Overview
Title
To require Federal law enforcement and prison officials to obtain or provide immediate medical attention to individuals in custody who display medical distress.
ELI5 AI
H. R. 10295 is a bill that says when people in jail or with police are having trouble with their health, like breathing problems, the officers have to help them right away, or they could get in trouble, and they also need to learn how to help people who are sick.
Summary AI
H. R. 10295, also called the “Andrew Kearse Accountability for Denial of Medical Care Act of 2024,” aims to ensure that federal law enforcement and prison officials immediately provide medical help to people in custody who show signs of serious health problems. The bill makes it illegal for these officials to negligently fail to get medical attention if the person suffers as a result, with possible penalties including fines and up to one year in prison. It also allows state attorneys general to bring civil actions in such cases and requires the relevant Inspector General to investigate incidents and refer negligent cases for prosecution. Additionally, the bill mandates training for officials on how to assist individuals in medical distress.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, titled the "Andrew Kearse Accountability for Denial of Medical Care Act of 2024," aims to address the issue of providing necessary medical attention to individuals in federal custody who show signs of medical distress. It mandates federal law enforcement and prison officials to immediately obtain or provide medical help to those displaying certain distress symptoms, notably breathing difficulties. Failure to comply could result in fines, imprisonment of up to one year, or both. The bill also outlines a framework for investigations by Inspectors General in cases of non-compliance and allows state attorneys general to take civil action in appropriate circumstances.
Significant Issues
A notable issue with the bill is its narrow definition of "medical distress," which is currently limited to breathing difficulties. This definition could leave out other critical medical conditions that require urgent care, potentially putting individuals at risk. Additionally, there is ambiguity surrounding the standard for what constitutes "negligence" by officials, which could lead to inconsistent interpretations and enforcement. The bill also lacks specific guidance on training programs for officials, potentially resulting in varied implementations. Furthermore, the confidential complaint process is not well-defined, which could discourage reports of violations. The responsibilities and interactions between state and federal authorities regarding enforcement are also not clearly delineated.
Impact on the Public
The bill could have significant ramifications for the treatment of individuals in federal custody. If effectively implemented, it might improve the promptness and quality of medical care provided to detainees, potentially saving lives and preventing unnecessary suffering. Broadening the scope of medical distress to encompass a wider array of medical emergencies could further enhance its protective effect. However, ambiguous definitions and the lack of clear enforcement mechanisms could lead to gaps in application, undermining its potential benefits.
Stakeholder Impact
For federal law enforcement and prison officials, the bill could lead to increased accountability and pressure to respond quickly to medical issues, necessitating comprehensive training and adjustments in procedural standards. Failure to comply with the requirements could result in legal consequences, impacting those in these roles significantly.
From the perspective of individuals in custody, this bill could provide a crucial safety net in ensuring that serious health needs are promptly addressed, thereby improving their overall safety and well-being. However, its effectiveness hinges on the bill's clarity and the consistency of its enforcement across various jurisdictions.
For state authorities, the bill presents opportunities and challenges in navigating the relationship between state and federal jurisdictions, especially regarding civil enforcement actions. Clearer guidelines could help mitigate potential conflicts and streamline cooperative efforts to uphold the law.
Issues
The definition of 'medical distress' in Section 2 and Section 251 is limited to only 'breathing difficulties'. This definition is overly narrow and fails to encompass other potential medical emergencies requiring immediate attention, potentially leaving other serious conditions untreated and individuals at risk.
The bill, as mentioned in Section 2 and Section 251, lacks clear guidelines or specific criteria for what constitutes 'negligent failure' by a covered official to obtain or provide medical attention. This ambiguity may lead to inconsistent enforcement and varied interpretations of negligence, which could result in legal challenges.
Section 2 outlines the penalties for covered officials who violate the provisions by not providing immediate medical attention. However, it does not specify oversight or accountability mechanisms to ensure these penalties are consistently enforced, potentially undermining the effectiveness of the bill.
The process for confidential complaints to the Inspector General, described in Section 2 and Section 251, lacks specific details on how confidentiality will be maintained and the steps involved in addressing these complaints. This could discourage individuals from reporting violations due to fear of retaliation or exposure.
Section 2 mentions state civil enforcement actions but does not clearly define the responsibilities and jurisdictional boundaries between federal and state authorities. This could lead to legal conflicts or enforcement difficulties across different jurisdictions.
The bill provides for training in Section 2 and Section 251 but lacks specific guidance on the frequency, content, or nature of the necessary training for officials. This could lead to inconsistencies in training programs and their effectiveness across different agencies.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill states that it can be called the “Andrew Kearse Accountability for Denial of Medical Care Act of 2024.”
2. Medical attention for individuals in Federal custody displaying medical distress Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section establishes a legal requirement for federal officials, such as law enforcement officers and prison employees, to provide immediate medical attention to individuals in their custody who show signs of medical distress, such as difficulty breathing. If a covered official fails to do so, resulting in unnecessary pain, injury, or death, they could face fines, imprisonment for up to one year, or both, and the state attorney general is permitted to take civil action.
251. Medical attention for individuals in Federal custody displaying medical distress Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill section requires that federal officers, like law enforcement or prison staff, must give immediate medical help to people in distress while in custody, with penalties for negligence, including fines or jail. It also mandates investigations by Inspectors General in cases of negligence, allows for state civil actions, establishes a confidential complaint process, and requires training for federal officials on providing medical assistance.