Assembly Bill 2644 was introduced by Assembly Member Holden on February 18, 2022.

The enactment of this legislation would gut law enforcement’s opportunity to solve crimes committed by individuals under the age of 25.

This legislation would

• prohibit law enforcement from telling a suspect under the age of 25 that the investigation indicates that he/she was involved in the commission of the issue under investigation

• prohibit law enforcement from telling a subject under the age of 25 what actual evidence that they have in the case that indicates his/her involvement in the commission of the crime - such as a witness, a co-conspirator disclosing his/her involvement, the presence of his/her fingerprints on the murder weapon, etc.

• prohibit law enforcement from suggesting to a suspect under the age of 25 that there may have been an understandable reason for what he/she did, that there may be extenuating circumstances that the investigators should know about, or that someone else my have been partially to blame for what happened.

• prohibit law enforcement from asking a subject under the age of 25 if this is the first time he committed an act like this or had he/she done it on previous occasions

• prohibit law enforcement asking a subject under the age of 25 if he/she planned on committing the crime or if it was something that happened on the spur of the moment.

• prohibit law enforcement from asking any question or making any statement that "convey the interrogator’s belief that the youth is guilty" and that his/her denials will be ineffective.

Essentially the legislation would allow an investigator to ask an individual under the age of 25 who is a suspect in a criminal investigation if he did it, and then if the subject says “no” then the questioning should be terminated.

As ridiculous as this may sound, it is exactly what the bill would do.

Clearly there should be safeguards for the questioning of all individuals, especially juveniles and individuals with mental and/or psychological impairments, but the courts have long established that physical abuse of the subject, making promises of leniency, threats of harm, threats of inevitable consequences, denial of rights, denial of the chance to satisfy their physical needs are all unacceptable and can render a confession inadmissible.

The state of California should adopt the following Principles of Practice for all investigators:

• Always treat the subject with dignity and respect

• Always conduct interviews and interrogations in accordance with the guidelines established by the courts

• Do not make any promises of leniency or threats of harm or inevitable consequences

• Do not conduct interrogations for an excessively lengthy period of time

• Do not deny the subject any of their rights

• Do not deny the subject the opportunity to satisfy their physical needs

• Exercise special cautions when questioning juveniles or individuals with mental or psychological impairments