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
310
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 141–150 of 310 bills

All criminal justice bills

passed · California · Assembly May 13, 2026

ACR 176: Relative to Second Chance Month.

This bill designates April 2026 as Second Chance Month in California to raise awareness about opportunities for individuals reentering society after incarceration. The measure is a ceremonial proclamation that does not alter laws, allocate funding, or change government operations. Its primary purpose is to encourage public recognition of the challenges faced by formerly incarcerated people and to highlight available support resources during that specific month.
Sub-Topics Corrections
passed both · California · Assembly Aug 25, 2026

AB 1905: Juveniles: custodial interrogation.

Existing law prohibits law enforcement officers from employing threats, physical harm, deception, or psychologically manipulative interrogation tactics, as specified, during a custodial interrogation of a person 17 years of age or younger. This bill would prohibit a law enforcement officer from seeking statements or information while working undercover, or by individuals working in collaboration with, or acting as agents of, law enforcement, from a person who was 17 years of age or younger during the commission of crime and who is under 26 years of age while in custody. The bill would direct a court to consider any willful failure of a law enforcement officer in violation of these provisions in determining the credibility of that law enforcement officer. The bill would specify that these provisions do not apply to the admissibility of statements or information provided to an officer or individuals working in collaboration with law enforcement that were sought to protect against an imminent threat to life.
passed both · California · Assembly Aug 30, 2026

AB 2261: Protective orders.

Existing law allows the court to issue a protective order restraining a defendant from any contact with the victim if the defendant has been convicted of specified crimes, including a crime involving domestic violence, human trafficking, a crime in furtherance of a criminal street gang, or a registerable sex offense. This bill would additionally authorize the court to consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from contact with any person who is a member of the victim's family, as defined, or household. By authorizing the issuance of protective orders in certain circumstances and the extension of certain protective orders, a violation of which is punishable as a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 136.2 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 1889 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1889 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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.
passed both · California · Assembly Aug 26, 2026

AB 1927: Bail Consumer Protection Act.

Existing law generally regulates the business of insurance in the state, including the conduct of insurance licensees, and provides for the issuance of bail licenses under the jurisdiction of the Insurance Commissioner. Existing regulations generally prohibit the solicitation of bail except after a bona fide request for bail services has been received from the arrestee or from another specified person. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to impersonate certain personnel, including a law enforcement officer or an officer or member of a fire department, with the intent of fraudulently impersonating such a person, or of fraudulently inducing the belief that they are such a person. This bill, the Bail Consumer Protection Act, would make it a crime for any person to impersonate, or falsely hold themselves out to be, a licensed bail agent, and while doing so solicits or attempts to solicit bail from any individual. The bill would also make it a crime for any person to hire another person or company to solicit bail when the person knew or should have known that the other person or company is impersonating or falsely holding themselves out to be a licensed bail agent, and that other person or company solicits or attempts to solicit bail from any individual. By creating a new crime, the 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.
Sub-Topics Law Enforcement
in committee · California · Assembly May 14, 2026

AB 2683: Crimes: child endangerment.

Existing law makes it unlawful, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, to willfully cause or permit a child to suffer, or to inflict thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or, having the care or custody of a child, to willfully cause or permit the person or health of that child to be injured, or to willfully cause or permit that child to be placed in a situation where their person or health may be endangered and a violation of these provisions punishable as a misdemeanor or felony. This bill would make any adult who solicits or recruits a minor to commit a felony guilty of child endangerment pursuant to the provisions above and would, in addition and consecutive to any other punishment, make a violation punishable as a sentence enhancement in the state prison for 2, 4, or 6 years. By creating a new crime, the 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.
Sub-Topics Corrections Sentencing
passed both · California · Senate Aug 30, 2026

SB 1342: Criminal records: relief.

