Criminal investigations: eyewitness identification: lineups.
Summary
Existing law does not regulate how law enforcement officials prepare or conduct eyewitness photo or live lineup identifications. This bill would declare the legislative intent that law enforcement officials study and consider adopting the policies and procedures regulating eyewitness lineup identifications that are recommended by the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice in order to ensure that eyewitness identification procedures in California minimize the chance of misidentification of a suspect. This bill would require the Department of Justice, in consultation with the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, local law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and other legal experts, to develop on or before January 1, 2013, guidelines for policies and procedures, as specified, in order to ensure the reliability of eyewitness identifications, as specified. The bill would require the Department of Justice to report to the Legislature on or before July 1, 2013, the guidelines developed pursuant to the provision described above, along with recommendations of any legislation needed to implement the guidelines. Existing law allows opinion testimony from expert witnesses to be admitted at trial upon specified showings. This bill would allow expert testimony regarding the reliability of an eyewitness identification to be admitted at trial in a criminal action, or in a juvenile court proceeding concerning a person who is or may be adjudged a ward of the juvenile court, if the proponent of the evidence establishes relevancy and proper qualifications of the witness.
Bill status
passed
3 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2011
Committee Review
Aug 2011
Assembly Passage
Jun 2011
Senate Passage
Governor
Introduced Feb 9, 2011
Last action Aug 25, 2011
Floor votes · Assembly Jun 2, 2011
How they voted
39–28
Passed · 5 other
Total votes 72
Jun 2, 2011
D
Democratic45
86% Yea
I
Independent1
100% Nay
R
Republican26
96% Nay
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
19
Key actions
5
Committee
11
Amendments
1
Aug 25, 2011
Upper · Passed
In committee: Held under submission.
upper
Aug 15, 2011
Committee
In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.
upper
Jul 6, 2011
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (July 5). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Jun 16, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
upper
Jun 2, 2011
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (39-28-5)
assembly
May 27, 2011
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 11. Noes 6.) (May 27).
lower
May 4, 2011
Committee
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
lower
Apr 13, 2011
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (April 12). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Mar 16, 2011
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S. pursuant to Assembly Rule 96.
lower
Mar 15, 2011
Lower · Passed
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
lower
Mar 15, 2011
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Feb 24, 2011
Committee
Referred to Coms. on JUD. and PUB. S.
lower
Feb 10, 2011
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 12.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
TA
Tom Ammiano
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 308
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 308. 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