An act to add Section 832.11 to the Penal Code, relating to law enforcement.
AB 2318 would add Penal Code Section 832.11 to make it unlawful for a law enforcement officer to deny, delay, obstruct, or fail to facilitate access to medical evaluation or treatment for a person in custody, detention, or otherwise under law enforcement control, so long as it is safe and reasonable to do so and a medical professional is present or has been requested. The bill does not apply to people in county jail or state prison. It also requires written documentation within 72 hours when access is denied or delayed in the presence of a medical professional, including the basis for the decision, the specific threat relied on, an incident narrative, and available supporting evidence.
The bill further authorizes administrative discipline, including suspension or termination, for violations, and directs the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to add guidance on emergency medical access, scene security, and coordination with emergency medical services into law enforcement training curricula. In effect, the measure creates a new statutory duty for law enforcement agencies and officers to prioritize access to medical care in field and custodial settings outside jails and prisons, while also creating a reporting and oversight framework for denials or delays.
Its impact on state law is to expand the Penal Code with a new law enforcement standard governing medical access and to impose related training and documentation requirements on local and state agencies. Because the bill creates a new crime or infraction and increases local reporting duties, it is treated as a state-mandated local program, though the bill also states that no reimbursement is required for certain costs and that any other mandated costs would be reimbursed under existing state mandate procedures if found by the Commission on State Mandates.
The general sentiment reflected in the vote history appears favorable but not unanimous. The bill received a 7-2 do pass vote in committee and later advanced on the Assembly floor to second reading and amendment, suggesting meaningful support for the underlying policy goal of ensuring timely medical care for people in law enforcement custody or control. The absence of recorded transcript discussion limits insight into detailed debate, but the vote pattern indicates the measure was viewed positively by a majority of legislators.
The main points of contention likely center on law enforcement discretion, scene safety, and the burden of documentation and reporting. The bill preserves an exception where access is not safe or reasonable and allows disclosure to be limited when it would compromise an investigation or officer safety, which suggests concerns about operational flexibility. Opponents may also object to the possibility of administrative discipline and the added compliance duties on agencies, while supporters are likely focused on accountability, transparency, and preventing unnecessary barriers to emergency medical treatment.
AB 2318 would amend the Penal Code by creating Section 832.11, establishing a new legal duty for law enforcement officers to facilitate medical evaluation or treatment for individuals under their control outside county jails and state prisons. It would also require POST to incorporate the new standards into training, and it would require written documentation and reporting to oversight entities when access is denied or delayed. The bill would therefore affect law enforcement agencies, officers, civilian oversight bodies, POST, and potentially local governments through new compliance and reporting obligations.
The bill appears to have generally favorable momentum, with a 7-2 committee vote supporting passage and referral onward. That suggests broad agreement with the bill’s core purpose of ensuring access to medical care, while the fact that it was amended and referred to Appropriations indicates continued legislative review of its fiscal and implementation effects. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record shows support more clearly than it shows debate.
Likely areas of contention include whether the bill intrudes on law enforcement judgment in fast-moving or dangerous situations, how broadly the duty to facilitate medical care should apply, and whether the documentation and reporting requirements are too burdensome. The bill’s exceptions for safety, reasonableness, investigations, and officer safety appear designed to address those concerns. Another possible point of dispute is the use of administrative discipline, including suspension or termination, which raises the stakes for officers and agencies if compliance is questioned.