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
353
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 Votes
Anna Caballero
Anna Caballero Senate · District 14
D
Strong +
92% 732
Joaquin Arambula
Joaquin Arambula House · District 31
D
Strong +
92% 528
Celeste Rodriguez
Celeste Rodriguez House · District 43
D
Strong +
91% 364
Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Rebecca Bauer-Kahan House · District 16
D
Strong +
91% 467
Aisha Wahab
Aisha Wahab Senate · District 10
D
Strong +
90% 765
Phillip Chen
Phillip Chen House · District 59
R
Strong −
8% 316
Heath Flora
Heath Flora House · District 9
R
Strong −
11% 275
Brian Jones
Brian Jones Senate · District 40
R
Strong −
11% 398
Carl DeMaio
Carl DeMaio House · District 75
R
Strong −
12% 468
Ali Macedo
Ali Macedo House · District 33
R
Strong −
12% 532
Showing 101–110 of 353 bills

All criminal justice bills

failed · California · Assembly Apr 20, 2026

AB 2284: Electric bicycles: Attorney General list.

Existing law establishes the Department of Justice under the direction and control of the Attorney General. Existing law requires each state and local agency that employs peace officers to annually report to the Attorney General data on all stops conducted by that agency's peace officers for the preceding calendar year, in accordance with a specified procedure. This bill would require, on or before June 1, 2027, the office of the Attorney General, in partnership with biking nonprofit groups, to compile a list of electric two-wheeled devices that do not comply with the definition of any single class of electric bicycles and that are labeled, advertised, or commonly perceived by riders or peace officers as electric bicycles or electric bicycle products. The bill would require the Attorney General to make the list available on its internet website and to update the list and internet website, when necessary.
in committee · California · Assembly Apr 13, 2026

AB 1676: Mental health services: assisted outpatient treatment: involuntary medication.

Existing law, known as Laura's Law, requires a county or group of counties to provide assisted outpatient treatment as part of mental health services, unless a county or group of counties opts out by a resolution passed by the governing body, as specified. For participating counties, existing law authorizes a court to order a person who is the subject of a certain petition to obtain assisted outpatient treatment if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that various conditions are met, including, among others, that the person is experiencing a mental illness and that the person has a history of lack of compliance with treatment for their mental illness, as specified. Existing law sets forth certain rights of the person relating to the hearing and imposes conditions on an extension to an initial treatment order. This bill would authorize the county behavioral health director, or their designee, to file a petition for an order authorizing the use of involuntary psychotropic medication independent of, or concurrently with, a petition for assisted outpatient treatment. The bill would authorize a court to issue an order for the use of involuntary medication if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the facts stated in the required verified petition are true and establish that, among other things, a licensed mental health treatment provider has determined the person who is the subject of the petition has a serious mental disorder. The bill would specify rights that the person who is the subject of the petition is entitled to, including the right to demand a court or jury trial on the issue or issues of whether the person has a serious mental disorder, the person does not have the capacity to refuse treatment with psychotropic medications, or the psychotropic medications are necessary to prevent a relapse or deterioration that would be likely to result in grave disability or serious harm to the person or to others. The bill would provide the procedure for filing of the petition and setting of a trial date. The bill would prohibit any order for involuntary medication until the conclusion of the court or jury trial. The bill would authorize a licensed mental health provider who is a member of the assisted outpatient treatment services team to request that first responders take the subject of the petition into custody and transport the person, or cause the person to be transported, to a designated facility for the administration of the court-ordered medication if specified conditions are met. If the court grants the petition for involuntary psychotropic medication, the bill would require the county behavioral health director, or their designee, to file an affidavit with the court, as specified, affirming that the person who is the subject of the order continues to meet the criteria for the involuntary medication order and whether any medication changes pursuant to authorization occurred during the prior 60 days. By expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also prohibit criminal or civil liability for an individual authorized to take custody of and transport individuals with an involuntary medication order issued pursuant to these provisions exercising this authority in accordance with the law. 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.
Sub-Topics Courts Mental Health
passed · California · Assembly Aug 13, 2026

AB 1810: Firearms: dealer centralized list.

Existing law requires the Department of Justice to keep a centralized list of all persons who are licensed firearms dealers and satisfy certain requirements, including having a valid federal firearms license and a regulatory or business license required by local government. Existing law requires the department to remove a person from the list if the person's federal license has expired or been revoked. Existing law, beginning on January 1, 2024, requires the department to conduct inspections of firearms dealers at least every 3 years, except as provided, to ensure compliance with specified requirements. As part of the department's inspections of firearms dealers, existing law requires the department to audit a dealer's records that includes a sampling of at least 25% but no more than 50% of each record type. Existing law requires the department to assess annual fees not to exceed specified amounts to cover the reasonable costs of inspecting and maintaining this list and other similar centralized lists. This bill would require the department to remove from the list a person who fails to comply with the requirements to be on the list and authorize the department to remove a person from the list who fails to remedy specified violations discovered as a result of the above-described inspections. The bill would subject a person removed from the list for failure to remedy specified violations to a fine and would authorize that person to be ineligible to be placed on the list for a period of 2 years. The bill would require the department to conduct a yearly inspection of the 10 firearm dealer locations with the highest percentage of firearms that were recovered by law enforcement and found to be illegally possessed, used in a crime, or suspected to have been used in a crime, as specified, pursuant to a certain yearly report. The bill would, for the fees charged for inspecting and maintaining the above-described lists, instead require the department to assess a reasonable annual fee. The bill would prohibit a fee adjustment from exceeding 15% over the previous year and exceeding the amount necessary to cover the costs described above.
passed both · California · Assembly Aug 25, 2026

AB 2297: Restitution: diversion.

Existing law requires a court to, in every case where a person is convicted of a crime, order restitution to the victim or victims, as specified. Existing law creates and authorizes a number of diversion and deferred entry of judgment programs, which either defer entry of a plea of guilty by the defendant or postpone the proceedings of the case as long as the defendant participates in the program. Existing law requires the court to dismiss the plea or charges if the defendant has performed satisfactorily during the program. This bill would require the court to order restitution to the victims or victims when a defendant participates in a diversion program, provided that the defendant is informed of their right to have a judicial determination of the amount of restitution and is provided with a hearing, waives a hearing, or stipulates to the amount of restitution ordered. If the court finds restitution is owed pursuant to this provision, the bill would require the court to order payment of restitution during the period of diversion. The bill would prohibit a defendant's inability to pay restitution due to indigence or mental disorder from being grounds for denial of diversion or a finding that the defendant failed to comply with the terms of diversion. The bill would require an order for restitution to be suspended until the resolution of criminal proceedings if a defendant withdraws from diversion or fails to complete the terms of diversion.
Sub-Topics Courts Victims' Rights
passed · California · Senate Aug 13, 2026

SB 1022: Human trafficking: California Multidisciplinary Alliance to Stop Trafficking Act.

Under existing law, a person who deprives or violates the personal liberty of another with the intent to obtain forced labor or services, or for the purpose of prostitution or sexual exploitation, is guilty of the crime of human trafficking and subject to imprisonment. This bill would, upon appropriation by the Legislature, establish the California Multidisciplinary Alliance to Stop Trafficking Act (California MAST) task force to review collaborative models between governmental and nongovernmental organizations for protecting victims and survivors of trafficking, among other related duties. The task force would be composed of specified state officials or their designees and specified individuals who have expertise in human trafficking or providing services to victims of human trafficking, as specified. The bill would require the task force to hold its first meeting no later than July 1, 2027, and would require the task force to meet at least 4 times. The bill would require the task force to, on or before January 1, 2029, and annually thereafter, report its findings and recommendations to the Office of Emergency Services, the Governor, the Attorney General, and the Legislature. The bill would make related findings and declarations.
Sub-Topics Human Trafficking
passed both · California · Assembly Aug 27, 2026

AB 2122: Infractions: warrants and penalties.

(1) Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to willfully fail to appear in court, as specified. Existing law, when a person has failed to appear and has not posted bail, requires the magistrate to issue a warrant for the person's arrest within 20 days of the failure to appear. This bill would make those sections only apply when the underlying charge is not an infraction. (2) Existing law authorizes the issuance of a bench warrant of arrest when a person fails to appear in court as promised in specified criminal proceedings. This bill would prohibit the issuance of a bench warrant of arrest when the underlying crime is an infraction issued pursuant to the Vehicle Code. The bill would require bench warrants for other infractions to be limited to only authorizing arrest and booking at the scene followed by immediate release, as specified. (3) Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to willfully fail to appear in court for a violation of the Vehicle Code, and requires the court to report a conviction of this offense to the Department of Motor Vehicles. This bill would make that misdemeanor only apply when the underlying charge is not an infraction. The bill would also remove the requirement for the court to report a conviction of this offense to the department. (4) Existing law authorizes the imposition of a civil assessment or the issuance of an arrest warrant when a person fails to make an installment payment on bail imposed by the court for an infraction violation of the Vehicle Code. Existing law also makes it a misdemeanor to fail to pay bail in installments or to fail to pay a fine imposed for the violation of a state or local traffic law. This bill would remove the misdemeanor for failure to pay a bail installment or fine if the original charge was an infraction. The bill would remove the authorization to issue an arrest warrant for failure to pay a bail installment. (5) Existing law, if a defendant does not appear at the time the case is called for a violation of the Vehicle Code, authorizes the court to declare the bail forfeited and order that no further proceedings be had in the case, or to issue a warrant for the arrest of the defendant. However, if a defendant is charged with specified crimes, including disposing of a flaming or glowing substance on or near a road and littering a highway, has previously been convicted of the same crime, and fails to appear at the time the case is called to trial, existing law authorizes the court to declare the bail forfeited and requires the court to issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the person charged, unless the magistrate finds that undue hardship will be imposed by requiring the defendant to appear. This bill would remove the requirement that the magistrate issue a bench warrant when the person has committed one of the crimes specified above.
Sub-Topics Courts Judges
passed both · California · Assembly Aug 28, 2026

AB 1749: Interfering with wildfire suppression and emergency responses with drone.

Existing law makes it a crime for a person to operate or use an unmanned aerial vehicle, remote-piloted aircraft, or drone at the scene of an emergency for the purpose of viewing the scene or emergency or military personnel, and thereby impede the emergency or military personnel, in the performance of their duties in coping with the emergency. Existing law excuses a local public entity or public employee from liability for damage to an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the local public entity or public employee of a local public entity was providing, and the unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system was interfering with, the operation, support, or enabling of any emergency service, as specified. Existing law makes everyone responsible for an injury occasioned to another by their want of ordinary care or skill in the management of their property or person, as provided. This bill would prohibit a person from operating or using an unmanned aerial vehicle, remote-piloted aircraft, or drone to knowingly or recklessly interfere with, among other things, a wildfire suppression or law enforcement or emergency response efforts related to a wildfire suppression. The bill would authorize the Attorney General or a county counsel or city attorney to bring civil action to enforce the prohibition and authorize a prevailing plaintiff to recover civil penalties, injunctive relief, or reasonable attorney's fees and costs, as specified.
Sub-Topics Law Enforcement
in committee · California · Assembly May 28, 2026

AB 2095: Employment discrimination: conviction history.

Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, except as specified, makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer with 5 or more employees to include on any application for employment, before the employer makes a conditional offer of employment to the applicant, any question that seeks the disclosure of an applicant's conviction history, to consider the conviction history of the applicant until after the employer has made a conditional offer of employment to the applicant, or to distribute information about an arrest not followed by conviction, referral to or participation in a pretrial or posttrial diversion program, or convictions that have been sealed, dismissed, expunged, or statutorily eradicated or any conviction for which the convicted person has received a full pardon or has been issued a certificate of rehabilitation while conducting a conviction history background check in connection with an application for employment, as specified. This bill would define the term "conviction or arrest record," for these purposes. The bill would include among those things that it is unlawful for an employer with 5 or more employees to do while conducting a conviction history background check in connection with an application for employment, asking any question that directly or indirectly seeks consent for a conviction history background check or requesting consent for or beginning a conviction history background check before providing the applicant with a list of all essential job duties, requiring a job applicant to cover the cost of a conviction history background check, or requiring any time before or after the conditional job offer, that an applicant self-disclose conviction history or provide the employer with any documentary evidence related to conviction history or rehabilitation, as specified. Existing law requires an employer that intends to deny an applicant a position of employment solely or in part because of the applicant's conviction history to make an individualized assessment of whether the applicant's conviction history has a direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of the job that justify denying the applicant the position considering specified factors. This bill, instead, would prohibit an employer from denying an applicant a position of employment or taking any other adverse action solely or in part because of the applicant's conviction history unless the employer first, reasonably and in good faith, demonstrates via an individualized assessment, that the applicant's conviction history has a direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of the job that justifies denying the applicant the position and it complies with a specified process. The bill would require the employer to commit the results of the individualized assessment to writing if it makes a decision to deny a position of employment or takes any adverse action. The bill would specify that it is not an adverse action for an employer to temporarily suspend an employee, with pay and for a reasonable amount of time, while the employer complies with the requirements of these provisions. Existing law makes these provisions inapplicable to a position as a farm labor contractor, as specified or to a position where an employer or agent thereof is required by any state, federal, or local law to conduct criminal background checks for employment purposes or to restrict employment based on criminal history. This bill would remove the exemption for farm labor contractors.
in committee · California · Assembly Apr 9, 2026

AB 2570: Elderly Parole Program.

Existing law establishes the Elderly Parole Program for the purpose of reviewing the parole suitability of inmates who are 50 years of age or older and who have served a minimum of 20 years of continuous incarceration on their sentence. This bill would raise the minimum age limitation for that program to 65 years of age.
Sub-Topics Corrections Probation & Parole Tags Seniors
passed both · California · Senate Aug 27, 2026

SB 1242: Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Court Program.

Existing law, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, authorizes specified adult persons to petition a civil court to create a voluntary CARE agreement or a court-ordered CARE plan and implement services, to be provided by county behavioral health agencies, to provide behavioral health care, including stabilization medication, housing, and other enumerated services, to adults who are currently experiencing a severe mental illness and have a diagnosis identified in the disorder class schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, and who meet other specified criteria. Existing law authorizes specified individuals to file a petition to commence the CARE process, including, but not limited to, a spouse, parent, sibling, child, grandparent, or an individual who stands in loco parentis to the respondent. Existing law requires the court to issue an order relieving the original petitioner if the petitioner is someone other than the director of a county behavioral health agency or their designee and appoint the director or their designee as the successor petitioner. Existing law requires the original petitioner to have specified rights to notice of proceedings if the petitioner is a parent or specified family member or the person with whom the respondent resides. Existing law authorizes the court to allow the original petitioner to participate in the respondent's CARE proceedings to the extent the respondent consents. This bill would authorize the original petitioner to provide specified information regarding the respondent, including the respondent's condition, treatment history, and housing status. The bill would require the CARE team to review specified parts of the provided information, including that relevant to the respondent's care and treatment, and would authorize the court to consider that information in evaluating the respondent's progress and compliance, among other things. The bill would specify that the respondent's consent is not required to receive this information from the original petitioner and that submission of this information does not confer party status on the original petitioner or create a right to direct treatment decisions, obtain discovery, access confidential records, receive protected health information, attend confidential proceedings, or otherwise participate in the proceedings without the respondent's consent, except as expressly provided by law.
Showing 101 to 110 of 353 bills
Previous 1 10 11 12 36 Next