Hazing Medical Amnesty Laws

A.R.S. 13-1215 Hazing; classification; definition (Jack's Law)

 . . .

C. A person may not be charged with or prosecuted for hazing or for a crime arising out of hazing if the evidence for the violation was gained solely as a result of either of the following:

1. The person transported the minor or student who was experiencing a medical emergency to a law enforcement agency, campus security office or health care facility.

2. The person, promptly and in good faith, reported the medical event caused by the hazing to a law enforcement officer, 911 or E911 service, campus security officer or emergency services personnel and the person reasonably believed that the minor or student needed immediate medical attention that was necessary to prevent the death of or serious physical injury to the minor or student.  This paragraph applies only to a person to whom all of the following apply:

(a) If physically capable, the person provided the person's name and the location of the minor or student who was in need of medical attention.

(b) The person remained with the minor or student until a law enforcement officer, campus security officer or emergency services personnel arrived.

(c) The person cooperated with law enforcement, campus security or emergency services personnel.

D. Subsection C of this section does not do any of the following:

1. Prohibit charging or prosecuting a person for a violation of this section if law enforcement obtains evidence of the violation before or independent of the person's act of seeking or obtaining medical assistance pursuant to subsection C of this section.

2. Prohibit the admissibility of evidence in connection with an investigation and prosecution for any other crime that is not prohibited by subsection C of this section.

3. Prohibit the admissibility of evidence in connection with the investigation and prosecution of a violation of this section against another person who is not immune from prosecution pursuant to subsection C of this section.

 . . .

Full text of statute here.

F.S. 1006.63 Hazing prohibited. (Andrew's Law)

 . . .

(11)(a) This subsection and subsection (12) may be cited as “Andrew’s Law.”

(b) A person may not be prosecuted under this section if he or she establishes all of the following:

1. That he or she was present at an event where, as a result of hazing, a person appeared to be in need of immediate medical assistance.

2. That he or she was the first person to call 911 or campus security to report the need for immediate medical assistance.

3. That he or she provided his or her own name, the address where immediate medical assistance was needed, and a description of the medical issue to the 911 operator or campus security at the time of the call.

4. That he or she remained at the scene with the person in need of immediate medical assistance until such medical assistance, law enforcement, or campus security arrived and that he or she cooperated with such personnel on the scene.

(12) Notwithstanding subsection (11), a person is immune from prosecution under this section if the person establishes that, before medical assistance, law enforcement, or campus security arrived on the scene of a hazing event, the person rendered aid to the hazing victim. For purposes of this subsection, “aid” includes, but is not limited to, rendering cardiopulmonary resuscitation to the victim, clearing an airway for the victim to breathe, using a defibrillator to assist the victim, or rendering any other assistance to the victim which the person intended in good faith to stabilize or improve the victim’s condition while waiting for medical assistance, law enforcement, or campus security to arrive.

 . . .

Full text of statute here.

N.J.S. 2C:40-3 Hazing. (Timothy J. Piazza's Law)

 . . . 

d. (1) A person, student or fraternal organization, or institution of higher education, and another person acting in concert with the person, organization, or institution, shall be immune from prosecution under this section if the person, or an employee, officer, or other agent acting on behalf of the organization or institution, as the case may be:

(a) called 9-1-1, or otherwise contacted campus security, police, or emergency services, and reported that a person was in need of medical assistance due to an act of hazing as described in this section;

(b) the caller provided the caller's name and, if applicable, the name of the person acting in concert with the caller to the 9-1-1 operator or other recipient of the emergency contact;

(c) the caller was the first to make the 9-1-1 report or other emergency report; and

(d) the caller and, if applicable, the person acting in concert with the caller remained on the scene with the person in need of medical assistance until assistance arrived and cooperated with the emergency services on the scene.

 . . . 

Full text of statute here.

