Appropriations Committee advances bill requiring officers to identify themselves, inform families after officer-involved deaths

The California State Assembly Appropriations Committee on April 9, 2025 advanced Assembly Bill 572, which would require peace officers, before engaging with immediate family members of someone who has been killed or seriously injured by law enforcement, to identify themselves and disclose the victim's status and basic rights in speaking with police.

AB 572’s sponsor presentation said the measure aims to prevent family members from being misled or coerced into providing statements while they are distressed. Ed Little, government affairs manager with Californians for Safety and Justice, told the committee that officers too often withhold information and steer grieving relatives into answering questions that can be used against the injured person or deceased. "These practices compound trauma and fracture critical trust between law enforcement and communities they serve," Little said.

The bill drew extended public testimony from family members who described encounters with law enforcement after officer-involved incidents. Diana Siena Sullivan, who identified herself as the mother of a son killed in an officer-involved incident, said the family was treated as suspects and subjected to leading questions while they were grieving. "David did not have a weapon," Sullivan said during her remarks. Multiple other impacted family members and advocates said they were approached with little information and then questioned in ways that added to their trauma.

Supporters, including Silicon Valley Debug and Californians for Safety and Justice, said AB 572 would require officers to clearly state who they are and to advise family members of the victim’s status and their basic rights before any interview. The sponsor and witnesses said the committee analysis estimates the bill’s fiscal impact would be minimal and absorbable.

Committee members moved and seconded the bill; the measure was advanced out of committee on an Assembly roll call. The transcript does not include a roll-call tally in the hearing record excerpt. No registered opposition was recorded during the hearing.

The bill’s proponents said the change is intended to protect grieving families from perceived manipulation and to strengthen transparency in the immediate aftermath of officer-involved injuries and deaths. The committee action sends AB 572 to the Assembly floor for further consideration.

The hearing included about a dozen speakers during the AB 572 presentation and testimony; sponsors and witnesses repeatedly described the bill as offering a procedural protection rather than a criminal-law change. Committee staff analysis noted the change should have only a minor and absorbable fiscal effect on local agencies, according to testimony in the hearing.