California may restrict undercover police operations targeting youth

California may protect young people facing criminal allegations from deceptive law enforcement techniques by limiting how police use undercover agents in custody.

The Legislature this week passed a bill that would prohibit law enforcement agencies from targeting certain people under age 26 in so-called Perkins operations, which involve undercover agents posing as incarcerated people to elicit incriminating information from suspects. 

District attorneys say the practice is a powerful investigative tool to solve crimes, but it has come under increasing scrutiny from judges, lawmakers, and criminal defense attorneys who say the operations are coercive, risk false confessions and disproportionately target Black and Latino people. Ten cases are lined up at the California Supreme Court in which people targeted in Perkins operations are challenging their convictions.

Assembly Bill 1905, authored by Democratic Assemblymember Nick Schultz of Burbank, would ban law enforcement from using Perkins operations on people under age 26 who allegedly committed a crime when they were 17 years or younger, except in certain circumstances when authorities believe someone’s life could be in danger. 

A CalMatters investigation in July revealed Perkins operations are widespread in California. An analysis of cases in Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside and Santa Clara counties showed that the operations include false evidence ploys, jail cells outfitted with recording devices, and cash payments of up to $3,000 per day to undercover operatives, also known as Perkins agents. 

The agents, often described in court filings as older and physically larger than their targets, frequently presented themselves as experienced gang members with histories of violence. In some cases, as many as five were placed in a cell with one person. 

“I believe that Perkins agents are proven to be problematic,” said Schultz, a former prosecutor, in an interview with CalMatters. “At the end of the day, we’re not trying to impede the ability of law enforcement to do their job. But nonetheless, we have to ensure that we are not having coerced statements admitted as evidence and securing convictions that may not be supported by the evidence.”

New protections for minors in custody

Democratic lawmakers who voted for the bill stress that children in custody are particularly vulnerable to falsely confessing or making unreliable statements during a custodial interrogation. Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Gov. Jerry Brown signed several laws that attempted to protect minors from law enforcement tactics involving trickery or deceit. 

In 2017, California required kids under age 16 to consult with an attorney before waiving their Miranda rights while in custody. Three years later, lawmakers raised the age to 17 years or younger. Further protections were passed in 2022, when California banned law enforcement from employing deceptive tactics on kids under age 18 during a custodial interrogation. 

But the state left the door open for Perkins operations because the U.S. Supreme Court in 1990 held they technically are not custodial interrogations. More recent cases allege law enforcement agencies are taking them too far. 

“The Perkins agents are much more than passive listeners. In many cases, at least to me, they cross a constitutional line,” said public defender Jessica Melikian.

She said Perkins agents have encouraged her clients to waive their Miranda rights, told them it would be detrimental to ask for an attorney, and said they would be beaten or killed in prison if they did not confess to the alleged crime.  

“These Perkins agents are doing things that law enforcement would never be allowed to do in a custodial interrogation,” she said. 

According to Melikian, the bill on Newsom’s desk intends to close a loophole by clarifying that Perkins operations qualify as deception under the law. 

Groups including the California State Sheriffs’ Association and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office formally opposed the legislation, arguing that it limits their investigative tools. The bill passed mostly on party lines with most Democrats voting yes; Republicans and two Democratic state senators opposed it.

“The first concern is the limitation,” said Cory Salzillo, legislative director for the California State Sheriffs’ Association. “The second concern is this notion that it’s for ‘young people’ as the bill’s materials address, when — in fact — it is not limited to minors or persons under the age of 18.”

Salzillo said it is “exceedingly rare” for law enforcement to target youth under age 18 in a Perkins operation and maintained that California law already protects minors from deception and psychological manipulation. 

Newsom has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto the bill.

Perkins cases at California Supreme Court

The cases expected before the California Supreme Court this year include defendants who have explicitly maintained their innocence from the beginning. 

Four defendants are Hispanic, four are Black and two are white. The youngest was 18 at the time of the Perkins operation. In some cases, defendants allege Perkins agents coaxed them to waive their Miranda rights to remain silent or consult an attorney before a formal police interrogation. In others, defendants argue agents coerced them into making incriminating statements after the suspects repeatedly invoked those rights. 

“These cases are going to the Supreme Court because it’s an issue that is paramount to understanding how far law enforcement can go in these operations,” said Scott Sanders, a criminal defense attorney in Los Angeles. “These are the lines that you would think are too far.”

A significant ruling in the 4th District Court of Appeal in February reversed the conviction of a Riverside County man who has maintained his innocence after finding that law enforcement violated his rights during a Perkins operation. 

“If law enforcement does not put appropriate limits and guardrails on this type of a powerful tool, then the Legislature and the courts will do it for us,” said El Dorado County District Attorney Vern Pierson, who views Perkins operations as valuable for his department. “And their restrictions will probably be far more than what we think is reasonable.”

This project was completed with the support of a grant from Columbia University’s Ira A. Lipman Center for Journalism and Civil and Human Rights in conjunction with Arnold Ventures.