Prohibits a peace officer, as defined in § 12-7-21, from employing threats, physical harm, deprivation, deception, coercion, or psychologically manipulative interrogation tactics during the custodial interrogation of a juvenile.
H5922 would add a new section to Rhode Island’s Family Court proceedings law to regulate how peace officers, including school resource officers, may question juveniles in custody. The bill bars officers from using threats, physical harm, deprivation of basic needs, deception, coercion, or psychologically manipulative interrogation tactics when interrogating a juvenile. It defines several of those terms in detail, including specific examples of coercion, deception, and manipulative techniques such as maximization, minimization, false-choice questioning, and promises of leniency.
The bill also creates an evidentiary rule for statements obtained through prohibited tactics. Any statement obtained using those methods, and any evidence derived from it, would be presumed inadmissible in criminal or juvenile court proceedings involving acts that would be misdemeanors or felonies if committed by an adult. That presumption could be overcome only if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary and free from the prohibited tactics, based on the totality of the circumstances. The act is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2026.
The bill would amend Rhode Island General Laws chapter 14-1 by adding a new juvenile interrogation standard and exclusionary rule. It would directly affect law enforcement practices, juvenile court proceedings, and the admissibility of confessions and derivative evidence obtained from minors. The measure places the burden on the state to prove voluntariness and compliance with the new restrictions before such statements may be used in court.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the measure appears to be framed as a juvenile protections bill with a child-welfare and due-process focus. Its sponsors suggest support for limiting coercive interrogation of minors and strengthening safeguards around juvenile confessions. No opposing arguments are documented in the provided materials, so the overall sentiment in the available record is neutral-to-supportive.
The main policy tension is between protecting juveniles from coercive interrogation and preserving law enforcement’s ability to investigate crimes and obtain admissible statements. The bill’s broad definitions of deception, coercion, and psychologically manipulative tactics could be viewed by critics as limiting standard interrogation techniques, while supporters would likely argue that minors are especially vulnerable to false confessions and need stronger procedural protections. The requirement that the state prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt may also be a point of contention because it raises the evidentiary burden for prosecutors.