Criminal procedure: interrogations.

Kalra’s proposal weaves a clear procedural framework into the use‑of‑force investigation process by requiring every law enforcement and prosecutorial agency to adopt a formal policy governing initial formal interviews with immediate family members of individuals killed or seriously injured by a peace officer. The core change centers on ensuring that, before such interviews begin, the interviewer identifies themselves and their agency, informs the family member of the status of the related person, clarifies that the interview is conducted for investigative purposes, and communicates that a trusted support person may accompany them. The measure also directs interviewers to avoid coercive tactics, and to document the interview in written, audio, or video form, with an option for the family member to have a support person present and to choose a venue such as a station if applicable.

Key mechanisms and details set forth a structured sequence for the initial formal interview. The interviewer must clearly identify themselves with their full name and agency, and, when the interview is in person, display official identification. The family member must be informed of the known status of their relative, the interview’s investigative purpose, and the availability of a trusted support person who can accompany them to a station if necessary. A formal interview is defined as one conducted in person or via secure remote means and designed to elicit specific, material information, with the session recorded or documented. Prohibitions on threats or deception are included, and two exceptions are provided: if delaying the interview would preserve evidence or avoid an imminent public safety risk, and if the family member has received advisements substantially equivalent to Miranda protections. Definitions cover terms such as “formal,” “immediate family member,” “law enforcement agency,” “prosecutorial agency,” “serious bodily injury,” and “support person,” with the latter requiring no certification or training.

Viewed in policy terms, the measure imposes a deadline for policy adoption by January 1, 2027 and positions local agencies to bear the costs of implementing these standards, with reimbursement possible through the state’s mandated‑cost framework if applicable. The changes do not modify existing provisions for interviewing victims or witnesses generally, but create a specialized protocol for a high‑stakes subset of investigations involving deaths or serious injuries caused by a peace officer. The initiative engages agencies, prosecutors, and affected families by codifying disclosures, protections against coercion, and documentation requirements, while aligning with Miranda‑style safeguards in limited circumstances. Overall, the bill situates a narrowly scoped procedural reform within the broader criminal procedure landscape, emphasizing transparency, family‑targeted communication, and standardized interview practices in certain use‑of‑force investigations, with fiscal considerations addressed through existing reimbursement mechanisms.