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
53
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 31–40 of 53 bills

All criminal justice bills

failed · California · Assembly May 4, 2026

AB 2438: Imprisonment.

Existing law requires a felony sentence punishable pursuant to specified provisions to be served in the county jail. Existing law requires these sentences to be served in the state prison if, among other things, the defendant has a current or prior serious or violent felony conviction or the defendant is required to register as a sex offender. This bill would additionally require the sentence to be served in the state prison if the sentence results in a total term of imprisonment exceeding 6 years.
vetoed · California · Senate Mar 2, 2026

SB 274: Automated license plate recognition systems.

Existing law prohibits a public agency, which includes the state, a city, a county, a city and county, or any agency or political subdivision of the state, a city, a county, or a city and county, including, but not limited to, a law enforcement agency, from selling, sharing, or transferring automated license plate recognition (ALPR) information, except to another public agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law. Existing law defines ALPR information as information or data collected through the use of an ALPR system. This bill would provide that "public agency" does not include a transportation agency, a public transit operator, or a local department of transportation or public works department, as specified. The bill would, beginning January 1, 2026, require new, updated, expansions of, or addendums of contractual agreements with ALPR vendors, manufacturers, or suppliers to mandate that no default access is provided to any national ALPR database and that an agency's collected scans are by default not accessible to any other agency, and would impose new requirements on sharing between California state law enforcement agencies. The bill would authorize a law enforcement agency to use ALPR information only for purposes of locating vehicles or persons when either are reasonably suspected of being involved in the commission of a public offense. The bill would prohibit a public agency from retaining ALPR information for more than 60 days after the date of collection if it does not match information on an authorized hot list, as defined, and as of January 1, 2026, would require a public agency to delete all ALPR information that has been held for more than 60 days and does not match information on an authorized hot list within 14 days. By imposing new requirements on public agencies, which include local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law defines an ALPR operator as a person that operates an ALPR system, which does not include a transportation agency. Existing law defines an ALPR end-user a person that accesses or uses an ALPR system, which does not include, among other things, a transportation agency. This bill would additionally exclude from the definitions of "ALPR operator" and "ALPR end-user" a public transit operator, a local department of transportation or public works department, or an airport or airport operator, as provided. Existing law requires an ALPR operator and ALPR end-user to maintain reasonable security procedures and practices, including operational, administrative, technical, and physical safeguards, to protect ALPR information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure. This bill would require those security procedures and practices to include safeguards for managing which employees can see the data from their systems, as specified, and requiring data security training and data privacy training for all employees that access ALPR information. Existing law requires an ALPR operator and ALPR end-user to implement a usage and privacy policy that includes, among other things, a description of the job title or other designation of the employees and independent contractors who are authorized to access and use ALPR information. This bill would require the usage and privacy policy to identify what purpose employees and independent contractors access and use ALPR information for. The bill would also require the Department of Justice to, contingent upon an appropriation of sufficient funds, conduct annual random audits on a public agency that is an ALPR operator or ALPR end-user to determine whether they have implemented and are adhering to that usage and privacy policy. Existing law requires an ALPR operator that accesses or provides access to ALPR information to require that ALPR information only be used for the authorized purposes described in the usage and privacy policy and to maintain a record of that access that includes, among other things, the purpose for accessing the information. This bill would instead require that record of access maintained by the ALPR operator to include the case file number or task force name, as applicable, that justifies the search query, and would provide that no queries shall be allowed without a log entry with a valid and current case file number or task force name from the agency conducting the query. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. 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.
failed · California · Assembly Feb 2, 2026

AB 297: Arson: penalties.

Existing law requires that a person who is convicted of felony arson, in addition to the term of imprisonment for the felony, be punished by a 3-, 4-, or 5-year enhancement if one or more of any specified circumstances is found to be true, including that the defendant caused multiple structures to burn in a single violation. This bill would additionally authorize the 3-, 4-, or 5-year enhancement for a person who proximately causes 500 or more acres of forest land to burn. By expanding the scope of the enhancement, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
failed · California · Assembly Feb 2, 2026

AB 1396: Crimes: sexual assault.

Existing law provides that, except as specified, a person who assaults another with the intent to commit, among other things, mayhem, rape, sodomy, or oral copulation, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 2, 4, or 6 years. Existing law provides that a person who commits those offenses against a person under 18 years of age shall be punished by imprisonment for 5, 7, or 9 years. This bill would additionally punish assault with the intent to commit those specified offenses when committed against a dependent person, as defined, by a caretaker or other adult who has care or custody of the dependent person, if the caretaker or other adult knows or should reasonably know that the victim is a dependent person, with imprisonment for 5, 7, or 9 years. By expanding the definition of a crime, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
failed · California · Assembly Feb 2, 2026

AB 1483: Supervision: violations.

