California 2009-2010 Regular Session Status: Passed Senate

SB 1168 — Los Angeles: misdemeanor criminal grand jury authority.

Last action — From Assembly without further action.

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

This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

(1) Existing law provides for the impaneling in each county of a grand jury which is generally charged and sworn to inquire into public offenses committed or triable within the county and to investigate or inquire into county matters of civil concern, as specified. Existing law authorizes the presiding judge in any county or city and county, or the judge appointed by the presiding judge to supervise the grand jury, to impanel an additional grand jury upon the request of the Attorney General or the district attorney or upon his or her own motion. Existing law authorizes the presiding judge of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, or the judge appointed by the presiding judge, to supervise the grand jury, to impanel up to 2 additional grand juries, in accordance with specified procedures. This bill would provide, until January 1, 2014, that the presiding judge of the superior court, or the judge appointed by the presiding judge to supervise the grand jury, may, upon the request of the prosecuting city attorney of any city within the County of Los Angeles having a population in excess of 3,000,000 people, order and direct the impanelment of one additional grand jury, in accordance with specified procedures, which may inquire only into matters not under inquiry by the regular grand jury involving environmental, consumer protection, workplace safety, labor, fraud, hate crime, or discrimination violations, and which would have no jurisdiction to return indictments. This bill would, until January 1, 2014, authorize the prosecuting city attorney to direct this grand jury to convene for the investigation and consideration of those matters involving environmental, consumer protection, workplace safety, labor, fraud, hate crime, or discrimination violations that he or she desires to submit to it, and to take full charge of the presentation of the matters to the grand jury, issue subpoenas, and do all other things incident thereto to the same extent as the Attorney General or district attorney may do, except that the prosecuting city attorney may not prepare indictments. The bill would also provide that a statement of the costs directly related to the impanelment and activities of the grand jury from the presiding judge of the superior court where the grand jury was impaneled that has been certified by the prosecuting attorney shall be submitted to the prosecuting city attorney for reimbursement of the costs to the county and court out of the prosecuting city attorney's own budget. (2) Existing law provides that the grand jury or district attorney may require by subpoena the attendance of any person before the grand jury as interpreter, as specified, and the compensation for the interpreter's services constitutes a charge against the county. This bill would, until January 1, 2014, provide that the prosecuting city attorney of any city within the County of Los Angeles having a population in excess of 3,000,000 people may also require the services of an interpreter and in that case the compensation for the interpreter's services constitutes a charge against the city. (3) Existing law provides that a subpoena requiring the attendance of a witness before the grand jury may be signed and issued by the district attorney, the district attorney's investigator, or, upon request of the grand jury, by any judge of the superior court, for witnesses in the state in support of the prosecution, for those witnesses whose testimony in the judge's opinion is material in an investigation before the grand jury, and for any other witnesses as the grand jury, upon an investigation pending before them, may direct. This bill would, until January 1, 2014, provide that a subpoena requiring the attendance of a witness before the grand jury may also be signed and issued by the prosecuting city attorney of any city within the County of Los Angeles having a population in excess of 3,000,000 people, or by an investigator of a district attorney or prosecuting city attorney, as applicable. (4) By imposing new requirements relating to grand juries, which are county charges, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (5) 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.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. From Assembly without further action.

  2. Returned to Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 62(a).

  3. Set, first hearing. Failed passage in committee.

  4. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  5. Hearing postponed by committee.

  6. To Com. on PUB. S.

  7. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  8. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 24. Noes 9. Page 3696.) To Assembly.

  9. Read second time. To third reading.

  10. Read third time. Amended. To second reading.

  11. (Ayes 31. Noes 0. Page 3522.)

  12. Reconsideration granted.

  13. Motion to reconsider made by Senator Cedillo.

  14. Read third time. Refused passage. (Ayes 18. Noes 11. Page 3522.)

  15. Read second time. To third reading.

  16. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 2. Page 3498.)

  17. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  18. Set for hearing May 10.

  19. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  20. From committee: Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 3309.)

  21. Set for hearing April 20.

  22. Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  23. Set for hearing March 23.

