Hate crime and incident reporting.
Summary
Existing law requires, when requested by the Attorney General, that every person or agency dealing with crimes or criminals maintain the records necessary to report statistical data, and report statistical data to the Department of Justice and the Attorney General. Existing law requires the Attorney General, subject to the availability of adequate funding, to direct local law enforcement agencies to report information related to hate crimes, as defined, to the Department of Justice. This bill would require a law enforcement agency, if it has updated its crime reporting system to align with the California Incident Based Reporting System, to (1) include in the agency's informational, incident, and crime reports a check box indicating whether the underlying incident in the report is a suspected hate crime or hate incident, as defined, and (2) complete for each hate crime or hate incident, a supplemental hate crime or hate incident report form that indicates the type of bias motivation and any other identifying information to assist in the prosecution of the hate crime, or, in the case of a hate incident, to be used for informational, crime prevention, law enforcement planning, trend analysis, and potential evidentiary purposes. By creating new reporting requirements for local law enforcement agencies, 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, 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.
Bill status
passed
3 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Jan 2019
Committee Review
Aug 2019
Assembly Passage
May 2019
Senate Passage
Governor
Introduced Jan 29, 2019
Last action Aug 30, 2019
Floor votes · Assembly May 23, 2019
How they voted
68–3
Passed · 3 other
Total votes 74
May 23, 2019
D
Democratic57
96% Yea
I
Independent1
100% Yea
R
Republican16
75% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
18
Key actions
9
Committee
9
Amendments
3
Aug 30, 2019
Upper · Passed
In committee: Held under submission.
upper
Aug 19, 2019
Committee
In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.
upper
Jul 31, 2019
Upper · Passed
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
upper
Jul 8, 2019
Upper · Passed
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (July 2).
upper
Jun 6, 2019
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
upper
May 23, 2019
Lower · Passed
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 74. Noes 3. Page 1924.)
lower
May 16, 2019
Lower · Passed
Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.
lower
May 16, 2019
Lower · Passed
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 17. Noes 1.) (May 16).
lower
Apr 3, 2019
Committee
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
lower
Mar 19, 2019
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (March 19). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Mar 12, 2019
Lower · Passed
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
lower
Feb 7, 2019
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
lower
Jan 30, 2019
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 1.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Kansen Chu
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 300
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 300. 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