Policy Text
Roll Call Training Bulletin
Produced b y: Sgt. Terrence Mercadal , Patrol Katherine Lester , Chief of Police
Prepared by: Officer Jason Meier , PSU Volume 118
Custodial Interrogations Involving Minors
11-8-2022
AB 2644
Effective January 1, 2024
On September 13, 2022, Assembly Bill 2644 was approv ed by the California State
Senate. In su mmary, the b ill adds section 625.7 to the Welfare and Institutions Code , defining
the interro gation tactics that shall not be used by law enforcement officers :
Welfare and Institutions Code 625.7
During a custodial interrogation of a person 17 years of age or younger , relating to the commission of
a misdemeanor or felony, a l aw enforcement o fficer shall not employ threats, physical harm,
deception, or psychologically manipulative interrogation tactics .
As defined in the law, here are the following definitions of ; “dece ption” and “psychologically
mani pulative interro gation tact ics”
(1) “Decep tion,” includes, but is not limited to, the knowing communication o f false facts about
evidence, misrepresenting the accuracy of the facts, or false statements regarding leniency.
(2) “Psychologically manipulative interrogation tactics” inc lude, but are no t limited to the following:
(A) Maximization and minimization and o ther interrogation practices that rely on a presumption of guilt
or deceit.
*Maximization - includes techniques to scare or intimidate the person by repetitively asserting th e
person is guil ty despite their denials or exaggerating the magnitude of the charges or the strength of
the evidence, including suggesting the existence of evidence that does not exist.
*Minimization - involves minimizing the moral seriousness of the offen se, a tactic tha t falsely
communicate s that the conduct is justified, excusable, or accidental.
(B) Making direct or indirect promises of leniency, such as indicating the person will be released if the
person cooperates.
(C) Employing the “false” or “force d” choice strate gy, where the person is encouraged to select one of
two options, both incriminat ory, but one is characterized as morally or legally justified or excusable.
The change in the law is in part due to recent case law from the Califo rnia Court of Appeals . The to pic
of “aggressive ” and “relentless” interrogation tactics utilized by law enforcement officers against
minors is vigorously debated in a 2015 Alameda Point o f View article :
Roll Call Trainin g Bulletin
Produced b y: Sgt. Terrence Mercadal , Patrol Katherine Lester , Chie f of Police
Prepared by: Ofc. Jason Meier , PSU Volume 118
https://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/POV_Fall_2015.pdf
As a reminder , existing law requires a peace officer to advise a minor (Age 17 and younger) of thei r
Miranda rights upon placing them into custody for a cri minal offense or a violation of the juvenile
court. Additionally, per 625.6 W&I , officers shall ensure that a minor has consulted with an attorney in
person, via phone , or video conference prior to a custodial interrogation and waiving their Mir anda
Rights .
As a suggestion, peace officers should consi der utilizing a Beheler admonishment in appropriate
situations.
AB 2644 also amends Welfar e and Institutions Code 627, required notifications of a minor ’s
parent/guardian upon taking them to a police facility or juvenile hall. I n summary, the am endment wi ll
require a pro bation officer to immediately notify a public defender of the minor ’s arres t within 2 hours.
For a complete breakdown of the new law follow this link:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClien t.xhtml?bill_id=20212022 0AB2644