AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: September 10, 2024
Item Number:
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Cynthia Owens, Municipal Affairs Program Manager
Subject: RATIFICATION OF A LETTER OF OPPOSITION SENT BY CITY MANAGER NANCY HUNT-COFFEY ON ASSEMBLY BILL 3021
(KALRA) - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: INTERROGATIONS
Attachments: 1. Letter of Opposition – AB 3021
2. AB 3021 Bill Text
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council ratify the action taken by City Manager Nancy HuntCoffey to send a letter of opposition for Assembly Bill 3021 (Kalra) - Criminal Procedure:
Interrogations (AB 3021) at the direction of Mayor Lester J. Friedman (Attachment 1).
INTRODUCTION
On August 29, Police Chief Mark Stainbrook reached out City Manager Nancy Hunt Coffey requesting the City consider opposing AB 3021 as it would require peace officers to give an admonishment similar to Miranda warnings to the immediate family members of a person killed or seriously injured by law enforcement. According to an announcement from the California Police Chiefs Association, one of the undecided votes in the State Senate was Senator Ben Allen.
As this bill was on the Senate Floor with a final vote scheduled on August 30, and August 31 was the last day for a bill to pass both the State Assembly and State Senate to reach the Governor’s desk for this legislative year, direction was given by the Mayor for the City Manager to send a letter of opposition on AB 3021. This was done in accordance with the City Council Policy & Operations Manual, which allows the Mayor to direct the City Manager to send letters on legislation when matters are urgent. Staff is now requesting that the City Council ratify the letter sent by City Manager Nancy HuntCoffey at the direction of Mayor Friedman.
Meeting Date: September 10, 2024
DISCUSSION
AB 3021 establishes procedures law enforcement must follow prior to interviewing, questioning, or interrogating the immediate family member of person who has been killed or seriously injured by a peace officer. It would require law enforcement to state that the person has a right to ask about their family member prior questioning by law enforcement; that they are not detained and may leave at any time; they that do not have to speak to law enforcement; that anything they say could be used in evidence in court; that they have the right not to be recorded, photographed, or searched; and that they have the right to consult an attorney or legal advocate.
According to the bills’ author:
The relatives of individuals affected by police violence have a reasonable expectation to transparency and information about the circumstances surrounding their loved ones' welfare, without encountering deceiving and threatening information. The harmful and immoral methods law enforcement officers use to interrogate family members of the victim not only inflict harm upon the victim and their family, but also erode trust in law enforcement. AB 3021 will affirm and empower the family members of victims of police violence to exercise their rights in interactions with law enforcement when they are at their most vulnerable.
AB 3021 would require law enforcement to give a Miranda-like warning prior to interviewing, questioning, or interrogating the immediate family member of a person who has been killed or seriously injured by a peace officer.
Specifically, AB 3021 requires a peace officer, a prosecuting attorney, or an investigator for the prosecution, prior to commencing any interview, questioning, or interrogation, of an immediate family member of a person who has been killed or seriously injured by a peace officer regardless of whether they are in a police station or not, to do both of the following:
1) Clearly identify themselves, including their full name and the agency they work for and whether they represent, or have been retained by, the prosecution. If the interview takes place in person, the person shall also show the person a business card, official badge, or other form of official identification before commencing the interview or questioning.
2) Clearly state the essence of all of the following to the person being interviewed, questioned, or interrogated:
a. “You have the right to ask about the status of your family member prior to answering any questions, and that information is not conditional on answering any questions.”
b. “You are not being detained. You may leave at any time. You are not required to be taken to the police station. If you are detained at a later time, you will receive a Miranda warning.”
c. “You do not have to talk to the police. You have the right to remain silent.” d. “Anything you say can be used as evidence in civil or criminal court.” e. “You have the right to refuse to be recorded, photographed, or searched.” f. “Before speaking with law enforcement, the prosecution, or any investigator, you can consult with a trusted support person, civil attorney, or legal advocate, and you can have that person with you while you speak to the police.”
Meeting Date: September 10, 2024
According to the California District Attorneys Association, "Because the bill requires police to recite inherently accusatory 'rights,' and because of the ubiquitous understanding of the purpose of Miranda warnings in our culture, these warnings are likely to mislead rather than inform. The warnings may even mislead persons the bill seeks to protect.”
