AB 1727 — Crimes: theft of DNA.
Last action — In committee: Held under submission.
-
1Introduced
-
2In Committee
-
3Passed Assembly
-
4Passed Senate
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill has been introduced in the Assembly. Introduced February 05, 2026. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
Next likely step: a committee referral and hearing.
Odds of enactment
Low chanceBased on the sponsor, cosponsors, and committee posture, this bill has a low chance of becoming law.
Upgrade to see the exact probability and what's driving it.
A statistical estimate from our own model of past outcomes — an insight, not a guarantee. Policymaking is volatile.
Prognosis
-
Introduced
Current position in the legislative process.
-
1 sponsor
1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.
-
Single-party support
Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 R).
-
Cleared a recorded vote
Passed 2 recorded votes so far.
Based on stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes, and cross-state momentum — a description of the observable signals, not a prediction.
Summary
Existing law, the Genetic Information Privacy Act, requires a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company, as defined, to provide a consumer with certain information regarding the company's policies and procedures for the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure, as applicable, of genetic data, and to obtain a consumer's express consent for collection, use, or disclosure of the consumer's genetic data, as specified. Existing law assesses a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000 for a negligent violation of these provisions, and a civil penalty between $1,000 and $10,000, inclusive, for a willful violation of these provisions. This bill would require all local law enforcement agencies in the state to report to the Attorney General starting July 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, the number of reports filed in the past year on the theft of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and the current status of those cases. The bill would require the Attorney General to, on or before January 1, 2028, report to the Legislature, and post on its internet website, the number of police reports filed on the theft of DNA and the current status of those cases. 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.
Bill Text
- Amended 04/23/26 - Amended Assembly Current pdf April 23, 2026
- Amended 03/19/26 - Amended Assembly pdf March 19, 2026
- Introduced 02/05/26 - Introduced pdf February 05, 2026
- AB1727 View text html
Action History
-
In committee: Held under submission.
-
Joint Rule 62(a), file notice suspended. (Page 5030.)
-
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
-
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
Read second time and amended.
-
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (April 21).
-
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
-
Re-referred to Com. on P. & C.P.
-
Read second time and amended.
-
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on P. & C.P. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (March 17).
-
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
-
Referred to Coms. on PUB. S. and P. & C.P.
-
From printer. May be heard in committee March 8.
-
Read first time. To print.
Sponsors
- Tri Ta · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Ta, Tri Republican
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.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (15)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca | Democratic | Yea |
| Bryan, Isaac G. | Democratic | Yea |
| Irwin, Jacqui | Democratic | Yea |
| Lowenthal, Josh | Democratic | Yea |
| McKinnor, Tina | Democratic | Yea |
| Ortega, Liz | Democratic | Yea |
| Pellerin, Gail | Democratic | Yea |
| Petrie-Norris, Cottie | Democratic | Yea |
| Ward, Christopher M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Wicks, Buffy | Democratic | Yea |
| Wilson, Lori D. | Democratic | Yea |
| DeMaio, Carl | Republican | Yea |
| Hoover, Josh | Republican | Yea |
| Macedo, Alexandra | Republican | Yea |
| Patterson, Joe | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (9)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| González, Mark | Democratic | Yea |
| Haney, Matt | Democratic | Yea |
| Harabedian, John | Democratic | Yea |
| Nguyen, Stephanie | Democratic | Yea |
| Ramos, James C. | Democratic | Yea |
| Schultz, Nick | Democratic | Yea |
| Sharp-Collins, LaShae | Democratic | Yea |
| Alanis, Juan | Republican | Yea |
| Lackey, Tom | Republican | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does AB 1727 do?
- Existing law, the Genetic Information Privacy Act, requires a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company, as defined, to provide a consumer with certain information regarding the company's policies and procedures for the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure, as applicable, of genetic data, and to obtain a consumer's express consent for collection, use, or disclosure of the consumer's genetic data, as specified. Existing law assesses a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000 for a negligent violation of these provisions, and a civil penalty between $1,000 and $10,000, inclusive, for a willful violation of these provisions. This bill would require all local law enforcement agencies in the state to report to the Attorney General starting July 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, the number of reports filed in the past year on the theft of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and the current status of those cases. The bill would require the Attorney General to, on or before January 1, 2028, report to the Legislature, and post on its internet website, the number of police reports filed on the theft of DNA and the current status of those cases. 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.
- Who sponsors AB 1727?
- AB 1727 is sponsored by Ta, Tri (Republican).
- What is the current status of AB 1727?
- This bill has been introduced in the Assembly. Introduced February 05, 2026. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
- Where can I track AB 1727?
- Track AB 1727 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on AB 1727
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.
Stay ahead of AB 1727
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →