SB 203 and SB 395, passed in 2017 and 2020 respectively, amended section 625.6 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code to require attorney consultations for all youth in California prior to custodial interrogation and before waiving their Miranda rights. These bills made California one of only two states in the country that require an attorney consultation before a Miranda waiver for youth fifteen years or younger, and they undoubtedly represent progress in reforming California’s punitive juvenile legal system. Both SB 203 and SB 395, however, contain a gaping loophole; they exclude interviews with probation officers under section 628. Probation officers’ virtually unlimited discretion in conducting these interviews, when combined with weak use immunity for youths’ statements made during the interview and judicial discretion at disposition, expose youth to a heightened risk of self-incrimination, system involvement, and harsher dispositions. Why would these two pieces of historic legislation leave an exception that threatens the rule, and how can it be fixed?