Yes. Before a custodial interrogation, and before any Miranda waiver, a youth who is 17 or younger must consult legal counsel in person, by telephone, or by video conference. The consultation cannot be waived. A parent can help arrange a lawyer, but a parent’s presence or advice is not the required consultation with legal counsel. (Welfare and Institutions Code § 625.6(a))
Check age, custody, and timing
The statute applies when the youth was 17 or younger at the time of a custodial interrogation. It does not make every conversation with police a custodial interview. The timing also matters: counsel consultation must happen before the interrogation and before the youth waives Miranda rights. Write down when the youth was stopped, transported or restrained; when questioning began; when warnings were given; and when and how counsel consultation occurred. Preserve any recording, interview log, and written waiver for counsel to review.
A school conversation, voluntary contact, or ordinary parent interview should not be treated as a custodial police interrogation without examining the setting and the officers’ conduct. The statute’s trigger depends on custody and interrogation, not simply the youth’s age or the fact that police asked questions.
The exceptions are limited
The statute does not apply to the admissibility of a youth’s statement when both conditions are met: the officer reasonably believed the information was necessary to protect life or property from an imminent threat, and the questions were limited to what was reasonably necessary to obtain that information. It also exempts a probation officer performing the specific statutory duties listed in section 625.6(d). These provisions do not create a general exception for any urgent or routine police interview. (Welfare and Institutions Code § 625.6(c)–(d))
A violation does not automatically exclude a statement
When deciding whether a statement made during or after a custodial interrogation is admissible, the court must consider the effect of a failure to comply with the consultation requirement. The court must also consider a willful violation when assessing an officer’s credibility under Evidence Code section 780. The statute does not say that every violation automatically excludes the statement or dismisses the case. Counsel must assess the interview record and any separate constitutional or evidentiary grounds that may apply. (Welfare and Institutions Code § 625.6(b))
Keep the youth’s age documentation, interview recording, Miranda form, custody timeline, and any information about who arranged the attorney consultation. A parent should ask counsel to review these materials before relying on a statement about what happened.
The Law Offices of David S. Chesley represents young people facing California criminal allegations. Call (800) 755-5174 to discuss the interview timeline and available records.