AB 572 directs every California law enforcement and prosecutorial agency to adopt, by January 1, 2027, a written policy governing formal interviews of immediate family members after incidents in which a peace officer’s actions result in death or serious bodily injury. The policy must require officers or prosecutors who initiate such interviews to identify themselves, inform family members of their relative’s status when known, explain that the meeting is a formal investigative interview, and notify the family that they may have a trusted support person present.
If the interview is in person, the interviewer must also display a business card, badge, or other official ID.
The bill also prohibits officers and prosecutors from using threats or deception — expressly including knowingly false information, fabricated evidence, or misleading statements — when conducting these interviews, while preserving limited exceptions: where delay would risk loss of evidence or imminent danger, or where equivalent advisements have already been given. AB 572 defines key terms (formal interview, immediate family member, support person, and the covered agencies) and requires documentation of formal interviews by written, audio, or video records.
The measure changes routine investigative practice around police-involved deaths and serious injuries and will affect training, recordkeeping, and scene management for agencies statewide.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires every California law enforcement and prosecutorial agency to adopt a policy (by Jan 1, 2027) that sets rules for formal interviews of immediate family members after officer-caused death or serious injury, including ID, notice of status, counsel to the family about the interview's purpose, and the option to bring a support person. It bans the use of threats or deception in those interviews, subject to two narrow exceptions.
Who It Affects
All state and local agencies that employ peace officers and any prosecutorial office (district attorneys, city attorneys). Immediate family members of people killed or seriously injured by police, incident investigators, and interview teams will be directly affected.
Why It Matters
It formalizes procedural protections for bereaved families and curtails deceptive interview techniques in a narrow but politically and legally sensitive class of investigations, forcing agencies to change training, identification practices, and documentation standards.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 572 creates a targeted set of procedural rules for interviews with immediate family members after an incident in which a peace officer’s conduct results in death or serious bodily injury. The core obligation is institutional: every law enforcement and prosecutorial agency must have a policy requiring that interviewers comply with the bill’s notice and conduct rules.
The statute sets a clear deadline for agencies to have those policies in place and ties the rule to a defined class of incidents rather than to all post-incident interviews.
When an interviewer initiates a formal interview with an immediate family member, the bill requires four specific steps before the initial interview: identify yourself (full name and agency, and present a badge, business card, or other official ID in person); inform the person of their relative’s status if known (including whether the relative has been killed or seriously injured by law enforcement); explain that the session is a formal interview for an investigation that may assess the relative’s conduct; and tell the family member they may have a trusted support person and that they can choose whether to come to a station and bring that person. The bill defines “formal” interviews to include in-person or secure remote interviews intended to elicit material information and requires those interviews be documented by written, audio, or video records.AB 572 also imposes a categorical ban on threats and deception in these interviews, specifying that knowingly using false information, fabricated evidence, or misleading statements to coerce an interview is prohibited.
The statute, however, preserves two exceptions: (1) where a reasonable officer believes delay would lead to the loss or destruction of evidence or pose an imminent threat to public safety, and (2) where the family member has already received advisements substantially equivalent to those the bill requires or to Miranda advisements. The measure clarifies definitional points — who counts as an immediate family member, what a support person can be (no certification or training required, but a support person cannot be a percipient witness or suspect), and which entities qualify as law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies — which will matter for training and compliance checks.Notably, the text requires documentation of formal interviews but does not create new criminal penalties or specify a private right of action; enforcement appears to rest on agency policy compliance and existing oversight processes.
Agencies will therefore need to translate the statutory language into operational protocols, training curricula, and recordkeeping practices while navigating the bill’s exceptions in live investigations.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Agencies must adopt written policies by January 1, 2027, requiring compliance with AB 572’s interview rules in officer-involved deaths or serious injuries.
If the interview is in person, the interviewer must display official identification such as a business card, badge, or other official ID at the outset.
The bill expressly bans use of threats or deception, including knowingly presenting false information, fabricated evidence, or misleading statements during covered interviews.
A support person may attend without any special certification or training, but the support person cannot be a percipient witness to the incident or a person of interest or suspect.
