Since 2021, ten states have enacted laws that limit police deception when minors are interrogated. They do not all work the same way. Some forbid the tactic outright. Others leave it legal but change what happens in court: a statement obtained through deception is presumed involuntary or inadmissible, and the state has to prove otherwise. This tracker lists each law, what kind of law it is, when it took effect, and the pending bills.
How to read this tracker. Entries reflect enacted statutes and pending bills as of October 2026, checked against the state codes and legislative records listed under Sources. They are provided for general information, not legal advice. Statutes are amended and bills move; confirm the current text of any provision in the official state code, and talk with your prosecutor or agency counsel, before relying on it.
Three kinds of law
- Conduct ban. The statute tells officers what they may not do. California and Utah are conduct bans; neither statute states an exclusion remedy, so admissibility still turns on the general voluntariness analysis.
- Ban with exclusion. The statute forbids the tactic and also makes a resulting statement inadmissible, or presumed inadmissible. Delaware and Nevada work this way.
- Presumption or exclusion rule. The statute does not forbid the tactic, but a statement obtained through it is presumed involuntary or inadmissible, or is inadmissible outright, unless the state carries a stated burden. Illinois, Oregon, Indiana, Colorado, Connecticut, and Minnesota work this way. The burden differs: a preponderance of the evidence in Illinois, Colorado, and Minnesota; clear and convincing evidence in Oregon and Connecticut.
Outside these statutes, federal constitutional law has not changed. Under Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969), a police misrepresentation is relevant to voluntariness but is not, by itself, enough to make an otherwise voluntary confession inadmissible.
Enacted
| State | Law | Enacted / in effect | Type and what it does |
|---|---|---|---|
| Illinois | SB 2122 (Pub. Act 102-0101)705 ILCS 405/5-401.6 | 2021 / Jan. 1, 2022 | Presumption A confession from a custodial interrogation at a police station or other place of detention is presumed inadmissible if an officer knowingly used deception (false facts about evidence, or unauthorized statements about leniency). The state can overcome the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence that the confession was voluntary. Covers minors under 18 at the time of the offense and, after an amendment (Pub. Act 103-0341), persons with a severe or profound intellectual disability. |
| Oregon | SB 418 (2021 Or. Laws ch. 487)ORS 133.403 | 2021 / Jan. 1, 2022 | Presumption A statement by a person under 18 in a custodial interview is presumed involuntary if the court finds the officer intentionally used information known to be false to elicit it. The state must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the statement was voluntary and not made in response to the false information. |
| California | AB 2644 (Stats. 2022, ch. 289)Welf. & Inst. Code § 625.7 | 2022 / July 1, 2024 | Conduct ban In a custodial interrogation of a person 17 or younger about a misdemeanor or felony, officers may not use threats, physical harm, deception, or psychologically manipulative tactics. Deception includes false facts about evidence and false statements about leniency; manipulative tactics include maximization, minimization, and forced-choice questions. Narrow exception for questions needed to address an imminent threat to life or property. The section states no exclusion remedy. |
| Utah | HB 171 (2022 Utah Laws ch. 312)Utah Code § 80-6-206(7) | 2022 / May 4, 2022 | Conduct ban In a custodial interrogation of a child, an officer may not knowingly give false information about evidence that is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response, or make an unauthorized statement about leniency. The section states no exclusion remedy. |
| Delaware | HB 419 (83 Del. Laws c. 447)11 Del. C. §§ 2021–2022 | 2022 / Oct. 10, 2022 | Ban with exclusion Prohibits deceptive tactics (stating that evidence exists, knowing it does not, or promising leniency in sentencing, charging, or pretrial release) in custodial interrogations of persons under 18. A resulting statement is inadmissible unless the state proves by a preponderance of the evidence that it is reliable and was not induced by the tactics; the same showing allows its use for impeachment. |
| Indiana | SB 415 (P.L. 112-2023)IC 31-30.5-1-6 | 2023 / July 1, 2023 | Exclusion rule A juvenile's statement in a custodial interrogation is inadmissible if made in response to an officer's or school resource officer's materially false information about the evidence, or materially false statement about the penalty or leniency. The rule does not apply if the officer reasonably believed in good faith that the information was true, and it does not reach evidence discovered as a result of the statement. |
| Nevada | AB 193 (2023 Nev. Stat. ch. 208)NRS 62C.014 | 2023 / July 1, 2024 | Ban with presumption In the custodial interrogation of a child under 18, an officer may not knowingly make a materially false statement about evidence or make an unauthorized promise of leniency. A statement obtained in violation is presumed involuntary and inadmissible; the state may rebut by a preponderance that it was voluntary, reliable, and not induced by the violation. Imminent-threat exception. |
| Colorado | HB23-1042 (2023 Colo. Sess. Laws ch. 221)C.R.S. § 19-2.5-203(8) | 2023 / Aug. 7, 2023 | Presumption A juvenile's statement in a custodial interrogation is presumptively inadmissible at trial if an officer or agent knowingly communicated untruthful information or belief to obtain it. The prosecution can overcome the presumption at a pretrial hearing, by a preponderance, by showing voluntariness or the officer's reasonable good-faith belief that the information was true. The law also requires electronic recording of all juvenile custodial interrogations and directed a P.O.S.T. training program. |