Peace officers are required to issue Miranda warnings prior to interrogating suspects who are in custody as custodial interrogations of suspects are deemed inherently coercive. Family members of a person killed or seriously injured by a peace officer are not suspects and are not in custody. Peace officers also do not conduct a Miranda interrogation of them as questioning by a peace officer is not reasonably likely to elicit a response that incriminates them.
The California Police Chiefs Association has identified some potential issues with AB 3021 including:
1) AB 3021 does not account for information known and/or unknown at the time a peace officer is attempting to gather information and the officer may not know they are talking to a family member;
2) AB 3021 does not create any circumstances under which exceptions can be made. For instance, in mass shootings, law enforcement is quickly questioning people to find out the facts and uncover the truth to prevent further tragic events.
This bill could inhibit a peace officer’s ability to effectively ensure public safety during and immediately after a mass shooting;
3) The penalties for a peace officer not administering these statements is unclear; and
4) There is a potential the counsel for the defense will try to have evidence excluded from a court trial hearing should there be a violation when the peace officer was unknowingly questioning a family member.
As the legislative matters contained in AB 3021 are not specifically addressed in the City’s Legislative Platform, and given the urgent nature to oppose this bill prior to the State Legislative session ending on August 31, the Mayor directed the City Manager to send a letter of opposition to the State Legislature.
Staff is now requesting the City Council ratify the action taken by the City Manager at the direction of the Mayor to send a letter of opposition to AB 3021, as required by the City Council Policy & Operations Manual.
It should be noted that on August 31, the bill’s author moved this bill to the inactive file.
As all bills had to be approved by the State Legislature by the end of August 31, this bill is now considered dead.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact is unknown. According to Senate Appropriations Committee, there are potential cost pressures (local funds, State General Fund) for state and local law enforcement officers to provide the required admonitions to family members before interviews.
Additionally, there are potential costs for training law enforcement officers. State General Fund costs will depend on whether the provisions of this bill impose a reimbursable state Meeting Date: September 10, 2024
mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates. However, as noted above, AB 3021 was moved to the inactive file, and the State Legislature will take no further action on AB 3021 during this legislative year.
Keith Sterling,
Deputy City Manager
Approved By
Attachment 1
Nancy Hunt-Coffey B EVE R LY
City Manager H I
August 30, 2024The Honorable Ash Kaira
State CapitolP.O. Box 942849Sacramento, CA 94249-0025RE: AB 3021 (Kaira) -Criminal Procedure: Interrogations City of Beverly Hills -OPPOSE
Dear Assemblymember Kaira,On behalf of the City of Beverly Hills, I write to you in respectful opposition to AB 3021 Criminal Procedure: Interrogations. This bill would require peace officers to give an admonishment similar to Miranda warnings to the immediate family members of a person killed or seriously injured bylaw enforcement.A conversation with a family member of a person killed or seriously injured by police is a difficult one. Should AB 3021 pass, these conversations will be made harder or impossible as peace officers would be required to read several statements to family members prior to asking them questions about the person who was seriously injured or killed by a peace officer. The proposed admonition’seffect is likely to discourage communication and to impede the search for truth, vital to a fairevaluation of an officer involved shooting.
According to the California District Attorneys Association, “Because the bill requires police to recite inherently accusatory ‘rights,’ and because of the ubiquitous understanding of the purposeof Miranda warnings in our culture, these warnings are likely to mislead rather than inform. The warnings may even mislead persons the bill seeks to protect.” Peace officers are required to issue Miranda warnings prior to interrogating suspects who are incustody as custodial interrogations of suspects are deemed inherently coercive. Family membersof a person killed or seriously injured by a peace officer are not suspects and are not in custody.
Peace officers also do not conduct a Miranda interrogation of them as questioning by a peace officer is not reasonably likely to elicit a response that incriminates them.
City ofBeverly Hills 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210 t(310)285-1014f(310)275-8159 BeverlyHills.org While we have sympathy for any family members in this type ofsituation, AB 3021 has some flaws as:
1) It does not account for information known and/or unknown at the time a peace officer is attempting to gather information and the officer may not know they are talking to a family member;
2) The bill does not create any circumstances under which exceptions can be made. For instance, in mass shootings, law enforcement is quickly questioning people to find out the facts and uncover the truth to prevent further tragic events. This bill could inhibit the ability to effectively ensure public safety during and immediately after a mass shooting; 3) The penalties for a peace officer not administering these statements is unclear; and 4) There is a potential the counsel for the defense will try to have evidence excluded from a court trial hearing should there be a violation when the peace officer was unknowingly questioning a family member.
