California § 625.6. 625.6. (Amended by Stats. 2020, Ch. 335, Sec. 2.)

California Statutes

§ 625.6. — 625.6. (Amended by Stats. 2020, Ch. 335, Sec. 2.)

California·Code WIC Welfare and Institutions Code - WIC·Div. 2. DIVISION 2. CHILDREN·Part 1. PART 1. DELINQUENTS AND WARDS OF THE JUVENILE COURT·Ch. 2. CHAPTER 2. Juvenile Court Law·Art. 15. ARTICLE 15. Wards—Temporary Custody and Detention

(a)Prior to a custodial interrogation, and before the waiver of any Miranda rights, a youth 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 youth 17 years of age or younger made during or after a custodial interrogation, consider the effect of failure to comply with subdivision (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 17 years of age or younger if both of the following criteria are met:

(1)The officer

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(a)
Prior to a custodial interrogation, and before the waiver of any Miranda rights, a youth 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 youth 17 years of age or younger made during or after a custodial
interrogation, consider the effect of failure to comply with subdivision (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 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
the officer sought was necessary to protect life or property from an imminent threat.
(2)
The officer’s 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 the probation officer’s duties under Section 625, 627.5, or 628.

California § 625.6. (625.6. (Amended by Stats. 2020, Ch. 335, Sec. 2.)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.