Inmates: visitation.

The contact visit rule was restructured. Previously, all visits had to be contact unless the incarcerated person was in restricted housing. Now, contact visits may be restricted or denied only for seven specific listed reasons: possession of contraband in the visiting area, drug distribution violations within 24 months, serious rules violations resulting in restrictive housing, escape-related offenses, inappropriate sexual conduct during a visit (excluding lawful family sexual conduct), documented individualized safety risks, or as required by existing law.

A new provision requires that any limitation on contact visits be reasonable under the circumstances and reevaluated once those circumstances no longer exist. The department must also offer noncontact visits to restricted individuals to the greatest extent possible if space is available.

The requirement for facilities to offer a noncontact visit when a visitor refuses a search was weakened from 'shall offer' to 'may offer... or deny the visit.' This gives facilities discretion to simply deny the visit rather than providing a noncontact alternative.

A new notice requirement was added: if a facility will not be open for visitation, it must provide notice to the impacted population as soon as possible.

The standard for conducting searches was changed from 'least intrusive manner reasonably available' to a totality-of-circumstances standard, with staff limiting scope, duration, and intrusiveness to what is reasonably capable of addressing the identified concern.

Unclothed body search protections now include an exception: the voluntary consent and same-gender staff requirements do not apply if the facility has a court-issued warrant or has placed the visitor under arrest.

Wheelchair and assistive device screening rules were modified. Previously, facilities could not require visitors to transfer to a facility wheelchair. Now, transfer is permitted as the default, but if transfer is not feasible and the visitor provides a doctor's note, the facility may permit the visitor to remain in their own wheelchair or use their assistive device while it is inspected.

The travel-distance protection threshold was raised from 100 miles to 170 miles. A visit may not be denied if a person has traveled more than 170 miles or has not visited within 30 days, unless there is a finding of a credible and documented security threat.

A formal definition of 'correctable issue' was added, specifying that it means a circumstance reasonably remedied by the visitor on the day of the visit without compromising safety, including dress code violations, excess minors, missing or incorrect documentation, issues with allowable items under Section 6405, and possession of non-permitted items that do not constitute a legal violation.

The 'credible security threat' definition was slightly revised: 'prior criminal history unrelated to institutional safety, or visitor safety or security' was changed to 'prior criminal history unrelated to institutional or visitor safety or security,' and 'create a safety or security risk' was changed to 'poses a safety or security risk.'

Removed the requirement that the department annually collect and publish data regarding searches, alerts, and resulting denials in aggregate form to ensure transparency and guard against discriminatory enforcement. This eliminates a key accountability mechanism for monitoring how search policies are applied.

Modified the definition of 'credible security threat' to allow the mere existence of a past rule violation to be considered when determining a security threat, provided the circumstances of that violation create a safety or security risk to other visitors, incarcerated individuals, or institutional security. Previously, the mere existence of a past rule violation was categorically excluded as a basis for a credible security threat finding.

In the provision about offering noncontact visits to minors whose parents or guardians do not consent to a search, removed the qualifier 'if feasible' so that the facility need only consider whether space is available, rather than also considering feasibility. This makes the obligation slightly more specific but potentially easier for facilities to satisfy.

Renumbered several subdivisions in Section 6402 (e.g., what was subdivision (e) became (c), (f) became (d), etc.) and reorganized the coauthor list. These are structural changes that do not alter substantive policy.

Added 'if space is available' as a condition for facilities offering noncontact visits in four separate provisions: when correcting visitation issues (Sec. 6402.5(g)(4)), when a visitor refuses a voluntary search (Sec. 6403(b)(4)), when a minor's parent/guardian does not consent to a strip search (Sec. 6403(c)(5)(B)), and when a visitor fails to present documentation for an assistive device (Sec. 6403(e)(4)). This softens what was previously an unconditional requirement.

Two new Assembly member coauthors added: Aguiar-Curry and Quirk-Silva, expanding the bill's legislative coalition.

Removed duplicate empty subsection letters (e.g., two '(b)'s, two '(c)'s) throughout Sections 6402.5 and 6403, correcting a drafting error from the prior version.

Corrected a garbled sentence in the legislative digest that read 'would prohibit a facility, as defined, require each facility' to simply 'would require each facility.'

The entire amendment to Penal Code Section 3055 (Elderly Parole Program) was removed. The prior version included a technical, nonsubstantive fix to that section; the new version drops it entirely, making this bill solely about inmate visitation protections.

A new subdivision requires each state prison facility to be open for visitation at least three days per week. This is a minimum operational standard that did not exist in the prior version.

The protection for long-distance visitors (traveled more than 100 miles) or infrequent visitors (no visit in 30 days) was strengthened. The old language said a facility 'may deny the visit only if there is a credible and documented security threat.' The new version adds a separate provision stating a visit 'may not be denied' unless 'there has been a finding of a credible and documented security threat,' shifting from a permissive standard to a prohibitive one and requiring an affirmative finding rather than mere existence of a threat.

The bill now requires fiscal committee review (changed from 'no' to 'yes'), indicating the amendment introduced budgetary implications, likely due to the new three-days-per-week visitation requirement.

The bill now adds Sections 6402.5 and 6403 to the Penal Code, creating a new statutory framework for inmate visitation rights and visitor search protections at all CDCR facilities. The bill is renamed the Visitor Protections and Safety Act.

Section 6402.5 prohibits facilities from denying, revoking, limiting, or interfering with visitation based on 14 protected characteristics including sex, race, age, criminal record, gender identity, disability, hair texture, and body type.

Facilities must allow all visits to be contact visits by default. Noncontact visits are only permitted for the duration of a restricted housing unit placement, and contact visiting must be restored immediately upon return to general population.

Facilities cannot deny visitation for correctable issues such as dress code violations or missing documentation. Staff must provide written guidance, allow up to one hour before end of visiting period to correct the issue, and offer alternatives like noncontact visits.

Section 6403 requires that searches beyond routine screening (metal detectors, visual inspection of property) must be voluntary with informed written consent. Refusal to consent may only result in denial of contact visiting for that day, with a noncontact visit offered the same day. Refusal cannot be recorded as misconduct or used to suspend future visitation.

Strip searches and body cavity searches of visitors require a court-issued warrant. Unclothed body searches require written consent, reasonable suspicion, written supervisory approval, same-gender staff, and no physical contact. Minors under 18 are protected from strip searches except with probable cause, a warrant, and written consent from both the minor and their parent or guardian.

If a visitor has traveled more than 100 miles or has not visited within 30 days, the facility may only deny the visit if there is a credible and documented security threat. The bill defines 'credible security threat' as requiring specific, articulable, and documented facts, and explicitly excludes generalized safety concerns, prior criminal history unrelated to institutional safety, or refusal to consent to a voluntary search.

The department must annually collect and publish aggregate data on searches, alerts, and resulting denials to ensure transparency and guard against discriminatory enforcement. All written notices related to searches must be available in the five most common languages spoken in California.

The fiscal committee determination changed from 'no' to 'yes,' indicating the new visitor protection provisions carry state fiscal implications that require fiscal committee review.

The original technical amendment to Section 3055 (changing 'any an inmate' to 'an inmate') is retained but renumbered as a later section in the bill rather than being the sole provision.