January 9, 2018

SB 395 — New Protections for Students Age 15 and under when Subjected to Custodial Interrogation by Law Enforcement

BY: Georgelle Cuevas, Todd Goluba

The New Law (SB 395)

Effective January 1, 2018, a California minor age 15 or under must consult with an attorney before he/she can give a confession to a law enforcement officer in a custodial setting which would be legally admissible in a court of law. (SB 395, Welfare and Institutions Code § 625.6.)  The consultation with the attorney can occur by phone or video conference.  Neither the minor nor the minor’s s parent can waive this right.  There is an exception if a law enforcement officer reasonably believes an immediate custodial interrogation is necessary to “protect life or property from an imminent threat” as long as the officer’s questions are limited to those necessary to obtain the needed information.  The law also does not prevent probation officers from preforming their normal duties.

The Policy behind the New Law

Most people living in the United States are familiar with the words of the “Miranda warning,” even if only from movies and television.  “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.”  In California, minors are given the same “Miranda warning” as adults when police take them into custody. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 625)  However, this warning may be ineffective in protecting children’s rights because they may not fully understand these rights, the legal process, or the implications of waiving these rights.  Minors can also be more susceptible to coercive interrogation techniques because they are impulsive and give more weight to immediate outcomes over long term consequences.  A 2012 study on exonerations in the United States found that false confessions were obtained in 74% of exonerated minors who were 11-14 years of age at the time of the interrogation and 34% of the minors who were 15-17 years of age at the time of the interrogation, while only 8% of the adults without known mental disabilities falsely confessed when interrogated. (Gross, Samuel R. “Exonerations in the United States, 1989-2012: Report by the National Registry of Exonerations.” M. Shaffer, coauthor. The National Registry of Exonerations, (2012))

Impact on Student Discipline Investigations

Welfare and Institutions Code section 625.6 will not apply to investigatory interviews conducted by school administrators.  These interviews do not require Miranda warnings because they are not considered custodial interrogations.  However, in situations where school resource officers interview students on campus, a court may find that the student was “in custody” even though the student was not arrested.  Courts will consider the student’s age, including the unique circumstances relating to the school setting where attendance is compulsory and disobedience is cause for discipline, when determining whether a reasonable student would have believed he or she was free to leave. (J.D.B. v. North Carolina (2011) 564 U.S. 261, 277)  In these situations where it is determined that the under the circumstances the student was subject to a “custodial interrogation,” the failure of the SRO to comply with SB 395 may lead to the confession being found inadmissible in a criminal prosecution.  However, admissibility of the confession in a student discipline proceeding would not be affected.


Comments are closed.

Post Comment

Attorney Bio(s)

Georgelle Cuevas

Georgelle Cuevas




Georgelle Cuevas is an associate in the Pleasanton office. Ms. Cuevas regularly assists school districts and county offices of education navigating the requirements of the Education Code, Public Records Act, the Brown Act, and conflict of interest laws. Ms. Cuevas is experienced in counseling and representing public and private sector employers in all aspects of labor and employment law, including discrimination/harassment, wrongful termination, disability, reasonable accommodation, and wage and hour requirements.

full bio


Todd Goluba




Todd Goluba is a partner with AALRR’s Pleasanton office and heads the firm’s Northern California Education Law Practice Group. Mr. Goluba has over 22 years of experience in education law and serves as outside General Counsel to over 25 school districts, community college districts, and county offices of education throughout Northern and Central California.
Mr. Goluba also specializes as a Chief Labor Negotiator for districts engaged in certificated and classified collective bargaining. In this role, he has guided districts through all phases of the negotiation process from at the table bargaining to impasse and fact-finding and has helped avert near strikes. He is skilled in both interest-based and traditional bargaining, with a demonstrated track record of developing enduring, collaborative, and mutually respectful relationships.

full bio