Criminal jurisdiction.
Summary
Existing law defines human trafficking as the deprivation of the personal liberty of another person with the intent to effect a violation of certain specified sex crimes, to obtain forced labor or services, or to cause a minor to engage in a commercial sex act with the intent to effect a violation of certain specified sex crimes. Existing law requires, when more than one violation of certain specified provisions of law occurs in more than one jurisdictional territory, that jurisdiction for any of those offenses is in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred if all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction of the offenses agree to the venue. This bill would add human trafficking, pimping, and pandering to the specified offenses to which the above jurisdictional requirements apply. Existing law, when charges alleging multiple incidences of human trafficking that involve the same victim or victims in multiple territorial jurisdictions are filed in one county, requires the court to hold a hearing to consider whether the matter should proceed in the county of filing or whether one or more counts should be severed and to consider specified factors in making this decision, including the location and complexity of the likely evidence and where the majority of the offenses occurred. Existing law requires the district attorney in the filing county to present evidence to the court that the district attorney in each county where any of the charges could have been filed has agreed that the matter should proceed in the county of filing. This bill would reorganize these provisions.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2014
Committee Review
Aug 2014
Senate Passage
Apr 2014
Assembly Passage
Jun 2014
Signed into Law
Aug 2014
Introduced Feb 3, 2014
Signed Aug 22, 2014
Floor votes · Senate Apr 21, 2014 · Assembly Jun 26, 2014
How they voted
30–0
Passed · 5 other
Total votes 35
Apr 21, 2014
D
Democratic25
84% Yea
R
Republican10
90% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
23
Key actions
8
Committee
7
Amendments
1
Aug 22, 2014
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Aug 11, 2014
Upper · Passed
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 35. Noes 0. Page 4397.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
upper
Jun 26, 2014
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (62-0-3)
assembly
Jun 26, 2014
Introduced
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
upper
Jun 19, 2014
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. Ordered to consent calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 17).
lower
May 21, 2014
Lower · Passed
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
lower
May 12, 2014
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
lower
Apr 21, 2014
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (30-0-5)
senate
Apr 8, 2014
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 3093.) (April 8).
upper
Apr 2, 2014
Upper · Passed
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
upper
Feb 20, 2014
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
upper
1 primary · 4 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Marty Block
DDemocratic
Co
Ellen Corbett
DDemocratic
Co
Joel Anderson
RRepublican
Co
Lou Correa
DDemocratic
Co
Rob Bonta
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 939
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 939. 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