California 20252026 Regular Session Status: Introduced

SB 277 — Criminal procedure: search of persons.

Last action — Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. 1
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been introduced in the Senate. Introduced February 04, 2025. It must pass committee before a floor vote.

Next likely step: a committee referral and hearing.

Prognosis

Stalled 26% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

Low

How often bills like it became law.

  • Introduced

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 2 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

Existing provisions of the United States and California Constitutions ensure the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against warrantless seizures and searches. Case law establishes exceptions to this right, including allowing a peace officer to conduct a limited search of a person for firearms or weapons if the peace officer reasonably concludes that the person detained may be armed and presently dangerous to the peace officer or others, or if the person consents to a search. This bill would authorize a peace officer to request consent to search an individual, their property, or their effects only if the officer is investigating a crime and has reasonable suspicion that the individual to be searched has an item in their possession that is evidence of criminal activity. The bill would require the officer to follow a specified procedure in a specified order, including advising the individual that their consent is voluntary, explaining to the individual the scope of the search, and recording the individual's consent. The bill would prohibit an officer from exceeding the scope of the search explained to the individual and would require the officer to discontinue the search if the individual withdraws their consent. The bill would authorize searches based on unsolicited consent if the officer follows specified procedures. The bill would require an officer to record the required actions they performed before and during a consensual search consistent with the policies of their employing agency. Because the bill would impose requirements on local law enforcement, 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, 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 Text

Action History

  1. Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. January 22 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

  3. Set for hearing January 22.

  4. May 23 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

  5. Set for hearing May 23.

  6. April 21 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  7. Set for hearing April 21.

  8. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 1. Page 708.) (April 8). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  9. Set for hearing April 8.

  10. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  11. April 1 set for first hearing canceled at the request of author.

  12. Set for hearing April 1.

  13. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  14. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 7.

  15. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Weber Pierson · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 1 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Weber Pierson

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Subjects

public-safety
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 277 do?
Existing provisions of the United States and California Constitutions ensure the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against warrantless seizures and searches. Case law establishes exceptions to this right, including allowing a peace officer to conduct a limited search of a person for firearms or weapons if the peace officer reasonably concludes that the person detained may be armed and presently dangerous to the peace officer or others, or if the person consents to a search. This bill would authorize a peace officer to request consent to search an individual, their property, or their effects only if the officer is investigating a crime and has reasonable suspicion that the individual to be searched has an item in their possession that is evidence of criminal activity. The bill would require the officer to follow a specified procedure in a specified order, including advising the individual that their consent is voluntary, explaining to the individual the scope of the search, and recording the individual's consent. The bill would prohibit an officer from exceeding the scope of the search explained to the individual and would require the officer to discontinue the search if the individual withdraws their consent. The bill would authorize searches based on unsolicited consent if the officer follows specified procedures. The bill would require an officer to record the required actions they performed before and during a consensual search consistent with the policies of their employing agency. Because the bill would impose requirements on local law enforcement, 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, 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.
Who sponsors SB 277?
SB 277 is sponsored by Weber Pierson.
What is the current status of SB 277?
This bill has been introduced in the Senate. Introduced February 04, 2025. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
Where can I track SB 277?
Track SB 277 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 277

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 277

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →