Kansas House Bill HB2227

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/4/25
• Refer: 2/4/25

Caption

Prohibiting the use of any prone restraint on a juvenile who is in custody at a juvenile detention facility or juvenile correctional facility or being assessed as part of the juvenile intake and assessment system.

Summary

HB 2227 would prohibit the use of any prone restraint on juveniles in Kansas who are in custody at a juvenile detention facility or juvenile correctional facility, or who are being assessed through the juvenile intake and assessment system. A prone restraint is defined in the bill as manual restraint that places a person face-down. The measure is framed as an amendment to the revised Kansas juvenile justice code and adds a new standalone prohibition while also updating the code’s definitions section. The bill also amends K.S.A. 2024 Supp. 38-2302 by inserting the new definition of “prone restraint” and making related technical changes to the juvenile code’s definitional framework. It repeals the existing version of that statute and replaces it with an updated one that includes the new term, while leaving the broader structure of the juvenile justice code intact. The practical effect is to create a clear statutory ban on a specific restraint technique in juvenile detention, correctional, and intake settings. The likely impact on state law is narrow but significant for juvenile justice operations. It would directly constrain how juvenile detention facilities, juvenile correctional facilities, and juvenile intake and assessment personnel may physically restrain youth in custody or under assessment. The bill would affect the Department of Corrections, juvenile detention providers, intake and assessment workers, and staff responsible for custody and security of juveniles, requiring them to use alternative restraint practices consistent with the new prohibition. Because no committee transcript or recorded vote history was provided, there is no documented debate or formal vote pattern to assess. Based on the bill’s subject matter and caption, the measure appears to be a child-safety and juvenile-reform proposal aimed at preventing a restraint method associated with heightened risk of injury or death. The absence of recorded opposition in the provided materials means the overall sentiment cannot be measured directly, but the bill’s framing suggests a protective, reform-oriented intent focused on juvenile welfare and custody standards. The main point of contention, if any, would likely center on operational and safety concerns for facility staff, including whether a categorical ban on prone restraint limits available options during emergencies or violent incidents. Supporters would likely emphasize youth safety, trauma reduction, and alignment with best practices in juvenile care, while critics might argue for retaining discretion in rare high-risk situations. No specific opposing arguments are included in the provided record.

Impact

HB 2227 would amend the Kansas juvenile justice code to prohibit prone restraint of juveniles in juvenile detention facilities, juvenile correctional facilities, and during juvenile intake and assessment. It would add a statutory definition of “prone restraint” and make conforming changes to K.S.A. 2024 Supp. 38-2302, thereby binding juvenile justice agencies, detention providers, and intake personnel to a new restraint limitation and superseding the prior version of the definitional statute.

Sentiment

No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, amendment activity, or recorded support/opposition. On its face, the bill reflects a reform-oriented and protective approach to juvenile custody practices, suggesting likely support from advocates focused on youth safety and restraint reform. Any sentiment against the bill would likely come from concerns about staff safety and the loss of restraint options in emergency situations, but those views are not documented in the supplied materials.

Contention

The principal area of contention would be whether Kansas should impose a categorical ban on prone restraint for juveniles in custody and during intake assessments. Supporters would likely argue that face-down restraint is dangerous and inconsistent with modern juvenile justice and child-safety standards. Opponents, if any, would likely focus on operational flexibility, arguing that staff need all available tools to manage immediate threats, protect other juveniles, and maintain order in detention and correctional settings. No specific individuals or groups are identified in the provided discussion materials.