AB 572 defines a ‘formal’ interview to include in-person or secure remote interviews designed to elicit material information and requires documentation by written, audio, or video record.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Agency policy requirement and pre-interview notices
Subdivision (a) imposes an institutional duty: by a fixed date, every law enforcement and prosecutorial agency must maintain a policy that binds peace officers and prosecutors when they initiate formal interviews with immediate family members after an officer-caused death or serious bodily injury. Practically, agencies must translate the four required pre-interview notices into checklists and train interviewers to deliver them reliably. The obligation is triggered on the initial formal interview with an immediate family member or upon confirming the relationship.
Prohibition on threats and deception during covered interviews
Subdivision (b) forbids officers and prosecutors from using threats or deception — explicitly including knowingly using false information, fabricated evidence, or misleading statements — to coerce or conduct interviews subject to the section. That language removes a previously ambiguous area of interrogation practice in these contexts and will require agencies to update interrogation policies and training programs to prohibit tactics still permitted elsewhere.
Narrow exceptions for safety and prior advisements
Subdivision (c) creates two exceptions: when a reasonable officer believes delay would result in loss of evidence or an imminent public-safety threat; and when the immediate family member has already received advisements substantially equivalent to those required by the section or to Miranda. These carve-outs preserve investigatory flexibility but hinge on terms—“reasonable officer” and “substantially equivalent”—that will get operationalized in local policies and could be litigated later.
Definitions and documentation standard
Subdivision (d) supplies working definitions for key terms: what qualifies as a ‘formal’ interview (including remote secure communications) and what counts as an ‘immediate family member.’ It also defines ‘support person,’ clarifying there is no credentialing requirement but excluding anyone who is a percipient witness or suspect. The provision requires formal interviews to be documented by written, audio, or video records, which shifts recordkeeping and evidence-management responsibilities onto agencies.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal Justice 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
- Immediate family members of persons killed or seriously injured by police — they receive clearer information, an explicit right to a support person, and a statutory restraint against deceptive or coercive interview tactics.
- Civil rights and oversight organizations — the statute creates a documented procedural baseline that advocates can use to monitor agency compliance and press for transparency in officer-involved incidents.
- Investigators who prefer documented, standardized interviews — the requirement to document formal interviews creates clearer evidentiary records that can reduce disputes about what was said and when.
Who Bears the Cost
- Law enforcement agencies (state and local) — they must draft and adopt compliant policies, train staff, implement documentation systems for interviews, and update scene protocols, all of which carry training and administrative costs.
- Prosecutorial offices — district and city attorneys must revise intake and interview procedures, ensure prosecuting attorneys follow identification and documentation rules, and manage potential timing conflicts with investigative needs.
- Frontline officers and prosecutors — they face new operational constraints on interrogation tactics (a ban on deception) and additional duties at the scene (identifying themselves and explaining the interview purpose), which can complicate time-sensitive investigations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two worthy aims — protecting bereaved family members from coercive, deceptive interview techniques and preserving investigators’ ability to act swiftly to protect evidence and public safety — but it forces trade-offs between family-centered procedural safeguards and the operational flexibility investigators claim they need in time-sensitive, high-stakes incidents.
AB 572 sets clear protections for family members but leaves several implementation questions open. The statute requires agencies to maintain policies and to document formal interviews, yet it does not create explicit enforcement mechanisms, civil remedies, or criminal penalties for noncompliance; compliance will therefore depend on internal discipline, oversight bodies, and litigation using related legal doctrines.
The bill’s exceptions—particularly the ‘reasonable officer’ standard for preventing loss of evidence or addressing imminent threats—will require agencies to build criteria into policies for when they can delay giving notices or use otherwise restricted tactics.
Operationally, the documentation requirement raises privacy and evidentiary questions: agencies must decide how to store recordings of highly sensitive family interactions, who can access them, and how long to retain them. Allowing a support person without certification simplifies access for families but creates scene-management issues when the support person may also be a witness or emotionally volatile.
Finally, the ban on deception applies specifically in the statutory context; agencies will need to reconcile this restriction with interrogation practices used in other investigations, and lawyers and courts may be asked to define what counts as ‘substantially equivalent’ advisements to satisfy the statute’s second exception.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.