California 2025-2026 Regular Session

California Senate Bill SB820

Introduced
2/21/25  
Refer
3/12/25  
Report Pass
4/30/25  
Report Pass
4/30/25  
Engrossed
5/27/25  
Engrossed
5/27/25  
Refer
6/5/25  
Refer
6/25/25  
Report Pass
7/3/25  
Refer
7/8/25  
Report Pass
8/29/25  

Caption

Inmates: mental health.

Impact

This legislation modifies how mental health care is delivered to inmates by implementing more streamlined procedures that allow for quicker interventions through the involuntary administration of medications when deemed necessary during mental health emergencies. The bill provides a legal framework that ensures a court must verify the mental health disorder and the necessity for medication before it can be administered without consent. Furthermore, it stipulates regular review and documentation requirements, ensuring that involuntary treatment remains under judicial oversight. However, it raises concerns over potential abuses of power and the erosion of civil liberties, particularly regarding individuals' rights to consent to treatment.

Summary

Senate Bill 820, introduced by Senator Stern, addresses the intersection of mental health treatment and the judicial process for individuals confined in county jails. The bill allows for the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication to individuals who have been found incompetent to stand trial after being charged with misdemeanors. This change is significant as it diverges from existing law that typically mandates prior informed consent for such medications. Under SB820, treatment can be administered on an emergency basis to mitigate serious risks to health or safety, effectively prioritizing the immediate well-being of the individual over procedural consent requirements.

Sentiment

Overall sentiment around SB820 appears to be mixed. Proponents argue that this bill could enhance mental health treatment for vulnerable populations by providing urgent care that prevents deterioration of mental state during critical periods. They contend that allowing for involuntary treatment in emergencies reflects a compassionate response to individuals who may not be in a position to advocate for their own needs at that moment. Conversely, opponents express concerns about the implications for personal rights and the potential for misuse, especially in vulnerable populations who may not have the capacity to consent to their treatment.

Contention

Key points of contention revolve around balancing mental health needs with personal autonomy. Critics are particularly focused on the provision that allows for medication administration without consent under the guise of emergency treatment. Opponents worry this could lead to situations where individuals are treated against their will without adequate checks and balances. Additional complications arise from the temporary nature of these changes, as the provisions of the bill are set to expire on January 1, 2030, unless extended, prompting debates about the long-term implications for justice and mental health interventions in correctional settings.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

CA SB1317

Inmates: psychiatric medication: informed consent.

CA AB1822

Criminal defendant: mental competency to stand trial.

CA SB883

Public Safety Omnibus.

CA SB1184

Mental health: involuntary treatment: antipsychotic medication.

CA SB1518

Public safety omnibus.

CA SB1392

Criminal procedure: competence to stand trial.

CA SB1323

Criminal procedure: competence to stand trial.

CA AB2692

Criminal procedure: diversion.

CA AB1584

Criminal procedure: competence to stand trial.

CA SB159

Health.

Similar Bills

CA AB1584

Criminal procedure: competence to stand trial.

CA SB1323

Criminal procedure: competence to stand trial.

CA SB1518

Public safety omnibus.

CA SB883

Public Safety Omnibus.

CA SB684

Incompetence to stand trial: conservatorship: treatment.

CA SB1223

Criminal procedure: mental health diversion.

CA SB1187

Competence to stand trial.