Rhode Island House Bill H7195

Rhode Island 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/21/26
• Refer: 1/21/26

Caption

RELATING TO DELINQUENT AND DEPENDENT CHILDREN -- PROCEEDINGS IN, FAMILY COURT

Summary

H7195 would add a new section to Rhode Island’s Family Court proceedings law governing the admissibility of statements made by juveniles during custodial interrogation. In general, a juvenile’s statements to law enforcement about alleged delinquent or criminal conduct could not be used in court unless the juvenile was advised of the right to have a parent or legal guardian present, the parent or guardian was present, and both the juvenile and the parent or guardian were informed of key constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to counsel. The bill also requires that requests for an attorney may be made at any time during questioning. The bill creates limited exceptions allowing statements to be admitted when an attorney or public defender was present, when a court finds a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver and the juvenile falsely represented being 18 or older in good-faith reliance by police, or when the juvenile is emancipated. It also provides that if the juvenile’s only legal guardian is the Department of Children, Youth and Families, interrogation cannot occur until a court-appointed attorney is available. If this new section conflicts with existing juvenile interrogation law in Title 16, the new section controls, and the act would take effect immediately upon passage.

Impact

The bill would significantly tighten Rhode Island rules on juvenile custodial interrogations and the use of juvenile statements in delinquency or criminal proceedings. It would add a new statutory exclusionary rule in Family Court, making admissibility depend on parental or guardian presence, attorney presence, or a valid waiver, while also establishing special protections for juveniles under DCYF guardianship and for juveniles who are emancipated or misrepresent their age. It would directly affect law enforcement practices, juvenile defense counsel, parents or guardians, DCYF, and Family Court evidentiary rulings, and it would supersede conflicting provisions in chapter 21.5 of title 16.

Sentiment

The available context suggests generally supportive sentiment, or at least no recorded opposition in the materials provided. The bill’s caption and text indicate a protective approach toward juvenile rights during police questioning, emphasizing parental involvement and access to counsel. No committee transcript or vote record is included, so there is no documented debate or roll-call evidence showing divided views in the supplied materials.

Contention

The main points of potential contention are the bill’s restrictions on police interrogation of juveniles and the extent to which parental presence should be required before questioning can be used in court. Law enforcement and prosecutors may view the bill as limiting investigative flexibility, especially because it can bar statements unless strict procedural safeguards are met. By contrast, juvenile advocates would likely support the measure as a safeguard against coerced or uninformed waivers, particularly for younger teens, children under DCYF guardianship, and juveniles without a parent or guardian available. The bill’s exceptions for emancipation and false claims of adulthood may also raise questions about how courts and police would determine good-faith reliance and voluntary waiver.