Excerpt from Senate Bill S878A (2025-2026 Legislative Session)

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 so they may consult with an
attorney before they can be subjected to custodial interrogation by law
enforcement, 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 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. . . . 

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.