Chapter 96C — POLICE INTERROGATION OF YOUTH - JEFF ADACHI YOUTH RIGHTS ORDINANCE

CHAPTER 96C: POLICE INTERROGATION OF YOUTH - JEFF ADACHI YOUTH RIGHTS ORDINANCE

CODIFICATION NOTE

1. So in Ord. 41-19.

This Chapter 96C shall be known as the Jeff Adachi Youth Rights Ordinance. (Added by Ord. 41-19, File No. 181217, App. 3/15/2019, Eff. 4/15/2019)

(a) The Police Department (“SFPD”) may not subject a person 17 years of age or younger (“Youth”) to a custodial interrogation or question or engage in unnecessary conversation with Youth who are not free to leave, unless and until the following two conditions have been met:

(1) The Youth consults with legal counsel in person, by telephone, or by video conference, which consultation must occur before the waiver of any Miranda rights. This consultation with legal counsel may not be waived.

(2) Following the consultation with legal counsel, SFPD shall allow a Responsible Adult, defined as: (A) the Youth’s parents; (B) a relative 18 years of age or over who is related to the Youth by blood or adoption, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words “great,” “great-great,” or “grand,” or the spouse of any of these persons described in this subsection (a)(2)(B) even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution; (C) a person 18 years of age or over who has a mentoring or an established familial relationship with the Youth or a relative of the Youth; (D) the Youth’s teacher, medical professional, clergy, neighbor, social worker, or mental health clinician; or (E) an employee of a non-profit or community organization whose primary focus is assisting youth. The Responsible Adult may not be a person of interest or a suspect in the incident or subject matter giving rise to the custodial interrogation or questioning of the Youth. If the Youth does not object to the identified Responsible Adult’s presence, the Responsible Adult may be present either in person, by telephone, or by video conference during the custodial interrogation and when SFPD questions or engages in unnecessary conversation with the Youth who is not free to leave. But while this subsection (a)(2) allows attendance by the Responsible Adult while SFPD subjects the Youth to a custodial interrogation or when SFPD questions or engages in unnecessary conversation with the Youth who is not free to leave, this subsection (a)(2) also recognizes that the Responsible Adult may not violate California Penal Code Section 148, which forbids willfully delaying or obstructing a police investigation,

(3) For purposes of this subsection (a), “unnecessary conversation” means communications with the Youth that are not designed to address the Youth’s physical needs or to give the Youth directions relating to operation of the facility where the Youth is detained.

(b) The restrictions imposed by subsection (a) do not apply to a custodial interrogation or when SFPD questions a Youth who is not free to leave, when:

(1) An SFPD officer questions a Youth after reasonably concluding that the information the officer is seeking is necessary to protect life or property from an imminent threat; and

(2) The SFPD officer limits the questions to those reasonably necessary to obtain that information. Other questions to the Youth, if any, are subject to the restrictions imposed by subsection (a). (Added by Ord. 41-19, File No. 181217, App. 3/15/2019, Eff. 4/15/2019)

The Public Defender’s Office shall provide legal advice limited in scope for the Youth during the consultation and custodial interrogation referenced in subsection (a) of Section 96C.2. The Youth may instead retain private counsel, but not at the expense of the City, absent appointment by the court.

(Added by Ord. 41-19, File No. 181217, App. 3/15/2019, Eff. 4/15/2019)

In enacting and implementing this Chapter 96C, the City is assuming an undertaking only to promote the general welfare. It is not assuming, nor is it imposing on its officers and employees, an obligation for breach of which it is liable in money damages to any person who claims that such breach proximately caused injury. (Added by Ord. 41-19, File No. 181217, App. 3/15/2019, Eff. 4/15/2019)

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Chapter 96C, or any application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions or applications of the Chapter. The Board of Supervisors hereby declares that it would have passed this Chapter and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, and word not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any other portion of this Chapter or application thereof would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. (Added by Ord. 41-19, File No. 181217, App. 3/15/2019, Eff. 4/15/2019) CODIFICATION NOTE

1. So in Ord. 41-19.