Bill
HB 2598
HB 2598 creates a privilege shielding confidential communications with peer support advisors for first responders, barring compelled disclosure in courts or agencies.
Note on source documents
- The materials provided appear to include text from two different bills both labeled "HB 2598":
1. An Arizona bill (rep. Walt Blackman) that amends Arizona Revised Statutes §§40‑360.01–40‑360.10 relating to the Power Plant and Transmission Line Siting Committee; and
2. An Illinois bill (rep. Adam M. Niemerg) that adds a privilege for "peer support advisors" to the Code of Civil Procedure (Sec. 8‑803.1).
- The title you gave ("PRIVILEGE‑PEER SUPPORT ADVISOR") corresponds to the Illinois measure. The summary below focuses on that peer‑support advisor proposal. Where available, I note legislative action dates included in your materials.
Summary — Peer Support Advisor Privilege (HB 2598)
Purpose and intent
- Establish a statutory privilege protecting confidential communications made to peer support advisors, intended to promote wellness and mental‑health support for emergency responders and law enforcement by ensuring confidentiality of peer support interactions.
Key provisions
- Adds Section 8‑803.1 to the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (Evidence Article — privileged communications).
- Privilege language (core): A peer support advisor shall not be compelled to disclose, in any court or to any administrative board, agency, or public officer, either
- a confession or admission made to the advisor in their capacity as a peer support advisor, or
- any information obtained by the advisor in that capacity.
- Legislative findings: The General Assembly declares that healthy police officers are an asset and that creating the status of "peer support advisor" supports officer wellness.
- Definition and program elements (partially provided / fragmented in the text):
- "Peer support advisor" is intended to mean an employee or volunteer approved by an emergency services provider or law enforcement agency who provides confidential peer support and assistance.
- The bill envisions agencies providing appropriate training in counseling to peer support advisors so they can offer emotional and moral support to colleagues.
Who would be affected
- Primary: law enforcement officers and emergency services personnel who participate in peer support programs; designated peer support advisors who provide confidential assistance.
- Secondary: courts, administrative agencies, prosecutors, defense counsel, and investigators — because advisors cannot be compelled to disclose covered communications under the statute.
- Employers and agencies: responsible for approving peer support advisors and (per text) providing training.
Significant procedural/timeline notes (from provided record)
- The legislative action list in your materials indicates the Illinois measure moved through committee and floor actions and was ultimately enrolled and signed by the Governor, with an effective date of September 1, 2025. (If you need authoritative status, confirm with the official legislative clerk for the relevant state.)
Potential impacts and considerations
- Likely positive effect on utilization of peer support programs: confidentiality can encourage candid sharing and early help‑seeking, improving mental health outcomes among first responders.
- Evidence/admissibility implications: the privilege would limit use of peer support statements as evidence in criminal, civil, or administrative proceedings; this may raise concerns where information relates to ongoing crimes, threats to safety, or mandatory reporting obligations.
- Ambiguities / gaps in the draft text provided: the excerpt lacks explicit exceptions (for example, imminent harm, child abuse, criminal activity, or statutory mandatory reporting), and the definition of who qualifies as a peer support advisor is partially fragmented. The final enrolled text should be reviewed for precise definitions, scope, exceptions, and interplay with other reporting or public‑safety obligations.
Recommendation
- Review the final/official enrolled statute for exact language (definitions, exceptions, and training requirements). Stakeholders (law enforcement agencies, defense/prosecution bar, mental‑health providers, and policy analysts) should evaluate how the privilege interacts with existing mandatory reporting laws and public‑safety exceptions.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
