AB 528 California Assembly · 2025-2026 Regular Session

Criminal procedure: child pornography.

Summary
Existing law requires a prosecuting attorney to disclose to the defendant or their attorney all relevant real evidence seized or obtained as a part of the investigation of the offenses charged that is in the possession of the prosecuting attorney or known to be in the possession of the investigating agencies. Existing law prohibits an attorney from disclosing or permitting to be disclosed to a defendant, members of the defendant's family, or anyone else copies of child pornography evidence, unless specifically permitted to do so by the court after a hearing and a showing of good cause. Existing law authorizes an attorney to disclose or permit to be disclosed copies of child pornography evidence to persons employed by the attorney or to persons appointed by the court to assist in the preparation of a defendant's case if that disclosure is required for that preparation. This bill would repeal the provisions allowing disclosure of copies to a defendant, the defendant's family, person's employed by an attorney or appointed by the court, or anyone else. The bill would instead require any material that constitutes child pornography, as defined, to remain in the care, custody, or control of either a law enforcement agency, the prosecution, or the court. The bill would prohibit a defendant, their attorney, or anybody else from copying, photographing, duplicating, or reproducing any material that constitutes child pornography so long as the prosecution makes the material, and any hardware, media, or other property containing, storing, or housing the material, reasonably available to the defendant, as specified. The bill would also require this material to be made available, as specified, to a victim or the victim's attorney or to any individual the victim may seek to qualify to furnish expert testimony. By requiring new duties on prosecutors, law enforcement agencies, and the courts, this bill would create 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
Feb 2025
Committee Review
Aug 2026
Assembly Passage
Jun 2025
Senate Passage
Governor
Introduced Feb 11, 2025 Last action Aug 13, 2026
Maddy AI version diff · 2 comparisons

What changed between versions

02/11/25 - Introduced 07/03/25 - Amended Senate · 3 edits · Jul 3, 2025
MINOR
The Senate amendment to AB 528 removed the old attorney disclosure provisions that had required a court hearing and showing of good cause before an attorney could share child pornography evidence copies with a defendant. The amended bill replaces this with a simpler framework: material must remain in custody of law enforcement, prosecution, or court; courts must deny requests to copy or reproduce the material as long as it is reasonably available for inspection; and victims retain access rights. A drafting error was introduced in the victim access provision with repeated words.
REQUIREMENT

Removed former subdivisions (a) and (b) that prohibited attorneys from disclosing copies of child pornography evidence to defendants, family members, or others unless specifically permitted by a court after a hearing and showing of good cause. Also removed the exception allowing disclosure to persons employed by the attorney or appointed by the court to assist in case preparation.

SCOPE

The amended bill restructures Section 1054.10 so that subdivision (a) now establishes the custody and control requirement as the lead provision, followed by the prohibition on copying/reproduction in subdivision (b), rather than leading with attorney disclosure restrictions.

TECHNICAL

Introduced a drafting error in subdivision (c) where the words 'victim' and 'testimony' are each repeated (e.g., 'a victim, as defined in Section 2259... victim and the victim's attorney' and 'expert testimony, testimony shall have reasonable access'), likely an artifact of the Senate amendment process.

Floor votes · Assembly Jun 3, 2025

How they voted

750
Passed · 3 other
Total votes 78
Jun 3, 2025
D Democratic59
56 Yea 3
94% Yea
R Republican19
19 Yea
100% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea All Nay Mixed No data
Full legislative history

Actions timeline

Total actions
16
Key actions
8
Committee
9
Amendments
2
Aug 13, 2026
Upper · Passed
In committee: Held under submission.
upper
Aug 29, 2025
Upper · Passed
In committee: Held under submission.
upper
Aug 18, 2025
Committee
In committee: Referred to suspense file.
upper
Jul 3, 2025
Upper · Passed
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Jul 2, 2025
Introduced
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (July 1).
upper
Jun 11, 2025
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
upper
Jun 3, 2025
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (75-0-3)
assembly
Jun 2, 2025
Lower · Passed
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 76. Noes 0. Page 1924.)
lower
May 23, 2025
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (May 23).
lower
Apr 9, 2025
Committee
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
lower
Mar 26, 2025
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (March 25). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Feb 24, 2025
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
lower
Feb 12, 2025
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 14.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors

Sponsors

Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Photo of Juan Alanis
Juan Alanis
RRepublican
CA
22