Issue · Criminal Justice

Criminal Justice

Every criminal justice bill, vote, and legislator stance in California, automatically classified by Maddy, our AI policy reader.

Total bills
3
2025-2026 Regular Session
Top supporter
Anna Caballero
92% support rate
Top opponent
Phillip Chen
8% support rate
Ranked legislators
10
5 support · 5 oppose
Key legislators

Who's moving criminal justice in California

Legislators moving criminal justice in California
Legislator Party Stance Support rate Decisive votes
Anna Caballero
Anna Caballero Senate · District 14
D
Strong +
92% 140
Joaquin Arambula
Joaquin Arambula House · District 31
D
Strong +
92% 99
Celeste Rodriguez
Celeste Rodriguez House · District 43
D
Strong +
91% 56
Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Rebecca Bauer-Kahan House · District 16
D
Strong +
91% 86
Aisha Wahab
Aisha Wahab Senate · District 10
D
Strong +
90% 122
Phillip Chen
Phillip Chen House · District 59
R
Strong −
8% 65
Heath Flora
Heath Flora House · District 9
R
Strong −
11% 56
Brian Jones
Brian Jones Senate · District 40
R
Strong −
11% 71
Carl DeMaio
Carl DeMaio House · District 75
R
Strong −
12% 82
Ali Macedo
Ali Macedo House · District 33
R
Strong −
12% 96
Showing 3 of 3 bills

All criminal justice bills

passed both · California · Assembly Aug 27, 2026

AB 464: Sexual assault in prison.

(1) Existing law tolls the periods of limitation to bring specific civil actions for up to 2 years, if during that time that the claimant is imprisoned on a criminal charge, as specified. However, under existing law these tolling provisions do not apply to an action brought against a public entity or public employee, as specified. This bill would, notwithstanding any other law, provide that the period for bringing an action for sexual assault against a public entity or public employee that is alleged to have occurred while the claimant was imprisoned on a criminal charge, or in execution under the sentence of a criminal court, is tolled during the entire period of the claimant's imprisonment or sentence. Under the bill, any claim for sexual assault against a public entity or public employee subject to that provision is exempt from all state and local government claim presentation requirements. (2) Existing law establishes the Office of the Sexual Abuse in Detention Elimination Ombudsperson with the authority to inspect all of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation institutions and to interview all inmates and wards. Under existing law, if an investigation confirms that any employee of the department has sexually abused an inmate or ward, that employee is required to be terminated. Existing law prohibits retaliation against an inmate or ward for making an allegation of sexual abuse. Existing law requires the department to keep statistics on the sexual abuse of inmates and wards and make that data available to the Office of the Sexual Abuse in Detention Elimination Ombudsperson. This bill would prohibit an employee who has been terminated after an investigation confirms that the employee has sexually abused an incarcerated person or ward from future employment with the department. This bill would require the department to monitor for 90 days an incarcerated person who reports sexual assault, and the incarcerated person reported to have suffered the sexual assault, by a staff member for possible retaliation. The bill would require the department to make specific notifications and reporting after an incarcerated person is reported to have suffered a sexual assault. The bill would require the department, on or before January 1, 2028, to develop and implement procedures for notifications of an incarcerated person's contact person, as defined. The bill would require the department to minimize the transfer of an incarcerated person who is reported to have suffered a sexual assault by a staff member for 90 days following the report, unless there is an operational need to do so or there are safety, security, or health concerns. The bill would define terms for its purposes and declare these provisions are severable.
signed · California · Assembly Oct 3, 2025

AB 561: Restraining orders.

