We use both our own and third-party cookies for statistical purposes and to improve our services. If you continue to browse, we consider that you accept the use of these.
  • Celebrating 20 Years of Training Excellence 2004-2024

625.6 W&I – New Miranda Law for Juveniles in CA

The California Legislature recently passed Senate Bill 395 which added Section 625.6 to the Welfare and Institution Code which significantly changes the way in which police officers may interview juveniles (referred to as “youth” in the section) 15 years old and younger. As of January 1, 2018, officers must be aware of the following changes.

January 1, 2018 – Welfare Institutions Code Section 625.6 is added

BRIGHTLINE RULE: Prior to a custodial interrogation, and before the waiver of Miranda rights, a youth 15 years or younger (15 and 364 days) shall consult with legal counsel in person, by phone, or video conference. The consultation cannot be waived.

The section states that the Court shall consider a violation of this section in determining whether to admit a statement in violation of this section in court.

PUBLIC SAFTEY EXCEPTION (Welfare and Institutions Code section 626.6(c)

No attorney consultation necessary when both of the following exist:

1. The officer who questioned the youth reasonably believed the information he or she sought was necessary to protect life or property from imminent threat;
2. The officer’s questions were limited to those questions that were reasonably necessary to obtain that information.

Cases have provided that the location of firearms is a public safety exception, the location of victims, determining whether a person is armed, and ascertaining who the suspect is and who the victim is to determine whether there is an armed suspect remaining.

Note–the section provides for the protection of life and property.

The following are the thoughts of the author of this article and are not suggested as legal advice. Be sure to contact your juvenile Deputy District Attorneys for their expert advice in this area.

This section does not apply in the following situations:

  • Juvenile is 16 or older
  • Miranda does not apply
  • Non-Custodial/Beheler


Of course Miranda does NOT apply if there is not Custody AND Interrogation. There are differences when analyzing Miranda when it comes to juveniles.

The test is whether an objective person of the juvenile’s age would have understood themselves to be in custody. The Court looks at the situation through the eyes of a juvenile.

California Appellate Court cases have found custody for juveniles in some of the following:

  • Handcuffs—potentially in custody
  • In back of patrol car—potentially in custody
  • Multiple officers-potentially in custody
  • Police Pressure, ie aggressive tone of voice in questioning/of focusing on juvenile as suspect in questioning as-potentially in custody
  • Length of detention-potentially in custody

California Appellate Court cases have found NO custody when officers tell the juvenile “you are not under arrest.” Of course, once a suspect is released from custody that person may be questioned and not violate this section.

Interrogation- any question or conduct designed to illicit an incriminating response may be and have been judged differently when used on juveniles as opposed to adults.

  • Ruses and lies have in certain circumstances been held to be interrogation.
  • Lengthy interviews have been held to be violative of Miranda in Appellate Court decisions. 
  • Questioning at school has been found to be coercive by nature because disobedience to authority may be punished. 
  • Recent Court of Appeals decisions have focused on implicit indications of minimization as being coercive in interrogation.

Nothing in the section prohibits a Beheler Admonishment prior to questioning. Be clear though that the suspect is free to leave and should not be arrested immediately after the interview. A Beheler Admonishment is effective at school or at the station house.

Other routine investigative techniques are not addressed in the section and should remain valid, Booking questions, questioning about someone else’s crime, social media contacts, text messages, pretext phone calls, evidence collection, GSR, DNA, consent, photographing suspects, fingerprints, placing suspects together in patrol cars and recording their conversation.



  • Incredible training with amazing real world instruction. I have been taking law enforcement classes for over 30 years and by far this is the best presented and most useful.

    —Det. Brian Dale, Portland Police Bureau
  • Instructional style is engaging and highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator
  • This training provided the useful tools necessary for assessing the veracity of a suspected child abuser, which goes a long way in helping to protect children.

    —Sunny Burgan, MSSW, LCSW, Social Work Supervisor, Santa Clara County DFCS
  • Effective teaching teams! The presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized.

    —Michele Keller, Deputy Probation Officer, County of Alameda
  • Your training has made the greatest and most direct impact on my assignment of any training class that I've taken.

    —Ken Gelskey, National City Police Department
  • This was, by far and away the best training I have received in 15 plus years of Law Enforcement. The instructors are experienced, engaging, articulate, and very entertaining. I will be recommending this training to multiple agencies.

    —Mark Paynter, Oregon DOC
  • Your training gave me the confidence and tools to interview the suspect for over 5 hours and to bring a closure to the case.

    —Daniel Phelan, San Jose Police Department
  • It not often that you go to a training that you really, really want to pay attention to. Because of the high quality information and style of presentation, I knew that if I looked away I was going to miss out.

    —Quinten Graves, Oregon State Police
  • I will continue to use and pass on this information because I really believe in the instructors and their approach.

    —Kimberly Meyer, Washoe County Sheriff's Department
  • This was, by far, one of the most useful training classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department
  • This training by far has been the most informative and most effective I've attended. The instructors engaged the students in a manner that made me want to speak my opinion, ask questions, and participate.

    —Julio Ibarra, Merced County Sheriff’s Office
  • The information presented was highly relevant to my job and was presented in a manner that was organized and very easy to digest.

    —Michael McGarvey, California State Prison, San Quentin
  • I highly recommend this training for any Probation staff who have the necessity to interview/interrogate individuals for investigation purposes.

    —R. Bret Fidler, Santa Clara County Probation Department