Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Juvenile Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House adopts amendment adding counsel safeguards for juveniles in custody under Child Interrogation Protection Act
Summary
The House agreed to an amendment to House Bill 1613 (the Child Interrogation Protection Act) intended to add safeguards for juveniles in custodial interrogations. The amendment passed narrowly, 102–101, after floor debate about access to counsel and public safety implications.
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives agreed to an amendment to House Bill 1613, described on the floor as the Child Interrogation Protection Act, on Oct. 8, 2025. The amendment (A01830) passed by a narrow margin, 102–101, and was incorporated into the bill to add additional safeguards for children during custodial interrogations.
The amendment’s sponsor, Representative Briggs (Representative, Montgomery County), described A01830 as “an agreed to amendment that adds additional safeguards for children during custodial interrogations.” Representative Briggs urged members to support the change and said the amendment improves protections for minors.
Representative Bonner (Representative, Mercer County), speaking in opposition to the amendment, warned that the language would “effectively end the ability of police officers to question juveniles, who have been taken into custody,” because it would require juveniles to speak with an attorney before questioning. Bonner said attorneys are not always available on short notice and argued that the change would harm timely investigations and public safety. The transcript records Bonner’s objection: “As I say, it will effectively end the ability to question any juvenile and it will place the safety of all citizens of this commonwealth in jeopardy.”
After debate, the clerk recorded the vote on the amendment as ayes 102, nays 101; the chair announced “The amendment is agreed to.” The House then ordered the bill reprinted to reflect the amendment.
Distinguishing discussion and formal action: floor remarks from members constituted discussion of intent, scope and potential operational effects; the recorded roll call (102–101) represents the formal action to adopt the amendment. The transcript does not show subsequent committee steps or implementation details such as training or funding for rapid counsel access.
The transcript does not specify the exact text of the amendments or any implementation schedule; it records the floor debate, the vote, and the chair’s administrative direction to reprint the bill with amendments.
