Correctional facilities: wireless communication devices.
Summary
Existing law establishes various offenses relating to the unauthorized provision of specified items to persons confined in local and state correctional facilities. This bill would provide, subject to exceptions, that a person who possesses with the intent to deliver, or delivers, to an inmate or ward in the custody of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation any cellular telephone or other wireless communication device or any component thereof, including, but not limited to, a subscriber identity module (SIM card) or memory storage device, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not exceeding $5,000, for each device. The bill would also provide that if a person visiting an inmate or ward in the custody of the department is found to be in possession of a cellular telephone or other wireless communication device or any component thereof, including, but not limited to, a SIM card or memory storage device, when searched or subjected to a metal detector, as specified, that cellular telephone or wireless communication device or component shall be subject to confiscation, but shall be returned on the same day the person visits the inmate or ward, except as provided. The bill would require posted notices regarding those search and confiscation provisions, as specified. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Bill status
vetoed
4 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2009
Committee Review
Jun 2010
Senate Passage
Jan 2010
Assembly Passage
Aug 2010
Vetoed
Sep 2010
Introduced Feb 27, 2009
Vetoed Sep 29, 2010
Floor votes · Senate Jan 25, 2010 · Assembly Aug 5, 2010
How they voted
35–0
Passed · 3 other
Total votes 38
Jan 25, 2010
D
Democratic25
92% Yea
R
Republican13
92% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
33
Key actions
6
Committee
6
Amendments
2
Sep 29, 2010
Vetoed
In Senate. To unfinished business. (Veto)
upper
Sep 29, 2010
Vetoed
Vetoed by Governor.
upper
Aug 9, 2010
Introduced
Senate concurs in Assembly amendments. (Ayes 34. Noes 0. Page 4408.) To enrollment.
upper
Aug 5, 2010
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (62-0-7)
assembly
Jun 30, 2010
Lower · Passed
(Heard in committee on June 30.)
lower
Jun 30, 2010
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.)
lower
Jun 15, 2010
Lower · Passed
(Heard in committee on June 15.)
lower
Jun 15, 2010
Committee
From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Jan 25, 2010
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (35-0-3)
senate
Jan 19, 2010
Upper · Passed
From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.
upper
Jan 13, 2010
Committee
From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 2665.) Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Jan 7, 2010
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
upper
Feb 27, 2009
Introduced
Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 3 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Alex Padilla
DDemocratic
Co
AT
Alberto Torrico
DDemocratic
Co
CH
Curt Hagman
RRepublican
Co
TH
Tom Harman
RRepublican
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 525
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 525. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline