Private detention facilities.
Summary
Existing law prohibits a city, city and county, or local law enforcement agency from entering into a contract with the federal government or any federal agency to house or detain noncitizens for purposes of civil immigration custody in a locked detention facility. Existing law requires the Attorney General to engage in reviews of county, local, and private locked detention facilities in which noncitizens are being housed or detained for purposes of civil immigration proceedings in California. Existing law requires that review to include a review of the conditions of confinement, a review of the standard of care and due process provided to the detainees, and a review of the circumstances around their apprehension and transfer to the facility. This bill would require any private detention facility operator to comply with, and adhere to, the detention standards of care and confinement agreed upon in the facility's contract for operations. The bill would define a private detention facility as a detention facility operated by a private, nongovernmental, for-profit entity pursuant to a contract or agreement with a governmental entity. If a private detention facility commits a tortious action that violates the requirement to comply with detention standards of care and confinement, the bill would allow an individual who has been injured by that tortious action to bring a civil cause of action for relief. The bill would also allow the court to award a prevailing plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The bill would state that its provisions are severable.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2020
Committee Review
Aug 2020
Assembly Passage
Jun 2020
Senate Passage
Aug 2020
Signed into Law
Sep 2020
Introduced Feb 21, 2020
Signed Sep 27, 2020
Floor votes · Senate Aug 24, 2020 · Assembly Jun 10, 2020
How they voted
25–7
Passed · 3 other
Total votes 35
Aug 24, 2020
D
Democratic26
96% Yea
R
Republican9
77% Nay
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
24
Key actions
9
Committee
7
Amendments
4
Sep 27, 2020
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Aug 26, 2020
Lower · Passed
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 57. Noes 13. Page 5227.).
lower
Aug 24, 2020
Introduced
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 26 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
lower
Aug 24, 2020
Upper · Passed
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 28. Noes 9. Page 4293.).
upper
Aug 13, 2020
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (August 13).
upper
Jul 1, 2020
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
Jun 10, 2020
Lower · Passed
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 61. Noes 14. Page 4795.)
lower
Jun 4, 2020
Lower · Passed
Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.
lower
Jun 3, 2020
Lower · Passed
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 14. Noes 4.) (June 3).
lower
Jun 2, 2020
Committee
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
lower
May 20, 2020
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 1.) (May 19). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
May 11, 2020
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
lower
Mar 9, 2020
Committee
Referred to Coms. on PUB. S. and JUD.
lower
Feb 22, 2020
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 23.
lower
Feb 21, 2020
Introduced
Introduced. To print.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Rob Bonta
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 3228
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 3228. 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