Assault and battery of a federal peace officer.
Summary
Existing law makes assault committed against a peace officer, as defined, engaged in the performance of his or her duties when the person committing the offense knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a peace officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties punishable by a fine not exceeding $2,000, or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both the fine and imprisonment. This bill would make assault committed against a federal peace officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties, when the person committing the offense knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a federal peace officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties, punishable by the same penalties described above. Existing law makes battery committed against a peace officer, as defined, engaged in the performance of his or her duties, as specified, when the person committing the offense knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a peace officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties, and an injury is inflicted on that peace officer, punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000, by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months, or 2 or 3 years, or by both the fine and imprisonment. This bill would make battery committed against a federal peace officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties, when the person committing the offense knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a federal peace officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties, and an injury is inflicted on that federal peace officer, punishable by the same penalties described above. By enhancing the punishment for a 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
died
1 of 4 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2017
Committee Review
Floor Vote
Governor
Introduced Feb 17, 2017
Last action Feb 1, 2018
Floor votes
How they voted
No floor votes recorded yet.
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
6
Key actions
0
Committee
2
Apr 19, 2017
Committee
April 18 set for first hearing. Failed passage in committee. (Ayes 2. Noes 5. Page 748.)
upper
Mar 2, 2017
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
upper
Feb 17, 2017
Introduced
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Andy Vidak
RRepublican
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 586
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 586. 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