Bill Sponsors
Bissaillon, Acosta, and Mack
Committee
Senate Judiciary
Summary
Select
This legislation amends Rhode Island family court proceedings to strictly regulate how law enforcement and school resource officers interrogate juveniles. It explicitly prohibits the use of threats, physical harm, deprivation of basic needs (like food or sleep), deception, coercion, and psychologically manipulative tactics during custodial interrogations. The bill defines these prohibited terms in detail, including banning lying about evidence or making unauthorized promises of leniency. Any statement obtained using these methods, and any evidence derived from such statements, is presumed inadmissible in court unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary.
Sponsor
Analysis
Pros for Progressives
- Protects vulnerable youth from the trauma and injustice of false confessions, which occur at a higher rate among minors subjected to manipulative police tactics.
- Establishes a higher standard of accountability for law enforcement by strictly defining and prohibiting coercive techniques like deception and maximization/minimization.
- Strengthens due process rights by creating a presumption of inadmissibility for tainted evidence, placing the burden of proof squarely on the state to demonstrate voluntariness.
Cons for Progressives
- Does not mandate the presence of an attorney or parent during all interrogations, which is a stronger safeguard often sought by advocates to ensure waivers of rights are knowing and intelligent.
- The "beyond a reasonable doubt" rebuttal provision theoretically allows the state to still introduce statements if a judge is convinced they were voluntary, potentially leaving room for judicial bias.
- The effective date is delayed until January 1, 2027, leaving a significant gap of time where these deceptive practices remain technically legal or less regulated.
Pros for Conservatives
- Protects the constitutional rights of citizens against government overreach by reinforcing the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and ensuring due process.
- Provides clear, statutory definitions for prohibited conduct, reducing ambiguity for law enforcement officers who need to know exactly what the rules of engagement are.
- Encourages higher quality police work by forcing investigators to rely on hard evidence and facts rather than relying on psychological manipulation to secure convictions.
Cons for Conservatives
- Restricts the ability of law enforcement to solve crimes, particularly those involving gang activity or violent offenses committed by juveniles, by removing standard interrogation tools.
- The "fruit of the poisonous tree" provision (excluding evidence found as a result of the statement) could result in guilty individuals going free due to technical procedural errors by police.
- Increases the burden on the court system and prosecutors to litigate the "voluntariness" of statements, potentially slowing down judicial proceedings and increasing costs.
Constitutional Concerns
None Likely
Impact Overview
Groups Affected
- Juveniles
- Peace Officers
- School Resource Officers (SROs)
- Prosecutors
- Defense Attorneys
Towns Affected
All
Cost to Taxpayers
Amount unknown
Revenue Generated
None
BillBuddy Impact Ratings
Importance
Measures population affected and overall level of impact.
Freedom Impact
Level of individual freedom impacted by the bill.
Public Services
How much the bill is likely to impact one or more public services.
Regulatory
Estimated regulatory burden imposed on the subject(s) of the bill.
Clarity of Bill Language
How clear the language of the bill is. Higher ambiguity equals a lower score.
Enforcement Provisions
Measures enforcement provisions and penalties for non-compliance (if applicable).
Environmental Impact
Impact the bill will have on the environment, positive or negative.
Privacy Impact
Impact the bill is likely to have on the privacy of individuals.
Bill Status
Current Status
Held
Comm Passed
Floor Passed
Law
History
• 02/27/2026 Introduced, referred to Senate Judiciary
Bill Text
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.
(c) A statement obtained through or utilizing any of the tactics referenced in subsections (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. LC005833 - Page 2 of 4
SECTION 2. This act shall take effect on January 1, 2027.
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.
(c) A statement obtained through or utilizing any of the tactics referenced in subsections (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. LC005833 - Page 2 of 4
SECTION 2. This act shall take effect on January 1, 2027.