An act to add Article 7.8 4 (commencing with Section 1797.285) 1797.280) to Chapter 4 of Division 2.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and to add Section 5150.3 to the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to emergency medical services. mental health.
AB 2405 would create a new article in the Health and Safety Code governing how law enforcement agencies transport people to emergency departments. The bill requires peace officers, when transporting a person to an emergency department, to take that person to the nearest appropriate emergency department, defined as the closest licensed general acute care hospital emergency room by geography or travel time from the point where custody began. The measure is aimed at aligning law enforcement transport practices with existing EMS destination principles, particularly in situations involving behavioral health-related transports.
The bill includes several exceptions. It does not apply in mass casualty incidents or declared local emergencies, and it allows specialty destination protocols to control for conditions such as trauma, STEMI, stroke, or other conditions covered by state or local protocols. It also allows transport to alternative destinations such as sobering centers, detox centers, behavioral health crisis centers, psychiatric stabilization units, freestanding psychiatric hospitals, or designated psychiatric emergency facilities. If a hospital is on diversion or otherwise unavailable and that status is communicated to the officer during transport, the person must be taken to the next nearest appropriate emergency department.
AB 2405 also creates a reporting and oversight system. Each law enforcement agency would have to submit quarterly reports to the Emergency Medical Services Authority with information about transports, including origin location, destination, rationale for the destination choice, whether the destination was the nearest appropriate emergency department or an alternative site, and non-identifying demographic data. The EMS Authority would publish annual aggregate reports and would have authority to oversee compliance, conduct audits, require corrective action plans, and impose administrative civil penalties of up to $25,000 per pattern of violation. The bill also states that it may create a state-mandated local program, with reimbursement available if the Commission on State Mandates so determines.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill’s legislative history appears favorable. The measure advanced through committee with strong support, including a 5-1 vote in one committee and a 7-0 vote in another, and it was re-referred to Appropriations. The bill’s findings frame the issue as one of timely access to emergency care, consistency, and accountability, suggesting broad concern about uneven transport practices and their effects on hospitals and patients.
The main points of contention are likely to involve operational burden and enforcement. The bill imposes new reporting duties on local law enforcement agencies and gives the EMS Authority audit and penalty authority, which may raise concerns about cost, compliance, and administrative complexity. At the same time, the bill tries to address practical objections by preserving local EMS destination policies, exempting specialty and emergency situations, and clarifying that officers do not have to independently determine hospital diversion status.
AB 2405 would add a new statutory framework to the Health and Safety Code governing law enforcement transports to emergency departments. It would require law enforcement agencies to follow a nearest-appropriate-emergency-department rule, create reporting obligations to the Emergency Medical Services Authority, and authorize the authority to oversee compliance through audits, corrective action plans, and civil penalties. The bill would also likely be treated as a state-mandated local program because it imposes new duties on local law enforcement agencies, with potential reimbursement if mandated-cost findings are made.
The available voting history suggests the bill has generally positive momentum and relatively little opposition at the committee level. It passed committee with a 5-1 vote and later with a 7-0 vote, indicating broad support among members who considered it. The bill’s stated purpose—improving consistency, accountability, and access to emergency care—also reflects a policy rationale that appears to have resonated with legislators.
The likely areas of disagreement are the bill’s new operational requirements for law enforcement and the extent of state oversight. Opponents or skeptics may focus on the quarterly reporting burden, the need to track transport origins and demographics, and the EMS Authority’s power to audit and levy penalties. Supporters are likely to emphasize the bill’s exceptions for specialty care, diversion, and alternative destinations, as well as its clarification that officers need not independently verify diversion status. The bill also appears designed to reduce concerns about interfering with local EMS policies, but that balance between statewide uniformity and local flexibility is a central tension.