AB 1483 California Assembly · 2025-2026 Regular Session

Supervision: violations.

Summary
Existing law requires prisoners sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison to serve time on parole or community supervision after their release from prison. Existing law authorizes courts to suspend the imposition or execution of punishments in specified criminal cases and instead enforce terms of probation or mandatory supervision. Existing law allows agencies responsible for supervision to determine appropriate responses to alleged violations, which can include, among other things, a one to 10 consecutive day period of flash incarceration. This bill would prohibit a person on any of those forms of supervision from being arrested, detained, or incarcerated for a technical violation of supervision, as defined, unless the person on supervision has had their supervision revoked by a judge after a revocation petition has been filed, except as specified. The bill would define a technical violation as any conduct in violation of a person's conditions of supervision that is not a new misdemeanor or felony. The bill would require a supervision agent to provide a person accused of a technical violation with a written summary of the technical violations alleged against them. The bill would prohibit the use of flash incarceration, and would make conforming changes. The bill would limit confinement pursuant to a revocation of supervision for a technical violation to no more than 7 days for the first revocation, 15 days for the 2nd revocation, and 30 days for the 3rd or subsequent revocation. By increasing duties on local supervision agents, this 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 failed 1 of 4 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2025
Committee Review
Floor Vote
Governor
Introduced Feb 21, 2025 Last action Feb 2, 2026
Maddy AI version diff · 3 comparisons

What changed between versions

03/24/25 - Amended Assembly 04/28/25 - Amended Assembly · 4 edits · Apr 28, 2025
MODERATE
AB 1483 was amended to remove its prison/jail inmate rights provision (Penal Code Section 2600), shift the graduated jail-time limits for technical supervision violations earlier in the sequence (now starting at the first revocation instead of the third), and remove a flash incarceration waiver provision. The bill now acknowledges it imposes a state-mandated local program, triggering fiscal reimbursement obligations.
Scope change
The bill's scope narrowed by removing the Penal Code Section 2600 amendment (prison/jail inmate rights), focusing exclusively on supervision violations. However, the practical effect of the revocation limit changes broadens the circumstances under which a person on supervision can be jailed for a technical violation.
SCOPE

The bill no longer amends Penal Code Section 2600 (prison and jail inmate rights). The reference to 'Prisons and jails: rights of inmates' was removed from the digest, narrowing the bill's scope to supervision violations only.

REQUIREMENT

The graduated maximum jail time limits for technical supervision violations were shifted earlier. Previously, no jail time was allowed for the first or second violation, with limits of 7 days (3rd), 15 days (4th), and 30 days (5th or subsequent). Now the limits are 7 days for the first revocation, 15 days for the second, and 30 days for the third or subsequent. This allows incarceration sooner after a technical violation.

Section 1203(l) was removed, which had allowed courts to take a waiver from defendants granted probation before January 1, 2028 permitting flash incarceration by the probation officer under Section 1203.35.

FISCAL

The fiscal committee designation changed from 'no' to 'yes' and the state-mandated local program designation changed from 'no' to 'yes,' acknowledging that the bill imposes costs on local agencies that trigger state reimbursement obligations under the California Constitution.

Floor votes

How they voted

No floor votes recorded yet.
Full legislative history

Actions timeline

Total actions
13
Key actions
4
Committee
7
Amendments
3
Feb 2, 2026
Lower · Passed
From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
lower
May 23, 2025
Lower · Passed
In committee: Held under submission.
lower
May 7, 2025
Committee
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
lower
Apr 29, 2025
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Apr 28, 2025
Lower · Passed
Read second time and amended.
lower
Apr 24, 2025
Introduced
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 2.) (April 22).
lower
Mar 25, 2025
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
lower
Mar 24, 2025
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. Read second time and amended.
lower
Mar 24, 2025
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
lower
Feb 22, 2025
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 24.
lower
Feb 21, 2025
Introduced
Introduced. To print.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors

Sponsors

Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Photo of Matt Haney
Matt Haney
DDemocratic
CA
17