California lawmakers have taken a significant step toward reining in a controversial police interrogation tactic that has ensnared young suspects across the state, including here in the Inland Empire, where a Riverside County case helped fuel the push for reform.
Last week, the state Legislature approved a bill that would bar law enforcement agencies from using so-called Perkins operations against certain defendants under age 26 who were minors at the time of their alleged offense. The tactic involves undercover officers posing as fellow inmates to draw confessions or incriminating statements out of people in custody, without ever reading them their Miranda rights.
Assembly Bill 1905, introduced by Assemblymember Nick Schultz, a Burbank Democrat and former prosecutor, would prohibit these operations for people who allegedly committed crimes at 17 or younger, with an exception for cases where investigators believe someone’s safety is at immediate risk. The bill now awaits Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature; he has until Sept. 30 to act.
The push for change follows a CalMatters investigation published in July that examined how widely Perkins operations are used throughout California, including in Riverside County. Court records reviewed as part of that reporting showed undercover operatives — sometimes paid as much as $3,000 a day — using elaborate ruses, hidden recording equipment in jail cells, and false claims of gang credentials to pressure suspects into talking. In some instances, as many as five undercover agents were placed in a cell with a single detainee.
Those agents were often described in legal filings as considerably older and more physically imposing than the people they were sent to question.
“I believe that Perkins agents are proven to be problematic,” Schultz said. “At the end of the day, we’re not trying to impede the ability of law enforcement to do their job. But nonetheless, we have to ensure that we are not having coerced statements admitted as evidence and securing convictions that may not be supported by the evidence.”
Supporters of the bill argue that young people in custody are especially susceptible to being manipulated into false or unreliable statements. California has moved incrementally over the past decade to shield minors from deceptive interrogation practices. In 2017, the state required that children under 16 consult with an attorney before waiving their Miranda rights. That protection was extended to 17-year-olds in 2020, and in 2022, lawmakers banned police from using deceptive tactics on anyone under 18 during formal interrogations.
Perkins operations, however, have remained largely outside those restrictions because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that undercover jailhouse conversations don’t legally count as custodial interrogations. Defense attorneys say that loophole has allowed some agencies to push well past ethical and constitutional boundaries.
“The Perkins agents are much more than passive listeners. In many cases, at least to me, they cross a constitutional line,” said Jessica Melikian, a public defender who has represented clients targeted by these operations. She said she has seen cases in which undercover agents urged young defendants to waive their rights, warned them that requesting a lawyer would backfire, or told them they would be harmed or killed in prison unless they confessed.
“These Perkins agents are doing things that law enforcement would never be allowed to do in a custodial interrogation,” Melikian said, adding that AB 1905 would help close that legal gap by formally classifying the operations as a form of deception under state law.
Not everyone supports the change. The California State Sheriffs’ Association and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office both opposed the bill, arguing it strips investigators of an important tool. The measure passed largely along party lines, with most Democrats in favor and Republicans, along with two Democratic senators, voting against it.
“The first concern is the limitation,” said Cory Salzillo, legislative director for the California State Sheriffs’ Association. “The second concern is this notion that it’s for ‘young people’ as the bill’s materials address, when — in fact — it is not limited to minors or persons under the age of 18.”
Salzillo said cases involving suspects under 18 in Perkins operations are uncommon and insisted existing law already offers minors adequate protection from psychological pressure and deception.
The debate carries particular weight in the Inland Empire. In February, the 4th District Court of Appeal overturned the conviction of a Riverside County man who has long maintained his innocence, ruling that investigators violated his rights during a Perkins operation. That case is among roughly ten now pending before the California Supreme Court involving defendants — four Hispanic, four Black and two white — who argue they were manipulated or coerced by undercover agents while in custody. The youngest was just 18 at the time.
“These cases are going to the Supreme Court because it’s an issue that is paramount to understanding how far law enforcement can go in these operations,” said Scott Sanders, a Los Angeles criminal defense attorney. “These are the lines that you would think are too far.”
Even some prosecutors acknowledge the tactic needs boundaries. El Dorado County District Attorney Vern Pierson, who defends the value of Perkins operations for his own office, warned that law enforcement agencies risk losing control of the issue if they don’t set their own limits.
“If law enforcement does not put appropriate limits and guardrails on this type of a powerful tool, then the Legislature and the courts will do it for us,” Pierson said. “And their restrictions will probably be far more than what we think is reasonable.”
With the bill now before Newsom, its fate could shape how far California police can go in extracting confessions from young suspects — and whether cases built on those tactics, including ones from right here in Riverside County, will withstand judicial scrutiny in the months ahead.
Original source: CalMatters