18 Pa. C.S. 2810 Safe harbor. (Timothy J. Piazza Antihazing Law)

(a) Immunity for the individual seeking medical attention for another.--An individual shall not be prosecuted for an offense under this chapter if the individual can establish all of the following:

(1) A law enforcement officer first became aware of the individual's violation of this chapter because the individual placed a 911 call or contacted campus security, police or emergency services, based on a reasonable belief that another individual was in need of immediate medical attention to prevent death or serious bodily injury.

(2) The individual reasonably believed the individual was the first individual to make a 911 call or contact campus security, police or emergency services and report that an individual needed immediate medical attention to prevent death or serious bodily injury.

(3) The individual provided the individual's own name to the 911 operator or equivalent campus security officer, police or emergency services personnel.

(4) The individual remained with the individual needing medical assistance until a campus security officer, police or emergency services personnel arrived and the need for the individual's presence had ended.

(b) Derivative immunity for the individual needing medical attention.--An individual needing medical attention shall be immune under this section from prosecution for an offense under this chapter or section 6308(a) (relating to purchase, consumption, possession or transportation of liquor or malt or brewed beverages) only if another individual against whom probable cause exists to charge an offense under this chapter reported the incident and remained with the individual needing medical attention and the other individual qualifies for a safe harbor under this section.

(c)  Limitations.--The safe harbors described under this section shall be limited as follows:

(1)  This section may not bar prosecuting a person for an offense under this chapter if a law enforcement officer learns of the offense prior to and independent of the action of seeking or obtaining emergency assistance as described in subsection (a).

(2)  This section shall not interfere with or prevent the investigation, arrest, charging or prosecution of an individual for a crime other than an offense under this chapter or section 6308(a).

(3)  This section shall not bar the admissibility of  evidence in connection with the investigation and prosecution for a crime other than an offense under this chapter or section 6308(a).

(4)  This section shall not bar the admissibility of evidence in connection with the investigation and prosecution of a crime with regard to another defendant who does not independently qualify for a safe harbor under this section.

(d)  Civil immunity.--In addition to any other applicable immunity or limitation on civil liability, a law enforcement officer, campus security officer or prosecuting attorney who, acting in good faith, charges a person who is thereafter determined to be entitled to immunity under this section shall not be subject to civil liability for the filing of the charges.

Full text of statute here.

Tex. Educ. Code 37.155 Immunity from prosecution or civil liability available.

(a) In the prosecution of an offense under this subchapter, the court may grant immunity from prosecution for the offense to each person who is subpoenaed to testify for the prosecution and who does testify for the prosecution.

(b) Any person, including an entity organized to support an organization, who voluntarily reports a specific hazing incident involving a student in an educational institution to the dean of students or other appropriate official of the institution, a peace officer, or a law enforcement agency is immune from civil or criminal liability that might otherwise be incurred or imposed as a result of the reported hazing incident if the person:

(1) reports the incident before being contacted by the institution or a law enforcement agency concerning the incident or otherwise being included in the institution's or a law enforcement agency's investigation of the incident; and

(2) cooperates in good faith throughout:

(A) any institutional process regarding the incident, as determined by the dean of students or other appropriate official of the institution designated by the institution; or

(B) any law enforcement agency's investigation regarding the incident, as determined by the chief or other appropriate official of the law enforcement agency designated by the law enforcement agency.

(c) Immunity under Subsection (b) extends to participation in any judicial proceeding resulting from the report.

(d) A person is not immune under Subsection (b) if the person:

(1)  reports the person's own act of hazing; or

(2)  reports an incident of hazing in bad faith or with malice.

Full text of statute here.

Va. Code § 23.1-821 Hazing; certain individuals who make reports; disciplinary immunity; investigation; information about on-campus mental and behavioral health support. (Adam's Law)

A. The governing board of each institution of higher education shall include as part of its policy, code, rules, or set of standards governing hazing a provision for immunity from disciplinary action based on hazing or personal consumption of drugs or alcohol where such disclosure is made by a bystander not involved in such acts in conjunction with a good faith report of an act of hazing in advance of or during an incident of hazing that causes injury or is likely to cause injury to a person.

 . . . 

Full text of statute here.