Peace officers: confidentiality of records.

The document changed from the official chaptered statutory text to a webpage display format, adding website navigation elements (home, FAQ, sitemap, login), search fields, version history dropdown, and breadcrumb menus while removing the formal legislative formatting (page numbers, chapter headers, authenticated markings).

Standard enrolled-to-chaptered formatting changes: added Chapter 635 designation, Governor approval date (October 11, 2025), 'STATE OF CALIFORNIA AUTHENTICATED ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL' header, and restructured page numbering. Removed legislative passage dates, clerk signatures, and governor receipt line.

The redaction provision (paragraph 6(D)(ii)) previously required courts to consider whether an officer 'is currently operating undercover and their duties demand anonymity.' The new version removes the 'undercover' language, so courts now only need to consider whether a particular peace officer's duties demand anonymity. This broadens the category of officers who may qualify for redaction protection beyond just undercover officers.

A separate provision (the first clause (ii)) that applied the undercover/anonymity test generally in any redaction determination was removed. Only the narrower provision tied specifically to actions brought under Government Code Section 7923.000 remains, meaning the anonymity consideration now applies only in court-ordered disclosure actions rather than in all redaction decisions.

A new SEC. 1.1 was added that amends Penal Code Section 832.7 with a full restatement of the section's provisions. This section is conditional: it becomes operative only if AB 1178 and either AB 847 or AB 1388 are all enacted, and AB 1178 is enacted last. This is a legislative coordination mechanism to prevent conflicting amendments to the same code section.

The legislative findings were updated to reflect both the removal of the undercover-specific language and the addition of the conditional SEC. 1.1 incorporating AB 847 and AB 1388 changes.

A new sub-clause was added to paragraph (6)(D) requiring that in an action to compel disclosure under Government Code Section 7923.000, a court must consider whether a peace officer's duties demand anonymity when determining if redaction is appropriate. This is distinct from the existing standard which requires the officer to be 'currently operating undercover' AND have duties demanding anonymity.

The legislative counsel digest was updated to reflect that the bill now applies to 'a court in an action to compel disclosure pursuant to specified provisions,' broadening the stated scope beyond just general redaction determinations.

The safety-based redaction exception was narrowed. Previously, a court could consider whether a peace officer's duties demanded anonymity (a broad standard covering any role requiring secrecy). The amendment limits this to cases where the officer is 'currently operating undercover' AND their duties demand anonymity, making it significantly harder for agencies to withhold records on safety grounds.

Removed paragraph 6(E), which required agencies to redact the rank, name, photo, or likeness of: (1) sworn officers working or recently working in undercover assignments (past 24 months), (2) sworn personnel on federal or state task forces, (3) agency members who received verified death threats within 10 years due to their employment, (4) personnel assigned to counter-terrorism intelligence or interdiction, and (5) family members of any of the above.

Removed Section 2, which contained legislative findings under Article I, Section 3 of the California Constitution justifying the limitation on public access to records by citing the need to protect officers in dangerous assignments.

Removed Section 3, which provided for state reimbursement to local agencies if the Commission on State Mandates determined the bill contained state-mandated costs.

Changed fiscal note from 'Fiscal committee: yes' and 'State-mandated local program: yes' to both being 'no,' reflecting the removal of the additional redaction duties that would have imposed new costs on local agencies.

Minor drafting change in paragraph 6(D)(ii) adding the phrase 'a redaction made' and '(i) is appropriate' which appears to be a drafting error creating redundant language, though the substantive meaning (court considers whether officer is undercover) is unchanged.

Added subdivision (D)(ii) to Section 832.7(b)(6), requiring a court to consider whether a particular peace officer is currently operating undercover and their duties demand anonymity when determining whether to redact a record based on a specific, articulable, and particularized reason to believe disclosure would pose a significant danger to physical safety.

The original single paragraph (D) was restructured into two clauses: (D)(i) retaining the existing physical safety redaction standard, and (D)(ii) adding the new undercover officer consideration for courts.

Fiscal committee and state-mandated local program designations were changed from 'yes' to 'yes no,' likely reflecting a correction or update to the fiscal analysis of the bill's cost implications.