AB 387 amends two unrelated areas of California law. It revises the Nevaeh Youth Sports Safety Act to tie AED access obligations to locations where an AED already exists or to ‘‘public or private local facilities with permanent sports infrastructure,’’ and it places the procurement and maintenance duty on those facilities while still requiring youth sports organizations to have access to the device.
The change also clarifies who may administer an AED by requiring certified personnel and adherence to applicable federal and state law.
Separately, the bill amends Code of Civil Procedure section 219 to add probation officers (defined by reference to Penal Code section 830.5(a)) to the list of individuals who cannot be selected for voir dire in criminal matters. That change removes probation officers from criminal jury pools, aligning their treatment with several classes of peace officers already excluded from selection.
At a Glance
What It Does
For youth sports, the bill links AED access obligations to facilities that are fixed, nontemporary sports venues and makes those facilities responsible for procuring and maintaining the AED while ensuring access by youth sports organizations; AED use must be by certified personnel and conform to federal and state requirements. For juries, it amends the random selection rules to bar probation officers from being summoned for voir dire in criminal cases and defines ‘‘probation officer’’ by reference to Penal Code section 830.5(a).
Who It Affects
Owners and operators of public and private permanent sports facilities, youth sports organizations that use those facilities, coaches and designated AED-certified responders, county jury commissioners, and probation officers across California. Local governments that operate sports complexes and county courts that manage juror lists will see the most immediate operational effects.
Why It Matters
The bill reallocates the procurement and maintenance burden for AEDs from youth organizations to facility owners, changing budgeting and liability assumptions for fields and sports complexes. On the justice side, excluding probation officers from criminal voir dire narrows available juror pools and changes administrative screening for courts and jury commissioners.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The health-and-safety portion pivots the Nevaeh Youth Sports Safety Act away from putting the onus on every youth sports organization to supply an AED wherever it runs practices or matches. Instead, the statute now says that if a youth team is playing or practicing at a site that already has an AED, or at a fixed local facility built to host organized sports, the athletes must have access to an AED provided and maintained by that facility.
The youth organization still must ensure access — meaning it must know how to get to and use the device during official activities — but it is no longer strictly responsible for buying and housing the unit when the activity occurs at a covered facility.
The bill adds a qualification gate to who may use an AED in these situations: the device must be administered by someone holding AED certification, whether that person is a medical professional, coach, or other designee of the youth sports organization. The statute requires compliance with any federal or state rules that apply to AED use, which folds in training, recordkeeping, and scope-of-practice questions that vary by context.On the jury side, the bill changes the county jury-selection procedure only for criminal cases by excluding probation officers from random selection for voir dire.
The text points to Penal Code section 830.5(a) for the definition of ‘‘probation officer,’’ anchoring the exclusion to the subset of probation staff the Penal Code recognizes. Practically, courts will instruct jury commissioners not to include these officers on criminal-case panels, the same treatment already applied to specified peace officers.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires public or private local facilities with a ‘‘permanent sports infrastructure’’ to procure and maintain AEDs and to ensure youth sports organizations using the facility have access to those AEDs.
The youth sports organization must ensure access to the AED during official practices and matches but is not the primary purchaser if the activity occurs at a qualifying facility.
The statute mandates that AED administration be performed only by a medical professional, coach, or other person designated by the youth sports organization who holds AED certification and complies with applicable federal and state law.
The Nevaeh Act’s facility-focused AED obligation applies beginning January 1, 2027 (the statute states ‘‘commencing January 1, 2027’’).
Code of Civil Procedure section 219 is amended to bar probation officers (as defined by Penal Code section 830.5(a)) from being randomly selected for voir dire in criminal matters, narrowing the eligible juror pool.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Duty split: access versus procurement
This paragraph changes the locus of financial and operational responsibility. It requires that athletes have access to an AED when practicing or competing at sites where an AED already exists or at any public or private local facility with permanent sports infrastructure. Critically, the clause separates ‘‘access’’ (the youth organization’s obligation) from ‘‘procure and maintain’’ (the facility’s obligation, spelled out in paragraph (2)). That separation matters for contract terms between organizations and facilities: facility owners should expect to be named in service agreements and listed as responsible for replacement, inspections, and signage.
Facility procurement and maintenance requirement
This provision places a clear procurement and maintenance duty on the public or private local facility that qualifies as permanent sports infrastructure. Practically, that forces municipalities, school districts, private complexes, and similar operators to budget for AED purchase cycles, ongoing maintenance, battery and pad replacement, and storage/access systems. Facilities will also need procedures to ‘‘ensure access’’—locking strategy, signage, staff or volunteer training, and possibly remote-access systems to avoid situations where an AED exists but is effectively inaccessible.
Who may administer an AED
The bill requires that an AED be administered only by a person holding AED certification and complying with applicable federal and state law. That folds in existing credentialing regimes—CPR/AED certification courses, medical scope-of-practice limits, and any state program rules—meaning facilities and sports organizations must track certifications and possibly set policies about which roles may use the device during events.
Definition of permanent sports infrastructure
The statute defines ‘‘permanent sports infrastructure’’ as a fixed, nontemporary facility designed and maintained for hosting organized sports. That definition excludes temporary or ad hoc sites (for example, parks without fixed structures or pop-up fields) and targets venues with stable ownership or control, which affects who bears the procurement burden and which events qualify for the facility’s AED coverage.
Excluding probation officers from criminal voir dire
The amendment adds a subsection that bans probation officers from being selected for voir dire in criminal matters, referencing Penal Code section 830.5(a) for the definition of probation officer. The practical implication is administrative: jury commissioners must screen juror lists against county probation rosters and exclude those identified as probation officers when assembling criminal-case panels. The change mirrors exclusions already applied to numerous peace-officer categories, but it is limited to criminal proceedings rather than civil ones.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Athletes and parents: They gain a clearer, often more reliable pathway to AED access at permanent venues because facility operators rather than volunteer organizations shoulder purchase and maintenance responsibilities. This should increase device availability at established sports complexes.
- Youth sports organizations that lack fundraising capacity: Small clubs that previously might have been required to buy AEDs for temporary or rented fields can rely on covered facilities to provide equipment, lowering upfront capital needs.
- Facility owners with existing AED programs: Facilities that already maintain AEDs gain a legal framework validating their procurement and maintenance expenses and can formalize access arrangements with tenant organizations, potentially creating new fee or service agreements.
Who Bears the Cost
- Public and private facility owners/operators: Municipalities, school districts, and private sports complexes must budget for purchasing, registering, maintaining, and replacing AEDs, plus signage and access systems; these are recurring, nontrivial costs for multiple venues.
- County jury commissioners and court administration: Removing probation officers from criminal voir dire requires additional screening steps and may increase administrative complexity when assembling panels, particularly in smaller counties with fewer eligible jurors.
- Probation departments and individual probation officers: The jury exclusion reduces opportunities for civic participation by probation officers and may affect staffing if officers relied on jury duty contributions; departments may also face reputational or procedural questions about the classification of staff under Penal Code section 830.5(a).
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits public-safety goals against operational and administrative burdens: it advances athlete safety by increasing the likelihood an AED is present at fixed venues, but it shifts the financial and logistical burden onto facility owners without specifying funding or enforcement mechanisms; on the criminal-justice side, it seeks impartial juries by excluding probation officers but does so at the cost of shrinking eligible juror pools and increasing administrative work for courts.
Implementation and enforcement are under-specified. The statutory language compels facility procurement and maintenance but does not create a private right of action, specify civil penalties, or assign enforcement to a state or local agency.
That leaves open whether injured parties can sue on the statute alone, whether local health departments will issue regulations, or whether facilities will only face exposure through negligence doctrines that predate the statute.
Training and access logistics create operational ambiguity. The law requires AED certification and compliance with federal and state rules, but it does not standardize acceptable training courses, minimum refresher intervals, or the documentation facilities or youth organizations must keep.
Facilities must decide how to ‘‘ensure access’’—whether by unlocked storage, supervised cabinets, or key-controlled systems—and those choices affect response times and liability. On the jury side, excluding probation officers narrows juror availability without guidance on replacement procedures for counties with high concentrations of probation staff, potentially complicating panel formation in criminal calendars.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.