Our City, and our Beverly Hills Police Department, believe the effect of these warning will be misunderstood by family members and cause issues with obtaining information relevant to the search for truth which is vital to the fair evaluation of an officer involved shooting. Theconversations our peace officers would have with a family member of a person killed or seriously injured by a peace officer requires sensitivity and understanding for what the families areexperiencing. AB 3021 would make these conversations more challenging and could prolong aninvestigation unnecessarily.For these reasons, the City of Beverly Hills respectfully OPPOSES AB 3021. ‘unt-Coffey, City Manager
City of Beverly Hillscc: State Senator Ben Allen, Senate District 24 Assemblymember Rick Zbur, Assembly District 51
Beverly Hills City Council
Andrew Antwih, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange
Sincerely,
Attachment 2
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 9, 2024
california legislature—2023–24 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 3021
Introduced by Assembly Member Kalra
February 16, 2024
An act to add Section 13654 to the Penal Code, relating to criminal procedure.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 3021, as amended, Kalra. Criminal procedure: interrogations.
Existing law prohibits the prosecuting attorney, attorney for the defendant, or investigator for either the prosecution or the defendant from interviewing, questioning, or speaking to a victim or witness whose name has been disclosed by the defendant pursuant to existing law without first clearly identifying themself and identifying the full name of the agency by whom they are employed, and identifying whether they represent, or have been retained by, the prosecution or the defendant. Under existing law, if an interview takes place in person, the party is also required to show the victim or witness a business card, official badge, or other form of official identification before commencing the interview or questioning.
This bill would require a peace officer, as defined, a prosecuting attorney, or an investigator for the prosecution, prior to interviewing a an immediate family member of a person who has been killed or seriously injured by a peace officer, to clearly identify themself, if the interview takes place in person, to show identification, and to clearly state specified information, including that the family member has the right to ask about the status of their family member prior to answering questions, has the right to remain silent, and before speaking with the
98 interviewer, can consult with a trusted person and can have that person with them while they speak to the interviewer. By increasing duties on local law enforcement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 13654 is added to the Penal Code, to line 2 read:
line 3 13654. (a) A peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 line 4 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, a prosecuting line 5 attorney, or an investigator for the prosecution, prior to line 6 commencing any interview, questioning, or interrogation by law line 7 enforcement, regardless of whether they are in a police station, line 8 with a an immediate family member of a person who has been line 9 killed or seriously injured by a peace officer, shall do both of the line 10 following:
line 11 (a)
line 12 (1) Clearly identify themself, identifying the full name of the line 13 agency by whom they are employed, and identifying whether they line 14 represent, or have been retained by, the prosecution. If the interview line 15 takes place in person, the party shall also show the person a line 16 business card, official badge, or other form of official identification line 17 before commencing the interview or questioning. line 18 (b) State
line 19 (2) Clearly state the essence of all of the following to the person line 20 being interviewed, questioned, or interrogated:
line 21 (1)
line 22 (A) “You have the right to ask about the status of your family line 23 member prior to answering any questions, and that information is line 24 not conditional on answering any questions.”
98 AB 3021 — 2 —
line 1 (2)
line 2 (B) “You are not being detained. You may leave at any time. line 3 You are not required to be taken to the police station.” station. If line 4 you are detained at a later time, you will receive a Miranda line 5 warning.”
line 6 (3)
line 7 (C) “You do not have to talk to the police. You have the right line 8 to remain silent.”
line 9 (4)
line 10 (D) “Anything you say can be used as evidence in civil or line 11 criminal court.”
line 12 (5)
line 13 (E) “You have the right to refuse to be recorded, photographed, line 14 or searched.”
line 15 (6)
line 16 (F) “Before speaking with law enforcement, the prosecution, line 17 or an investigator, you can consult with a trusted support person, line 18 civil an attorney, or a legal advocate, and you can have that person line 19 with you while you speak to the police.”
line 20 (b) For purposes of this section, “immediate family” means the line 21 victim’s spouse, domestic partner, parent, guardian, grandparent, line 22 aunt, uncle, brother, sister, and children or grandchildren who line 23 are related by blood, marriage, or adoption.
line 24 SEC. 2. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that line 25 this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to line 26 local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made line 27 pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division line 28 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
O
98 — 3 — AB 3021