Law enforcement.

Removed the definition of 'assist' or 'assists' in Penal Code Section 11054.5(e)(4), which had defined the term to include providing personnel for backup or perimeter control. This term does not appear to be used elsewhere in the section, so the removal is likely a cleanup of an unused definitional provision.

New legislative finding (e) specifically names and condemns the September 25, 2025 National Security Presidential Memorandum No. 7 as 'a blatant threat to a Californian's constitutional right to free expression,' citing its labeling of antifascism, anti-Americanism, anticapitalism, and other viewpoints as indicia of domestic terrorism.

Finding (c) was expanded to explicitly include 'the right to film officers engaged in their duties in a public place' among protected rights, and now references SB 411 (2015) which clarified that recording officers does not constitute reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

New Penal Code Section 830.8(c) grants peace officer status to duly authorized federal employees of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service (excluding national park rangers), and Bureau of Land Management who meet training requirements and are enforcing the Fish and Game Code on federally owned or possessed property (or adjacent streets/sidewalks) with written consent of the local sheriff or chief of police.

Removed former Section 11054.5(c), which prohibited a California law enforcement agency from using its resources or personnel to assist an operation by a federal or out-of-state agency when it knew or reasonably should know that the other agency had engaged in, or intended to engage in, investigation, arrest, use of force, or penalties based solely on constitutionally protected expressive conduct during that specific operation.

Corrected a drafting error in the bill summary where 'if, unless' was changed to 'unless' in the interagency agreement prohibition language.

Removed the definition of 'joint law enforcement task force' which had specifically named DHS task forces under Executive Order 14159, FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces under NSPM No. 7, and ICE Protection task forces under a September 2025 Attorney General memorandum.

Assembly Members Gipson and Lee were added as coauthors, expanding the bill's legislative support base.

Simplified subdivision (a)(2) of new Section 11054.5 by removing sub-paragraphs that specifically referenced requests made in furtherance of NSPM No. 7 objectives and joint task force agreements tied to that memorandum, replacing them with a single general prohibition on action based solely on constitutionally protected expressive conduct.

Added new subdivision (c)(1) to Penal Code Section 830.8 authorizing deputized tribal law enforcement officers of the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs to exercise arrest powers in three circumstances: for state/local law violations, when enforcing federal criminal law with arrest incidental to those duties, and when assisting peace officers on Indian reservations or rancherias under Public Law 280.

Removed all provisions requiring California law enforcement agencies to seek and receive prior written authorization from the Attorney General before entering into or renewing interagency agreements, and removed the requirement that the Attorney General amend or terminate non-compliant agreements.

Changed the prohibition from covering both 'taking part in a joint law enforcement task force or entering into an interagency agreement' to only 'entering into an interagency agreement,' removing the explicit standalone prohibition on joint task force participation.

Added new paragraph (d)(3) providing that the section shall not be construed to render an interagency agreement void and unenforceable based solely on a federal or out-of-state law enforcement officer engaging in conduct described in subdivision (a).

Added the word 'solely' to the prohibition on investigation, arrest, use of force, or penalties based on constitutionally protected expressive conduct, narrowing it to actions based solely on such conduct rather than any action that includes such conduct as a factor.

Raised the knowledge standard for when an agency must refuse to assist a federal operation from 'has information that' a federal agency has engaged in or intends to engage in prohibited conduct, to 'knows or reasonably should know, based on credible and articulable facts.'

Extended the maximum duration of an interagency agreement from two years to four years.

Restructured the prohibition list: separated the deployment of kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents against assemblies into its own standalone item (3) rather than keeping it as a sub-item under the expressive conduct provision, and added a new defined term for 'constitutionally protected expressive conduct' with enumerated examples including assembly, petitioning, speech, political/religious opinions, recording government officials in public, and publication of opinions or recordings.

Section 830.8(a) now grants federal criminal investigators and law enforcement officers limited arrest powers in California when (A) requested by a California agency for a joint task force or criminal investigation, or (B) probable cause exists for an offense involving an immediate threat of great bodily injury. They must be certified as meeting Section 832 training requirements, and Section 847 liability provisions apply.

New carve-out in Section 830.8(a)(3) clarifies that the new restrictions do not affect federal investigators' powers when enforcing federal criminal laws under their federal arrest authority.

Section 11054.5(a) shifts from a flat prohibition on participating in task forces or interagency agreements involving prohibited conduct to a conditional framework: agencies may enter such agreements if they are in writing and expressly prohibit the agency from engaging in racial profiling, targeting of protected expression, or unauthorized military equipment use.

The prohibition on using agency resources to assist federal operations (former subdivision (e), now renumbered) is narrowed: it now only applies when the California agency has information that the federal or out-of-state agency has engaged in, or intends to engage in, actions described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) (targeting constitutionally protected expressive conduct), rather than all prohibited actions.

New provision in Section 830.8(a)(4) states that Bureau of Land Management and US Forest Service officers have no authority to enforce California statutes without written consent of the local sheriff or chief of police.

Former Section 830.8(e), which stated the section should not be construed as authorizing warrantless arrests by federal investigators except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), is removed - likely because the new subdivision (a) structure makes this clarification unnecessary.

Maximum duration of interagency agreements increased from two years to four years, with renewal permitted upon creation of a new written instrument.

New transition provision: interagency agreements existing on January 1, 2027 are presumptively valid and may remain in effect until July 1, 2027, by which date they must be amended to include the required limitations. Agreements lacking those limitations after that date are void and unenforceable.

New violation provision defines two ways a California law enforcement agency violates the section: (1) engaging in prohibited conduct under an interagency agreement, or (2) failing to otherwise comply with the section's requirements.

The definition of 'interagency agreement' now explicitly excludes individual or informal communications or consultations between a California agency and a federal or out-of-state agency.

The introduced version's subdivision (a) of Penal Code 830.8, which granted federal criminal investigators and law enforcement officers arrest powers in four circumstances (state/local law violations under Section 836 or 5150, federal criminal law enforcement, joint task force requests, and probable cause for immediate danger to persons or property), is entirely removed. The amended version replaces it with a simple statement that they are not California peace officers.

The introduced version's subdivision (b) of Penal Code 830.8, which granted 'duly authorized federal employees' who met training requirements full peace officer status when enforcing state or local laws on federal property with written consent of the sheriff or chief of police, is removed entirely.

In new Section 11054.5(f)(4), the definition of 'constitutionally protected expressive conduct' now references 'Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, of Article I of the California Constitution' instead of just 'Section 1 of Article I,' broadening the scope of protected expression to include additional constitutional rights such as privacy and due process.

In Section 11054.5(a)(2), the phrase 'constitutionally expressive conduct' was changed to 'constitutionally protected expressive conduct,' aligning the operative language with the defined term in subdivision (f).

Coauthors were added: Senators Gonzalez, McNerney, and Wiener; Assembly Members Connolly, Elhawary, Fong, Mark Gonzalez, Haney, Ortega, and Ward.