Existing law, subject to an appropriation, requires the Department of Justice, on a monthly basis, to review the records in the statewide criminal justice databases and identify persons who are eligible for arrest record relief and automatic conviction record relief. Commencing on October 1, 2024, existing law makes arrest record relief available to an eligible person if the arrest occurred on or after January 1, 1973. Under existing law, a person is eligible for arrest record relief under these provisions if, among other things, the arrest was for a misdemeanor offense and the charge was dismissed. This bill, on and after October 1, 2029, additionally makes a person eligible for that relief if the arrest was for a felony offense, all charges arising from the arrest were dismissed, one year has elapsed since the date on which the most recent charge arising from the arrest was dismissed, and no charge arising from the arrest was refiled or is pending during that period. Under existing law, a person is eligible for automatic conviction record relief if the person meets certain requirements, including that it does not appear, based upon information available in the Department of Justice's record, that the person is currently serving a sentence of an offense and there is no indication of pending criminal charges. This bill would, on and after October 1, 2029, require, in determining whether there is a pending criminal charge based on the department's records, the department to conclude that there is no indication of pending criminal charges if at least 3 years have elapsed with no new activity related to that record. The bill would require, in determining whether a person is currently serving a sentence for an offense, the department to conclude that the person is no longer serving a sentence if the department is unable to determine whether a sentence is complete and at least 7 years have passed since the date of conviction. Existing law, subject to an appropriation, on a monthly basis, requires the department to electronically submit a notice to the superior court having jurisdiction over the criminal case and inform the court of all cases for which a complaint was filed and for which relief was granted pursuant to the provisions above. Existing law, for any certain record retained by the court, prohibits the court from disclosing information concerning a conviction granted relief pursuant to specified provisions, including the above provisions, to any person or entity, in any format, except to the person whose conviction was granted relief or a criminal justice agency. This bill would, on and after October 1, 2029, expand the above-described prohibition to include other provisions that authorize relief from a conviction. By placing additional duties on court staff, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. This bill would, on and after October 1, 2029, also require a court, upon the request of the subject of a record granted relief, to furnish a register of action confirming the court's receipt of notification and compliance with a grant of relief for a specified record granted relief under the above provisions. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1203.425 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 1395 to be operative only if this bill and SB 1395 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Sub-Topics Courts
passed both · California · Assembly Aug 26, 2026

AB 1946: Reporting mechanism: child sexual abuse material.

Existing law requires a social media platform to take certain actions with respect to child sexual abuse material on the social media platform, including requiring the platform to provide, in a mechanism that is reasonably accessible to users, a means for a user who is a California resident to report material to the platform that the user reasonably believes meets certain criteria, including that the reported material is child sexual abuse material and that the reporting user is depicted in the material. Existing law also requires the social media platform to collect information reasonably sufficient to enable the platform to contact, as specified, a reporting user. Existing law defines child sexual abuse material for these purposes to include obscene matter that depicts a minor personally engaging in, or personally simulating, sexual conduct. This bill would revise the definition of child sexual abuse material to instead include an intimate visual depiction, as defined, of an identifiable individual who is a minor. The bill would additionally require the above-described mechanism to be clear and conspicuous, as defined, and would delete the requirement that the reporting user be depicted in the material. The bill would require a social media platform to, among other things, ensure review by a natural person if there is not an established or known hash match to child sexual abuse material with respect to the reported material and the reported material is not otherwise blocked. The bill would require a social media platform to restore availability or functionality of the reporting mechanism if the reporting mechanism is unavailable or nonfunctional. Existing law makes a noncomplying social media company liable to a reporting user for actual damages and statutory damages, as specified. This bill would instead make a social media company liable to a depicted individual, as defined, for actual and statutory damages, as provided. The bill would also impose specified civil penalties on a noncomplying company to be collected in a civil action by certain public attorneys, including the Attorney General. Existing law establishes the Survivor Support Fund within the state treasury and makes moneys in the fund available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for grants by the California Victim Compensation Board to community-based organizations that provide direct services to vulnerable individuals in areas with a high concentration of sex trafficking. This bill would require any penalty collected in a civil action by the Attorney General under these provisions to be deposited into the Survivor Support Fund. Existing law prohibits a social media platform from knowingly facilitating, aiding, or abetting commercial sexual exploitation, as defined. Existing law deems a social media platform to have knowledge for the purposes of this prohibition if material was reported to the social media platform using the reporting mechanism for 4 consecutive months, as provided. Existing law exempts a social media platform from being deemed in violation of this prohibition if it instituted a specified audit program and provided to each member of its board of directors a true and correct copy of each audit, as prescribed. This bill would remove the requirement that material was reported for 4 consecutive months to deem a social media platform to have knowledge for the purposes of the above-described prohibition. The bill would, in order to be exempt from that prohibition, require the social media platform to also submit the audit to the Attorney General, and if requested, to certain other public officials. The bill would provide that an audit submitted as described above is confidential and shall be exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act. This bill would declare its provisions severable. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
passed both · California · Assembly Aug 27, 2026

AB 2378: California Violence Intervention and Prevention Grant Program.