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.
failed · California · Assembly Feb 2, 2026

AB 355: Crimes: extortion.

Existing law defines extortion as the obtaining of property from another, with consent, or the obtaining of an official act of a public officer, induced by a wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right. Existing law further provides that fear sufficient to constitute extortion may be induced by certain threats, including a threat to accuse the threatened individual, or the individual's relative or family, of a crime. This bill would provide that a threat to post, distribute, or create AI-generated images or videos of another may also induce fear sufficient to constitute extortion. By expanding the crime of extortion, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
signed · California · Assembly Oct 13, 2025

AB 572: Criminal procedure: interrogations.

Existing law prohibits the prosecuting attorney, attorney for the defendant, or investigator for either the prosecution or the defendant from interviewing, questioning, or speaking to a victim or witness whose name has been disclosed pursuant to existing law without first clearly identifying themselves and identifying the full name of the agency by whom they are employed, and identifying whether they represent, or have been retained by, the prosecution or the defendant. Under existing law, if an interview takes place in person, the party is also required to show the victim or witness a business card, official badge, or other form of official identification before commencing the interview or questioning. This bill would require a peace officer, as defined, or a prosecuting attorney, before any initial formal interview of an immediate family member of a person who has been killed or seriously injured by a peace officer, to clearly identify themselves and if the interview takes place in person, to show identification, to inform the person of the status of their family member, to inform the person that they are conducting a formal interview for the purposes of an investigation, as specified, and to inform the person that they have a choice to come to the station for the formal interview if they are asked to go and can have a trusted support person with them. The bill would provide that its provisions do not apply if the immediate family member is under custodial interrogation, as specified, or if the delay would result in the loss or destruction of evidence or pose an imminent threat to public safety. By increasing duties on local law enforcement, 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.
signed · California · Assembly Oct 13, 2025

AB 1071: Criminal procedure: discrimination.

Existing law prohibits the state from seeking, obtaining, or imposing a criminal conviction or sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. Under existing law, a defendant may pursue relief for a violation of this prohibition by filing a motion pursuant to the provisions that prohibit this conduct, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, or a motion to vacate a conviction or sentence. This bill would authorize the defendant in these proceedings to file a motion for disclosure of all relevant evidence related to a potential violation of the prohibition on the state seeking, obtaining, or imposing a criminal conviction or sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin, as specified. The bill would also authorize the court to remedy a violation of these provisions with any other remedy not prohibited by another law. The bill would make other technical changes. This bill makes legislative findings and declarations in support of its provisions. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 745, 1473, and 1473.7 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 734 to be operative only if this bill and SB 734 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
signed · California · Senate Oct 12, 2025

SB 281: Pleas: immigration advisement.

Existing law requires the court, prior to the acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, to advise the defendant that if they are not a citizen, conviction of the crime charged may result in deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization. After January 1, 1978, if the court fails to advise the defendant, as required, and the defendant shows that conviction of the offense to which the defendant pleaded guilty or nolo contendere may have the consequences for the defendant of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States, the court, on the defendant's motion, is required to vacate the judgment and permit the defendant to withdraw the plea of guilty or nolo contendere, and enter a plea of not guilty. This bill would require the court to give the above-described advisement verbatim and would clarify the advisement to state that if the defendant is not a citizen of the United States, conviction may result in the specified immigration consequences. The bill would state that for a plea accepted prior to January 1, 2026, it is not the intent of the Legislature that a court's failure to provide the advisement verbatim requires vacation of judgment and withdrawal of the plea or constitutes grounds for finding a prior conviction invalid, as specified.
signed · California · Assembly Oct 11, 2025

AB 1094: Crimes: torture of a minor: parole.

Existing law makes a person who, with the intent to cause cruel or extreme pain and suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or for any sadistic purpose, inflicts great bodily injury upon the person of another guilty of torture, and makes the crime punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of life. Existing law specifies that an inmate imprisoned under a life sentence shall not be paroled until they have served a term of at least 7 years or as established pursuant to a law that establishes a minimum term. This bill would prohibit a person imprisoned for committing the crime of torture from being eligible for parole until they have served at least 10 years, if the defendant is an adult who had care or custody of the victim and the victim was 14 years of age or younger at the time of the crime. By creating a new sentencing enhancement, 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.
Showing 31 to 40 of 53 bills
Previous 1 … 3 4 5 … 6 Next