H 8090Criminal Procedure

Delinquent and Dependent Children - Proceedings in Family Court

This bill bans police from using deception, threats, or manipulation during juvenile interrogations and makes resulting confessions inadmissible.

Held for study

Population
Affected

Email Legislator

Introduced Feb 27, 2026Committee House Judiciary

Plain-English Summary

This legislation prohibits law enforcement officers and school resource officers from using deceptive, coercive, or psychologically manipulative tactics when interrogating a juvenile in custody. Specific banned actions include making false promises of leniency, lying about evidence, threatening harm, or depriving the child of food, sleep, or medication. If a confession is obtained using these methods, it is presumed inadmissible in court, and any evidence found as a result of that statement is considered tainted. The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a confession was voluntary to use it.

For younger readers

This new rule is for police officers when they need to ask questions to a child who might be in trouble. It says that police are not allowed to scare children, trick them, or lie to them to get them to say they did something wrong. Police also cannot take away a child's food, water, or sleep during this time. If a police officer breaks these rules, anything the child says cannot be used against them in court. This law helps make sure children are treated fairly and are not forced into saying things that might not be true.

Who & Where It Applies

Impacted groups

JuvenilesPolice OfficersSchool Resource OfficersProsecutorsDefense Attorneys

Impacted communities

All

Constitutional & Fiscal Check

None Likely

Estimated cost

None

Estimated revenue

None

Bill Analysis

Both viewpoints

For Progressives

Protects vulnerable youth from predatory police tactics, acknowledging that children are functionally different from adults and more susceptible to manipulation and false confessions.
Promotes systemic reform within the criminal justice system by establishing strict ethical boundaries for law enforcement and school resource officers.
Strengthens due process and reduces the likelihood of wrongful convictions by ensuring that evidence obtained through coercion or deception is inadmissible in court.
The effective date is delayed until January 2027, leaving juveniles vulnerable to these interrogation tactics for several more years.
Allows the presumption of inadmissibility to be overcome if the state proves voluntariness, leaving room for judicial discretion that could still disadvantage the juvenile.
Does not mandate the presence of an attorney or parent during all interrogations, which many advocates argue is the only way to truly ensure a child's rights are protected.

For Conservatives

Upholds the rule of law and constitutional integrity by ensuring that confessions used in court are genuinely voluntary and not the result of government overreach.
Protects individuals from potential state abuse by clearly defining the limits of police authority when interacting with minors.
Encourages higher standards of police work by requiring investigators to build cases based on solid evidence rather than relying on coerced statements, potentially reducing expensive wrongful conviction lawsuits.
Significantly restricts the tools available to law enforcement and School Resource Officers, potentially making it harder to solve crimes committed by juveniles, including gang-related violence.
Places a heavy burden of proof on the state to validate confessions, which could result in guilty offenders escaping justice due to technicalities regarding how they were questioned.
Micromanages police procedure effectively removing the ability for officers to use standard psychological strategies to elicit truth from uncooperative suspects.

Votes

Loading votes...

Full Bill Text

Changes to existing Rhode Island law · 49 additions

SECTION 1. Chapter 14-1 of the General Laws entitled "Proceedings in Family Court" is hereby amended by adding thereto the following section: 14-1-30.3. Use of statements made in custodial interrogation.

(a) A peace officer, as defined in § 12-7-21, including a school resource officer (SRO), as defined in § 16-7.2-6(i), shall not employ threats, physical harm, deprivation, deception, coercion, or psychologically manipulative interrogation tactics during the custodial interrogation of a juvenile.

(b) As used in this section, the following terms shall have the following meanings:

(1) "Coercion" means, but is not limited to, the disclosure of facts pertaining to a crime or crimes that were not previously articulated by the person interrogated.

(2) "Deception" means, but is not limited to, the knowing communication of false facts about evidence, misrepresenting the accuracy of the facts or false statements regarding leniency.

(3) "Deprivation" means the withholding of physical or mental needs, including, but not limited to, food, drink, sleep, use of the restroom, or prescribed medications from the person being interrogated.

(4) "Psychologically manipulative interrogation tactics" means, but is not limited, to the following:

(i) Maximization and minimization and other interrogation techniques that rely on a presumption of guilt or deceit;

(A) Maximization includes techniques to scare or intimidate the person by repetitively asserting the person is guilty 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;

(B) Minimization involves minimizing the moral seriousness of the offense, a technique that falsely communicates that the conduct is justified, excusable, or accidental:

(ii) Making direct or indirect promises of leniency, such as indicating the person will be released from custody if the person cooperates;

(iii) Employing the "false" or "forced" choice strategy, where the person is encouraged to select one of two (2) options, both incriminatory, but one is characterized as morally or legally justified or excusable; and

(iv) Employing undue pressure that impairs the person's physical or mental condition to the extent of undermining the ability to decide whether or not to make a statement;

(5) "Threats" means, but is not limited to, using or threatening the arrest or incrimination of another person, or using or threatening the use of enhanced penalties against the person being interrogated or against another person.

(a) and (b) of this section shall not form the basis of any further investigative activities. Any evidence that is obtained by or flows from the statements of the juvenile shall be considered tainted and shall be presumed inadmissible as evidence against the juvenile making the statement in any criminal proceeding or a juvenile court proceeding for an act that if committed by an adult would be a misdemeanor or a felony offense as those terms are defined in § 11-1-2.

(d) The presumption of inadmissibility of a statement of a juvenile as outlined in subsection

(c) of this section, may be overcome if proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession or incriminating statements were given free from any of the tactics described in subsections (a) and

(b) of this section, based on the totality of the circumstances. The burden of going forward with the evidence and the burden of proving that a statement was given voluntarily and free from any of the tactics prohibited by this section shall be on the state. Objection to the failure of the state to call all or any material witnesses on the issue of whether the confession or statements were voluntary shall be made in the trial court.

(e) Nothing in this section shall abrogate the state's burden to prove a statement of a juvenile was given voluntarily and free from any of the tactics referenced in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, prior to introducing those statements or confession into evidence.

SECTION 2. This act shall take effect on January 1, 2027.