(1) Existing law authorizes a person who has suffered harassment, as defined, to seek a temporary restraining order and an order prohibiting harassment. Existing law prohibits a filing fee for, and a fee for the service of process by a sheriff or marshal of, a protective or restraining order if the order is based upon stalking, unlawful violence, or a credible threat of violence. This bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would authorize a petition prohibiting harassment and any related filings to be submitted electronically, as specified. The bill would require the request, notice of the court date, copies of the request to serve on the respondent, and the temporary restraining order, if granted, to be provided to a petitioner who filed electronically to be provided to the petitioner electronically, unless the petitioner notes, at the time of electronic filing, that these documents will be picked up from the court. The bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would authorize a party or witness to appear remotely at the hearing on the petition for a protective order, and prohibit the superior court from charging a fee for the remote appearance. As of January 1, 2027, the bill would require the superior court of each county to develop, and post on its internet website, local rules and instructions regarding remote appearances for protective orders. The bill would make a conforming change. (2) Existing law requires a court or court facility that receives petitions for domestic violence restraining orders to permit the petitions and related filings to be submitted electronically, as specified, and prohibits a filing fee for an application, responsive pleading, or an order to show cause that seeks to obtain, modify, or enforce a domestic violence restraining order, as specified. Existing law requires the request, notice of the court date, copies of the request to serve on the respondent, and the temporary restraining order, if granted, to be provided to the petitioner electronically, unless the petitioner notes, at the time of electronic filing, that these documents will be picked up from the court or court facility. Existing law authorizes a party, support person, or witness to appear remotely at a domestic violence restraining order hearing. Existing law requires the superior court of each county to develop local rules and instructions for remote appearances and requires them to be posted on the court's internet website. This bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would require a court or court facility that receives petitions for domestic violence restraining orders to accept electronic filings at no charge to the petitioner, and would prohibit a superior court from charging a fee for a party, support person, or witness to appear remotely at a domestic violence restraining order hearing. (3) Existing law authorizes an elder or dependent adult who has suffered abuse to seek a protective order and prohibits a filing fee for a petition, response, or paper seeking the reissuance, modification, or enforcement of a protective order. This bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would require a court or court facility that receives petitions for protective orders for elder or dependent adults to permit those petitions and any related filings to be submitted electronically, as specified, at no charge to the petitioner. As of that date, the bill would require the request, notice of the court date, copies of the request to serve on the respondent, and the temporary restraining order, if granted, to be provided to a petitioner who filed electronically, unless the petitioner notes, at the time of electronic filing, that these documents will be picked up from the court. The bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would authorize a party, representative of the county adult protective services agency, or witness to appear remotely at the hearing on a petition for a protective order for an elder or dependent adult, and prohibit the superior court from charging a fee for the remote appearance. The bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would require the superior court of each county to develop, and post on its internet website, local rules and instructions regarding remote appearances for protective orders for elder or dependent adults. As of that date, the bill also would require information regarding electronic filing and access to the court's self-help center to be prominently displayed on each superior court's home page, and require each self-help center to maintain and make available information related to elder abuse restraining orders. Existing law, upon the filing of a petition for protective orders for an elder or dependent adult, requires the respondent to be personally served with a copy of the petition, notice of the hearing or order to show cause, temporary restraining order, if any, and any declarations in support of the petition, at least five days before the hearing. This bill, as of January 1, 2027, would authorize a court to permit an alternative method of service, as specified, if at the time of a hearing with respect to an order issued based on an ex parte temporary protective order, the court determines that, after diligent effort, the petitioner has been unable to accomplish personal service, and that there is reason to believe that the restrained party is evading service or cannot be located.
signed · California · Assembly Jul 14, 2025

AB 223: Jury selection: acknowledgment and agreement.

The Trial Jury Selection and Management Act requires all persons be selected for jury service at random and from sources inclusive of a representative cross section of the population of the area served by the court. Existing law requires a trial judge to examine the prospective jurors in jury trials. Existing law gives the counsel for each party, after this initial examination, the right to examine any of the prospective jurors, as specified, in order to enable counsel to intelligently exercise both peremptory challenges and challenges for cause. Existing law requires, prior to the examination of prospective trial jurors in the panel assigned for voir dire, a specified perjury acknowledgment and agreement to be obtained from the prospective jurors. Existing law requires, after the selection of the trial jury is completed, another specified acknowledgment and agreement to be obtained from the trial jurors. This bill would revise the acknowledgment and agreements obtained from the jury panel prior to the examination of prospective trial jurors assigned for voir dire and after the completion of selection of trial jurors.