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
15
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 11–15 of 15 bills

All criminal justice bills

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.
signed · California · Assembly Oct 6, 2025

AB 383: Firearms: prohibition: minors.

Existing law prohibits a juvenile who is adjudged a ward of the juvenile court due to the commission of specified serious or violent offenses from subsequently owning, possessing, or having under their custody or control a firearm until they are 30 years of age. A violation of this prohibition is punishable as a misdemeanor or as a felony. Existing law also prohibits certain other persons, including a person who is convicted of a felony offense, from owning, possessing, or having under their custody or control a firearm or ammunition. Existing law requires a person subject to those orders to relinquish any firearms or ammunition they own, possess, or have under their custody or control and specifies the procedures to be used to relinquish those firearms or ammunition. Those procedures, among other things, require the court to provide specific instructions to the defendant and to assign the matter to a probation officer to investigate whether the defendant owns, possesses, or has under their custody or control any firearms, require a law enforcement agency to update the Automated Firearms System to reflect any firearms that were relinquished to the agency pursuant to these procedures, and require a defendant to timely file a completed Prohibited Persons Relinquishment Form. Existing law makes it an infraction for a defendant to fail to timely file that form. This bill would make those procedures to relinquish firearms or ammunition applicable to a juvenile who is prohibited from owning, possessing, or having under their custody or control a firearm until they are 30 years of age. By expanding the scope of a crime and expanding the duties of local probation departments and law enforcement agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law allows a search warrant to be issued upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, naming or describing the person to be searched or searched for, and particularly describing the property, thing, or things and the place to be searched. Existing law also specifies the grounds upon which a search warrant may be issued, including, among other grounds, that the property or things to be seized include a firearm that is owned by, or in the possession of, or in the custody or control of, a person prohibited from owning, possessing, or having the custody and control of a firearm pursuant to specified provisions of law, and the court has made a finding that the person has failed to relinquish the firearm as required by law. This bill would additionally allow a search warrant to be issued when the property or things to be seized include a firearm that is owned by, or in the possession of, or in the custody or control of, a juvenile who is subject to the prohibition on owning or possessing a firearm until they are 30 years of age when the court has made a finding that the person has failed to relinquish the firearm as required by law. This bill would declare that its provisions are severable. 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
signed · California · Assembly Oct 6, 2025

AB 847: Peace officers: confidentiality of records.

Existing law, the California Public Records Act, authorizes the inspection and copying of any public record except where specifically prohibited by law. Existing law, with specified exemptions, makes confidential the personnel records of peace officers and custodial officers and certain other records maintained by their employing agencies. Existing law provides that this exemption from disclosure does not apply to investigations of these officers or their employing agencies or to related proceedings conducted by a grand jury, a district attorney's office, or the Attorney General's office. This bill would additionally grant access to the confidential personnel records of peace officers and custodial officers and records maintained by their employing agencies, as specified, to civilian law enforcement oversight boards or commissions during investigations or related proceedings concerning the conduct of those officers. The bill would require those oversight boards to maintain the confidentiality of those records, and would authorize them to conduct closed sessions, as specified, to review confidential records. The bill would additionally authorize a county inspector general to access those personnel records, as specified. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 832.7 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 1178 and AB 1388 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1178 or AB 1388 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
signed · California · Assembly Oct 1, 2025

AB 394: Public transportation providers.

Existing law defines a battery as any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another. Existing law provides that when a battery is committed against the person of an operator, driver, or passenger on a bus, taxicab, streetcar, cable car, trackless trolley, or other motor vehicle, as specified, and the person who commits the offense knows or reasonably should know that the victim is engaged in the performance of their duties, the penalty is imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, a fine not exceeding $10,000, or both the fine and imprisonment. Existing law also provides that if the victim is injured, the offense would be punished by a fine not exceeding $10,000, by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison for 16 months, 2, or 3 years, or by both that fine and imprisonment. This bill would expand this crime to apply to an employee, public transportation provider, or contractor of a public transportation provider. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law authorizes any employer or collective bargaining representative whose employee has suffered harassment, unlawful violence, or a credible threat of violence from any individual, which can reasonably be construed to be carried out or to have been carried out at the workplace, to seek a temporary restraining order and an injunction on behalf of the employee and other employees of the employer. This bill would clarify that "unlawful violence" includes battery committed against the person of an operator, driver, or passenger on a bus, taxicab, streetcar, cable car, trackless trolley, or other motor vehicle, as specified, or against an employee, public transportation provider, or contractor of a public transportation provider. The bill would also clarify that the definition of "employer" for the above-described provision includes a joint powers authority or a public transit operator. 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 · California · Assembly Aug 29, 2025

AB 358: Criminal procedure: privacy.

Existing law, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, prohibits a government entity from compelling the production of, or access to, electronic communication information or electronic device information, as defined, without a search warrant, wiretap order, order for electronic reader records, or subpoena issued pursuant to specified conditions. Existing law authorizes a government entity to access electronic device information by means of physical interaction or electronic communication with the device in certain circumstances, including, pursuant to the specific consent of the authorized possessor of the device or if the government entity, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to a person requires access to the information. Existing law requires a government entity that obtains electronic information pursuant to an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to a person, within 3 court days after obtaining the electronic information, to file with the appropriate court an application for a warrant or order setting forth the facts giving rise to the emergency. Existing law requires the court to promptly rule on the application and to destroy all information obtained upon a finding that the facts did not give rise to an emergency or upon rejecting the application on any other ground. This bill would additionally authorize a government entity to access electronic device information with the specific consent of an individual who locates a tracking or surveillance device, as defined, and the device is reasonably believed to have been used to track or record the individual without their permission. The bill would require a government entity that obtains information through this method, within 3 court days after obtaining the electronic information, to follow the above process for applying for a warrant or order from a court by setting forth the facts that describe the circumstances and would require the court to promptly rule on the application and order the immediate destruction of all information obtained upon a finding that the facts were not as described. Existing law authorizes an individual whose information is targeted by a warrant, order, or other legal process, or other specified recipients of a warrant, that is inconsistent with the act or the California or United States Constitution, to petition the issuing court to void or modify the warrant, order, or process, or to order the destruction of any information obtained in violation of the act or the California or United States Constitution. This bill would recast the provisions described above to authorize an individual whose information is sought or obtained by a government entity in a manner that is inconsistent with the act or the California or United States Constitution, or other specified recipients of a warrant, order, legal process, request, or demand seeking the individual's information, to petition a court to void or modify the warrant, order, other legal process, request, or demand to order the destruction of the information.
Showing 11 to 15 of 15 bills