reasonable assistance; emergencies; Good Samaritans
Summary
HB 2347 amends Arizona’s Good Samaritan overdose law in A.R.S. § 13-3423. The bill keeps the existing requirement that a person at the scene of a drug-related overdose must provide reasonable assistance when it can be done safely, and it retains the petty offense penalty for failing to do so. It also preserves the current immunity provisions for a person who, in good faith, seeks medical assistance for someone experiencing an overdose, as well as for the overdose victim, when evidence of possession, use, paraphernalia, or certain preparatory offenses is obtained because medical help was sought.
The bill clarifies and reorganizes the statute’s language and definitions. It specifies that “reasonable assistance” includes obtaining or attempting to obtain aid from law enforcement or medical personnel, and that “seeks medical assistance” means calling 911 or contacting law enforcement, poison control, or a hospital emergency department. It also keeps the rule that seeking help may be considered a mitigating factor in prosecution, while making clear that the law does not limit arrests, seizure of contraband, or prosecution for other offenses, and does not bar diversion for offenses outside the covered drug-possession and paraphernalia offenses.
Impact
HB 2347 would update and restate Arizona’s overdose Good Samaritan statute without materially expanding the core immunity framework. Its main legal effect is to amend A.R.S. § 13-3423 to clarify the duties and protections tied to overdose emergencies, including the scope of reasonable assistance and the types of contacts that qualify as seeking medical assistance. The bill affects people at the scene of overdoses, overdose victims, law enforcement, prosecutors, and health care responders by preserving limited immunity from prosecution for certain drug offenses when emergency help is sought, while leaving other criminal enforcement tools intact.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee discussion or votes, the available sentiment appears generally supportive and policy-oriented rather than contentious. The measure is framed as a public-safety and harm-reduction update to encourage people to call for help during overdoses without fear of prosecution for low-level drug offenses. Because there are no transcripts or vote records provided, there is no documented opposition or debate in the available materials.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the balance between encouraging overdose reporting and preserving drug-law enforcement. Supporters are likely to view the bill as a lifesaving Good Samaritan measure that reduces hesitation to call 911, while critics could object to the immunity from prosecution for possession, use, paraphernalia, and related preparatory offenses when medical help is sought. Another possible issue is the continued petty offense penalty for failing to render reasonable assistance, though the statute limits that duty to situations where assistance can be given without danger to the person or others.