In summary
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law limiting the use of so-called Perkins operations against young people. The undercover stings are under scrutiny at the California Supreme Court.
Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday signed a law to protect young people facing criminal allegations from deceptive law enforcement techniques by limiting how police use undercover agents.
Assembly Bill 1905, authored by Democratic Assemblymember Nick Schultz of Burbank, prohibits 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 statements 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.
The law bans police 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. It will take effect on Jan. 1.
“This is going to do so much to protect our kids and ensure that they are not subject to deceit and trickery,” said Schultz, a former prosecutor, in an interview with CalMatters. “This is a tactic that is very problematic, whether it’s used against children or adults. I hope that it invites more questions and encourages future legislators to really assess whether (Perkins operations) should be allowed to be used against anyone, regardless of age.”
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.
Ten cases are lined up at the California Supreme Court in which people targeted in Perkins operations are challenging their convictions. The cases 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.
Democratic lawmakers who voted for the bill stressed that children in custody are particularly vulnerable to falsely confessing or making unreliable statements during a custodial interrogation. 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 it left the door open for Perkins operations because the U.S. Supreme Court in 1990 held they technically are not custodial interrogations. The new law closes that gap.
“It’s just so obvious,” said public defender Jessica Melikian. “Children should have always been protected from these operations.”
Melikian 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.
“When we talk about protecting youth from coercive tactics and deception, the end result is that we want the statements they make to be truthful and fair,” she said.
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.
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.
