SB 1814 creates a new section of Florida Statutes governing custodial interrogations of minors. It defines a custodial interrogation as questioning or other conduct by a law enforcement officer or school employee that is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response while the minor is in custody and not free to leave. The bill limits when such interrogations may occur and applies to both police and school personnel.
Under the bill, a minor may be subjected to a custodial interrogation only after consulting with a parent or legal guardian or with legal counsel, and that right cannot be waived by the minor or anyone acting for the minor. The interrogation must also be video and audio recorded. The only stated exception is for situations involving imminent harm or imminent danger to the minor or another person, if the officer or school employee can demonstrate that emergency and a supervisor agrees in writing.
Impact
The bill would add a new statutory protection for minors in Florida by imposing procedural requirements on custodial interrogations conducted by law enforcement officers and school employees. It would affect police practices, school-based investigations, juvenile justice procedures, and any setting where a minor is questioned in custody about potentially incriminating conduct. It also creates a narrow emergency exception and requires supervisory written approval for use of that exception, which would likely shape agency policies and training.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee discussion or votes, the measure appears to be framed as a child-protection and due-process safeguard rather than a punitive or enforcement expansion. Its stated purpose suggests support for stronger protections for minors during interrogations, especially by requiring adult or legal counsel involvement and recording. No formal voting history or transcript material is available here to show opposition or support from specific legislators or stakeholders.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s limits on interrogation authority and the nonwaivable consultation requirement. Law enforcement and school officials may view the mandate for parent, guardian, or counsel consultation, plus audio-video recording, as adding delay, administrative burden, and constraints in investigations. Supporters would likely emphasize protection against coercive questioning and false or unreliable statements by minors. The emergency exception may also be debated because it allows bypassing the consultation requirement only when imminent harm is shown and a supervisor agrees in writing.