California Assembly Bill AB1922

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/12/26
• Refer: 3/2/26
• Report Pass: 3/26/26
• Refer: 4/6/26

Caption

Restraint of incarcerated persons.

Impact

If passed, AB 1922 would substantially alter the current protocols surrounding the treatment of incarcerated individuals in medical settings. The bill mandates that once an incarcerated patient is admitted to the hospital, they should not be subjected to mechanical restraints while receiving medical care, except under specific circumstances regarding immediate physical threats. This shift intends to reduce humiliation and potential health risks linked to shackling during necessary medical procedures, which are believed to negatively impact both the patients and healthcare providers.

Summary

Assembly Bill 1922, introduced by Assembly Member Lowenthal, addresses the use of mechanical restraints on incarcerated individuals during hospital visits. The bill aims to enhance the treatment and care of incarcerated persons by prohibiting the use of mechanical restraints in non-emergency medical situations, thus promoting humane treatment of inmates receiving care for medical conditions. This legislative measure recognizes the significant adverse health outcomes associated with incarceration and seeks to adhere to more efficient and compassionate medical practices in hospitals.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding AB 1922 appears to be largely positive among advocates for criminal justice reform and medical professionals who argue for more humane treatment of incarcerated individuals. Supporters highlight the potential for improved health outcomes and the reduction of trauma associated with mechanical restraints. However, there may be concerns among law enforcement and correctional facility staff regarding safety and security during hospital visits, particularly in cases where patients pose an escape risk.

Contention

A notable point of contention is related to the balance between ensuring the safety of hospital staff and patients while also safeguarding the rights of incarcerated individuals. Critics of unrestricted restraint policies argue that while the bill protects inmates, it may inadvertently put healthcare workers and other patients at risk during emergencies where an escape attempt is possible. The bill also implements state-mandated local programs, instigating discussions about the financial implications for local correctional facilities, which may require additional training and changes in their operational procedures to comply with the new standards.