Prohibits the civil arrest of any person who is attending court either on behalf of themselves or a family or household member. Any person who violates this act shall be subject to civil suit, and for contempt of court.
Summary
H6121 would add a new section to Rhode Island’s arrest statutes limiting “civil arrest” in connection with court activity. The bill generally bars arresting a person while they are seeking immediate access to the courts or a judicial proceeding, and it creates a specific privilege from civil arrest for a person who is attending a court proceeding in good faith as a party or potential witness, or on behalf of a family or household member, while traveling to, remaining at, or returning from the proceeding. The protection does not apply if the arrest is supported by a warrant or other judicial order authorizing a criminal or civil arrest.
The bill also defines key terms such as “civil arrest,” “court proceeding,” and “family or household member,” and it preserves existing common-law and other legal protections against unlawful arrest. If someone willfully violates the new restrictions by making or helping carry out a prohibited arrest, the conduct would constitute contempt of court and false imprisonment. A person arrested in violation of the section could seek equitable and declaratory relief, and the attorney general could bring an action on the person’s behalf or on behalf of the court; successful plaintiffs would be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees.
Impact
This bill would amend Rhode Island General Laws chapter 12-7 by creating a new statutory limitation on civil arrests tied to court attendance and court access. It would expose violators to contempt proceedings, false imprisonment liability, civil injunctive or declaratory actions, and attorney-fee awards, while expressly preserving lawful arrests made under warrant or other judicial authorization. The practical effect would be to strengthen protections for litigants, witnesses, and family or household members participating in court proceedings, and to constrain the use of civil arrest in or around court-related activity.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the measure appears to be framed as a protective civil-liberties and access-to-justice proposal. Its stated purpose is to prevent arrests from interfering with court participation, suggesting a generally pro-access, pro-due-process posture. There is no documented vote history or transcript evidence showing organized support or opposition, so the overall sentiment can only be inferred from the bill’s protective design rather than from recorded debate.
Contention
The main potential points of contention are the scope of the civil-arrest ban and the enforcement mechanisms. Questions may arise over what qualifies as “seeking immediate access” to the courts, what evidence is sufficient to show intent to attend a proceeding, and how broadly the privilege should extend to family or household members. Another likely issue is the bill’s creation of contempt and false-imprisonment exposure, along with attorney’s-fee liability and the attorney general’s authority to sue, which could raise concerns among law enforcement, civil-process actors, and parties who rely on arrest authority in limited civil contexts.