A juvenile (J.P.) has been charged with shooting another juvenile at a local high school. As J.P. was running from the scene, a patrol officer (Z.K.) who had responded to the 911 call apprehended him based on a description given over the radio. Z.K. knew the victim had been shot and cuffed J.P., placing him on the curb while he updated the dispatcher. Z.K. then asked J.P., “Where is the gun?” In response, J.P. began to cry and confessed, “After I shot him I threw the gun in the trashcan by the gym”. The gun was recovered from the trashcan, prints matched J.P., he was identified by the victim as the shooter and was arrested and charged with attempted murder. Now, J.P.’s defense attorney is challenging the confession and the admission of the gun into evidence. The defense is arguing that under SB 203, J.P. was not given the opportunity to consult with legal counsel and Z.K. willfully violated the statute by his actions and question. 
You are an investigator in a District Attorney’s Office in California. You have been tasked with writing a brief pertaining to SB 203 as applied to this hypothetical. Your brief must meet the following requirements:
Provide an introduction as well as an assessment/conclusion on your position.
Summarize CA SB 203
Summarize the relevant facts of the hypothetical
Summarize the relevant caselaw by including at least 2 Supreme Court cases, one of which should be Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Provide an assessment of whether or not the facts meet the requirements of CA SB. Explain and support your assessment using at least 4 credible sources (caselaw, professional journals, textbooks, credible websites etc.) Must be no longer than 2000 words and include citations (apa format) as well as work cited page