| Connecticut | SB 1071 (Pub. Act 23-27)Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-86q | 2023 / Oct. 1, 2023 | Presumption A statement from a custodial interrogation is presumed involuntary and inadmissible if officers used deception or coercive tactics. Coercive tactics, such as threats or unreasonable deprivation of food, sleep, or medication, are covered at any age. For a person under 18, the law also covers false facts about evidence, misstatements of the law, and false promises of leniency. The state can rebut only by clear and convincing evidence of voluntariness and reliability. |
| Minnesota | 2024 Minn. Laws ch. 123, art. 4, § 16Minn. Stat. § 634.025 | 2024 / Jan. 1, 2025 | Presumption A statement by a person under 18 in a custodial interrogation is presumed involuntary and inadmissible if an officer knowingly communicated false information about material evidence, or unauthorized statements about leniency. The state can rebut by a preponderance that the statement was voluntary, reliable, and not induced. The presumption does not reach anything said before the first such act. |
Related: California's 2026 undercover law
California AB 1905 (Stats. 2026, ch. 559; Welf. & Inst. Code § 625.8), signed September 27, 2026, takes effect January 1, 2027. It bars officers, and people working with or for them, from using undercover operations to seek statements from a person in custody who was 17 or younger at the time of the crime and is under 26. Courts must consider a violation when ruling on admissibility, and a willful violation when judging the officer's credibility. There is a narrow exception for an imminent threat to life. The law addresses in-custody undercover (“Perkins”) operations rather than deception in a standard interrogation, so it is listed here but does not change the count of ten states.
Pending or proposed
| State | Bill | Status (October 2026) | What it would do |
|---|---|---|---|
| New York | S1860 / A32692025–2026 session | In committee (Senate Codes; Assembly) | Would treat a statement as involuntary when police knowingly give false facts about evidence, or make a promise or statement of fact that creates a substantial risk of false incrimination. It reaches all defendants in criminal court, not only youth, and juvenile respondents in Family Court, and directs data collection on recorded interrogations. |
| Massachusetts | S.1065194th General Court | Reported favorably by Judiciary, Feb. 26, 2026; in Senate Ways and Means | “An Act prohibiting deception in juvenile interrogations.” A juvenile's statement obtained through knowing deception would be presumed involuntary and inadmissible unless the Commonwealth proves voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt. It would also require recording of custodial interrogations in places of detention. |
| Maryland | HB 6262026 session | Heard in House Judiciary, Feb. 19, 2026; no vote recorded | “Exonerated 5 Act.” Would create a rebuttable presumption that a minor's custodial statement is involuntary and inadmissible if an officer knowingly used false information to obtain it. |
| Rhode Island | H 80902026 session | Held for further study in House Judiciary, Apr. 16, 2026 | Would prohibit threats, physical harm, deprivation, deception, coercion, and psychologically manipulative tactics in the custodial interrogation of a minor. |
A related reform requires that minors consult a lawyer before custodial questioning, in states such as Maryland and Washington; it is not listed above because it does not regulate deception. Vermont's legislature passed a broader bill (S.6) in 2023, but it was vetoed and no act resulted.
Why it matters for investigators
These statutes target the tactics the false-confession research has flagged: false statements about evidence, false promises of leniency, and pressure that raises the risk of a false confession, particularly for juveniles. The legal ground is moving toward the rapport-based approach supported by research funded by the FBI’s High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG) and consistent with the Méndez Principles on Effective Interviewing (2021).
The practical takeaway: in a state with a presumption or exclusion rule, a deceptive tactic hands the prosecution a burden it may not be able to carry. In a conduct-ban state, it is a policy violation that a defense attorney will put in front of the court. Either way, a juvenile interview built without deception avoids the question. For how agencies review policy and retrain when their state acts, see Interviewing After the Deception Ban. For how to interview a young person in practice, see Interviewing Juveniles After the Deception Bans.
Sources
- Illinois: 705 ILCS 405/5-401.6 (Illinois General Assembly); Public Act 102-0101; Public Act 103-0341.
- Oregon: ORS 133.403 (enacted by 2021 Or. Laws ch. 487, § 1).
- California AB 2644: California Legislature (bill text); California DOJ Information Bulletin 2024-DLE-07.
- California AB 1905: California Legislature (bill text); CalMatters.
- Utah HB 171: Utah Legislature (bill status); enrolled bill text.
- Delaware HB 419: Delaware General Assembly; 11 Del. C. §§ 2021–2022.
- Indiana SB 415: Indiana General Assembly; Indiana Office of Court Services.
- Nevada AB 193: Nevada Legislature (bill history); NRS 62C.014.
- Colorado HB23-1042: Colorado General Assembly.
- Connecticut SB 1071: Public Act 23-27; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-86q.
- Minnesota: Minn. Stat. § 634.025; 2024 Minn. Laws ch. 123.
- New York S1860 / A3269: New York State Senate.
- Massachusetts S.1065: Massachusetts Legislature.
- Maryland HB 626: Maryland General Assembly.
- Rhode Island H 8090: House Judiciary hearing testimony, April 16, 2026.
- Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969): opinion.
- Background: Innocence Project, "Five Facts About Police Deception and Youth".