Existing law establishes the Board of State and Community Corrections. Existing law establishes the California Violence Intervention and Prevention Grant Program (CalVIP) award grants to cities disproportionately impacted by community gun violence to fund gun violence reduction initiatives. Existing law authorizes the board to award these grants and to create an executive steering committee for the program. Existing law authorizes the board to reserve up to $2,000,000 of the funds appropriated for the program each year for the costs of administering and promoting the effectiveness of the program. This bill would create the Office of Community Violence Intervention within the Board of State and Community Corrections, and would require the office to be led by a director appointed by the board. The bill would require the board to select the director. The bill would require the board to consult with organizations in the field of community violence intervention on factors to consider when evaluating candidates. The bill would also require the board to consider certain factors when selecting a director. The bill would require the office to, among other things, advise the board on the implementation of community violence intervention and prevention policies, provide technical assistance for community violence intervention and prevention organizations and CalVIP grantees, and, on July 1, 2028, and every 2 years thereafter, to produce a report on community violence intervention and prevention, as specified. This bill would require the office to administer CalVIP, as specified. The bill would require the office to recommend grant awardees to the board and to convene and facilitate the executive steering committee for the program. The bill would require the board to reserve at least $1,000,000 and would authorize the board to reserve up to 5% of the funds appropriated for the program each year for the purposes of the office administering and promoting the effectiveness of the program.
Sub-Topics Firearms
passed · California · Assembly Aug 19, 2026

AB 1830: Ignition interlock devices.

(1) Existing law makes it unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage, has 0.08 or 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in their blood, as specified, is addicted to the use of any drug, is under the influence of any drug, or is under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug to drive a vehicle. Existing law prohibits a person from driving a vehicle under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug and concurrently do an act forbidden by law, or neglect a duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, which act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to a person other than the driver. Existing law, until January 1, 2033, requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to immediately suspend or revoke the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle upon the receipt of an abstract of the record of a court showing that the person has been convicted of driving a vehicle under the circumstances above as well as for engaging in a motor vehicle speed contest for specified periods of time, depending on the statute under which the driving violation was punished, and prohibits the reinstatement of the driving privilege until the person gives proof of financial responsibility and proof satisfactory to the department of successful completion of a driving-under-the-influence (DUI) program, as specified. Existing law requires the department to advise the person that they may apply for a restricted driver's license if the person meets certain requirements, including, among others, satisfactorily providing proof of enrollment in a certain DUI program and the installment of a functioning, certified ignition interlock device (IID) . Existing law allows, for certain violations, a person who has had their driver's license suspended to apply to the department for a restricted license, subject to certain requirements. For specified violations, existing law requires the department to issue a restricted driver's license if the person has met certain requirements, including proof satisfactory to the department of enrollment in, or completion of, a DUI program, proof of financial responsibility, and the payment of all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees, among other fees, required by the department. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would reorganize and recast the penalties and sanctions for the alcohol- and drug-related driving offenses described above. The bill would recast violations for driving under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or having 0.08 or 0.04 percent or more, by weight of alcohol in blood (collectively "alcohol-related driving violations") from violations for driving under the influence of any drug or driving while a person is addicted to the use of any drug (collectively "drug-related driving violations") . For convictions of alcohol-related driving violations, the bill would require the department to suspend the privilege to operate a motor vehicle and would allow the suspension to be indefinite. The bill would prohibit the reinstatement of that privilege until the person satisfies certain requirements, including, among others, the person applying for and maintaining a restricted driver's license for certain periods of time depending on the statute under which the driving violation is punished, which includes installing a certified IID on each vehicle operated by the person, providing proof satisfactory to the department of successful completion of a DUI program, as specified, paying all applicable reinstatement and reissue fees required by the department, and providing proof of financial responsibility. For convictions of drug-related driving violations described above, this bill would require the department to suspend the privilege to operate a motor vehicle for specified periods of time, depending on the statute under which the violation was punished. The bill would also prohibit the reinstatement of the privilege until the person satisfies certain requirements described above, but the bill would not require the person to install a certified IID or apply for and maintain a restricted driver's license for a specified period of time. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would authorize a person, whose privilege to operate a motor vehicle is suspended for alcohol-related driving violations, to apply for a restricted license if certain requirements are met, including, among others, installing a certified IID on each vehicle operated by the person, as specified, providing proof of financial responsibility for 3 years, providing satisfactorily proof of enrollment in, or completion of, a DUI program, as specified, and paying a fee that is sufficient to cover the costs of administration of these requirements. The bill would require the department to terminate the restricted driver's license and suspend the privilege to drive if the person fails to comply with the DUI program requirements. The bill would also authorize a person, whose driving privilege was suspended for a conviction of a drug-related driving violation, to apply for a restricted driver's license if similar certain requirements are met, except the person would not be required to install a certified IID but would be required to complete a minimum number of months of a suspension period, as specified. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would require the department to monitor the installation and maintenance of an IID that is installed pursuant to specified provisions. The bill would require the installer of the IID to notify the department if the device is removed or indicates that a person has attempted to remove, bypass, or tamper with the device, or the person fails 3 or more times to comply with these requirements. The bill would require the department to immediately suspend or revoke the privilege to operate a motor vehicle and any restricted driver's license if the person attempts to remove, bypass, or tamper with an IID, has the IID removed prior to the termination date of the restriction, or fails 3 or more times to comply with any requirement for the maintenance or calibration of the IID. The bill would require the department, and manufacturers, installers, and repairers of IIDs, to post information regarding filing complaints against manufacturers, installers, and repairers, as specified. (2) Existing law requires an order of suspension of a person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle for any of specified reasons, including the person was driving a motor vehicle when the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in their blood. Existing law requires the notice to be served on the person by a peace officer under specified conditions where test results show that the person has specified percentages of alcohol in the person's blood or where a person under 21 years of age refuses to take, or fails to complete, a specified test for alcohol in the blood. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would include a person driving a motor vehicle when a passenger for hire was a passenger in the vehicle and the person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in their blood as a reason to immediately suspend the privilege to operate a motor vehicle. The bill would authorize a person, whose driving privilege has been suspended pursuant to the provision above but not suspended or revoked based on the person's refusal to submit to, or failure to complete, a chemical test or tests, to apply for a restricted driver's license if certain requirements are met, including completing 30 days of the suspension period, providing proof of enrollment in a DUI program, installing a functioning, certified IID on any vehicle that they operate, being 21 years of age or older at the time of the offense, giving proof of financial responsibility, and paying all reissue and restriction fees. The bill would require the department to terminate the restricted driver's license and suspend the privilege to operate if the person has failed to comply with the DUI program requirements, or if the person attempts to remove, bypass, or tamper with the IID, removes the IID prior to the termination date of the restriction, or fails 3 or more times to comply with any requirement for the maintenance or calibration of the IID. (3) Existing law requires the department to suspend or revoke a person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle based on a peace officer's sworn statement or report, as specified. Existing law requires the department to review the record to determine whether the suspension or revocation is supported by the record, as specified. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would require the department to review these determinations and consider the sworn report and any other information and evidence, as specified. If, by a preponderance of the evidence, the department determines in the review of a determination certain facts are proven, including, among other facts, that the peace officer had reasonable cause to believe that the person had been driving a motor vehicle in violation of an alcohol- or drug-related driving provision, the bill would require the department to sustain the order of suspension or revocation. If the department determines that any of these certain facts are not proven by a preponderance of the evidence, the bill would require the department to rescind the order of suspension or revocation, as specified. (4) Existing law allows, for certain violations, a person who has had their driver's license suspended to apply to the department for a restricted license, subject to certain requirements as provided above. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would authorize a court to disallow the issuance of the restricted driver's license if the court determines that the person would present a traffic safety or public safety risk if the person were authorized to operate a motor vehicle during the period of suspension. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would make conforming changes to include the provisions above, as applicable, in statutes that generally pertain to the suspension, revocation, or restriction of the privilege to operate a motor vehicle. (5) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
in committee · California · Senate May 14, 2026

