitive skills
necessary to understand the words or concepts in the Miranda warnings.

The consensus that adolescents' decision-making capabilities are not
fully developed and that, for this reason, young people require unique
legal protections has been recognized and embraced by the United States
Supreme Court. Children are, in the Court's words, "generally less
mature and responsible than adults;" "they often lack the experience,
perspective, and judgment to recognize and avoid choices that could be
detrimental to them"; and "they are more vulnerable or susceptible to
outside pressures than adults." J.D.B.V.North Carolina, 131 S.Ct.  2394,
2397 (2011) (internal quotations omitted). In addition, the Supreme
Court has recognized that children "have limited understandings of the
criminal justice system and the roles of the institutional actors within
it" Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 78 (2010). Addressing the specific
context of police interrogation, the Supreme Court has observed that
events that "would leave a man cold and unimpressed can overawe and
overwhelm a lad in his early teens."  Haley v. Ohio, 332 U.S. 596,
599(1948). Finally, it has noted that "no matter how sophisticated, a
juvenile subject of police interrogation cannot be compared to an adult
subject" J.D.B., 131 S.Ct. at 2403 (internal quotations omitted).

In fact, leading professional organizations with expertise about chil-
dren agree that attorney consultation is needed during interrogation
because of children's developmental limitations. The American Psycholog-
ical Association, for example, "recommends that particularly vulnerable
suspect populations, including youth, persons with developmental disa-
bilities, and persons with mental illness, be provided special and
professional protection during interrogations such as being accompanied
and advised by an attorney or professional advocate."****** The American
Academy on Child and Adolescent Psychiatry similarly believes that youth
should have an attorney present during questioning by police and that
"when interviewing juvenile suspects, polite should use terms and
concepts appropriate to the individual's developmental level. Any writ-
ten material should also be geared to the person's grade level and
cognitive capacity. in general, it is not sufficient to simply read or
recite information to a juvenile."****** Unfortunately, the presence of
a parent or responsible adult does not adequately ensure that a child
makes a knowing, voluntary and intelligent decision with respect to his
or her Miranda rights.

Parents often have conflicting interests and often misunderstand the
proceedings. Because parents may teach their children to respect and
cooperate with law enforcement, they may find it difficult to advise a
child in custody not to cooperate. Similarly, parents teach their chil-
dren to tell the truth; but often a refusal to speak - even when the
child believes himself to be "innocent"- is in the youth's legal inter-
ests.  Parents often find it hard to believe that their child could
possibly do whatever the child is accused of and therefore urge the
child to speak, not realizing that doing so may well undermine the
child's legal interests. Furthermore, when children are arrested, it
often occurs in the context of intra-familial disputes, discord, or
violence. Resulting conflicts of interest force parents to choose
between, on the one hand, giving the child in custody the best advice
and, on the other, looking out for the best interests of the other fami-
ly member involved, which is often the parent him/herself. All of these
issues are compounded when, as is often the case, the parent has been
summoned to the police station in the middle of the night, is feeling
humiliated, resentful, or even angry with the child, and is unable to
must er the kind of dispassionate and reflective thought process neces-
sary to best advise the child. Finally, often the parent or responsible
adult him/herself doesn't understand the meaning and nature of the
rights the youth is being asked to waive.  Social science research
confirms that the existing parental notification process to protect the
rights of youth is inadequate. Research has found that. when parents are
present during interrogation, they almost always either do not help
their children make a decision or actually encourage their children to
waive their rights.******* Having a child rely exclusively on the advice
of an adult who may have conflicting interests and who likely does not
him/herself understand the meaning and nature of the right at stake and
the potential consequences of waiving that right undermines the purpose
of Family Court Act § 305 2 and Criminal Procedure Law §§ 140.20(6),
140.27(5) and 140.40(5).

Legal counsel would offer expert, objective advice to young people about
their Constitutional right to remain silent and their ability to waive
this right and speak to the police. Only with the benefit of such a
conflict-free consultation can children make any waiver of this bedrock
right knowingly,' voluntarily, and intelligently, in keeping with
requirements of the state and federal Constitutions. For this reason,
youth under 18 years of age facing custodial interrogation must be
required to consult with legal counsel to assist in their understanding
of their rights and the consequences of waiving those rights prior to
waiving their rights under Miranda.