An act to amend Section 825 of the Penal Code, relating to criminal procedure.
Summary
AB 2286 amends Penal Code Section 825, which governs post-arrest procedures and attorney access to a prisoner. The bill clarifies that the existing criminal and civil penalties for an officer who willfully refuses or neglects to allow an attorney visit apply not only when the person is in a jail or prison, but also when the person is in a medical setting or hospital. It also makes technical and conforming changes to the statute’s wording.
The bill does not change the core right of an arrested person to be taken before a magistrate without unnecessary delay and within 48 hours, nor does it alter the basic rule that an attorney may visit the prisoner at the prisoner’s request or at the request of a relative. Instead, it extends the statute’s enforcement language to situations where custody continues during medical treatment, making clear that law enforcement or custodial officers remain subject to misdemeanor liability and a $500 civil forfeiture if they block attorney access in those settings.
Impact
AB 2286 updates Penal Code Section 825 to expressly cover prisoners held in medical settings and hospitals, in addition to jails and prisons, for purposes of attorney visitation enforcement. This means the statute’s misdemeanor penalty and civil forfeiture provisions now clearly apply when a detainee is under custodial control outside a traditional detention facility, reducing ambiguity for officers, attorneys, and courts. The bill affects criminal procedure and detainee-rights enforcement, but it does not create a new right of access or alter the 48-hour magistrate/arraignment timeline.
Sentiment
The available voting record suggests broad support and little controversy. The bill passed the Assembly committee unanimously on a 9-0 vote and later passed the Assembly 68-0, indicating strong bipartisan agreement. The absence of committee transcript debate also suggests the measure was viewed as a narrow, technical clarification rather than a substantive policy shift.
Contention
There is no recorded committee opposition or floor dissent in the materials provided. The only potentially notable issue is the expansion of explicit liability to medical settings and hospitals, which could raise operational concerns for custodial officers and medical facilities that temporarily house detainees. However, the bill’s framing as a clarification of existing attorney-access protections, rather than a new enforcement regime, appears to have minimized controversy.
Relating to selection of an attorney by an indigent parent as attorney ad litem for the parent in certain suits affecting the parent-child relationship.