SB 1142: Digital Dignity Act.

Existing law prohibits the false impersonation of another person in either that person's personal or official capacity with the intent to steal or defraud, as specified. Existing law protects all people from defamation, including libel and slander, as provided. Existing law makes any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness for commercial purposes, as specified, without that person's prior consent liable for damages, as specified. Existing law provides that a party seeking relief pursuant to those provisions may also seek an injunction or temporary restraining order according to specified procedures. This bill would enact the Digital Dignity Act. The act would subject to specified liability a person who, by distributing content with actual knowledge that the content includes a digital replica, is found guilty of violating a criminal provision for which false impersonation of another is a required element, as prescribed, or is found liable in a civil action arising from the use or portrayal through a digital replica, as provided. The Digital Dignity Act would require a large online platform that includes a generative AI tool, as defined, that provides users with the functionality to create a digital replica of other individuals to provide a mechanism for individuals to report content that violates the platform's terms of service or a provision of law relating to the individual's digital replica and to submit to the large online platform any certified court order or judgment ordering the removal of any content involving the individual's digital replica on the platform or finding that content involving the individual's digital replica was defamatory, fraudulent, or any other form of image appropriation not permitted by law, as prescribed. Upon receipt of the court order or judgment, the act would require the large online platform to remove the digital replica and make reasonable efforts to identify and remove any known identical copies. The act would authorize a city attorney or the Attorney General to bring a civil action to enforce these provisions and to seek a specified civil penalty and injunctive relief. The act would require a generative AI tool provider to maintain, for no less than 90 days, records sufficient to allow compliance with a court order issued pursuant to a civil action by the city attorney or Attorney General, as prescribed.
Showing 141 to 150 of 310 bills
Previous 1 14 15 16 31 Next