  24. To Com. on PUB. S.

  25. From print. May be acted upon on or after March 21.

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

Sponsors

  • Cedillo · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

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

Sponsors (1)

  • Cedillo

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

Senate 3rd Reading SB1168 Cedillo

Passed 24 Yea · 10 Nay · 5 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 221004
Democratic 1001
Republican 1000
Total 241005
% of votes cast 62%26%0%13%
How each member voted (39)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Huff — Yea
Liu — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Ashburn — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Romero — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Negrete — Nay
Runner — Nay
Ducheny — Nay
Dutton — Nay
Harman — Nay
Hollingsworth — Nay
Kehoe — Not Voting
McLeod — Nay
Oropeza — Not Voting
Walters — Not Voting
Wiggins — Not Voting
Wolk — Yea
Wright — Yea
Aanestad — Nay
Alquist — Yea
Leno — Yea
Price — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Wyland — Yea
Cogdill — Yea
Correa — Yea
Cox — Nay
DeSaulnier — Yea
Denham — Nay
Florez — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Not Voting
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Senate 3rd Reading SB1168 Cedillo Reconsider

Passed 32 Yea · 0 Nay · 7 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 30006
Republican 1000
Democratic 1001
Total 32007
% of votes cast 82%0%0%18%
How each member voted (39)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Florez — Yea
Wyland — Not Voting
Lowenthal — Yea
Negrete — Yea
Runner — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Cogdill — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Hollingsworth — Yea
Huff — Yea
Leno — Yea
Liu — Yea
Oropeza — Not Voting
Price — Yea
Romero — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Walters — Yea
Wiggins — Not Voting
Ashburn — Yea
Corbett — Not Voting
Ducheny — Yea
Dutton — Yea
Wright — Not Voting
Aanestad — Yea
Harman — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
McLeod — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Correa — Yea
Cox — Not Voting
DeSaulnier — Yea
Denham — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Not Voting
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Senate 3rd Reading SB1168 Cedillo

Failed 18 Yea · 12 Nay · 9 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 181107
Republican 0100
Democratic 0002
Total 181209
% of votes cast 46%31%0%23%
How each member voted (39)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Wyland — Not Voting
Lowenthal — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Negrete — Nay
Runner — Nay
Hollingsworth — Nay
Cogdill — Yea
Huff — Yea
Leno — Yea
Oropeza — Not Voting
Ducheny — Nay
Dutton — Nay
Pavley — Yea
Price — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Walters — Nay
Wiggins — Not Voting
Wolk — Yea
Wright — Not Voting
Aanestad — Nay
Alquist — Yea
Ashburn — Yea
Harman — Nay
Kehoe — Not Voting
Liu — Yea
McLeod — Nay
Romero — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Corbett — Not Voting
Correa — Nay
Cox — Not Voting
DeSaulnier — Yea
Denham — Nay
Florez — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Not Voting
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Not Voting
Strickland, Tony Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 7 Yea · 2 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 7202
Total 7202
% of votes cast 64%18%0%18%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Wyland — Yea
Kehoe — Nay
Price — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Walters — Nay
Leno — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Corbett — Not Voting
Cox — Yea
Denham — Not Voting

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights environment labor
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 1168 do?
(1) Existing law provides for the impaneling in each county of a grand jury which is generally charged and sworn to inquire into public offenses committed or triable within the county and to investigate or inquire into county matters of civil concern, as specified. Existing law authorizes the presiding judge in any county or city and county, or the judge appointed by the presiding judge to supervise the grand jury, to impanel an additional grand jury upon the request of the Attorney General or the district attorney or upon his or her own motion. Existing law authorizes the presiding judge of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, or the judge appointed by the presiding judge, to supervise the grand jury, to impanel up to 2 additional grand juries, in accordance with specified procedures. This bill would provide, until January 1, 2014, that the presiding judge of the superior court, or the judge appointed by the presiding judge to supervise the grand jury, may, upon the request of the prosecuting city attorney of any city within the County of Los Angeles having a population in excess of 3,000,000 people, order and direct the impanelment of one additional grand jury, in accordance with specified procedures, which may inquire only into matters not under inquiry by the regular grand jury involving environmental, consumer protection, workplace safety, labor, fraud, hate crime, or discrimination violations, and which would have no jurisdiction to return indictments. This bill would, until January 1, 2014, authorize the prosecuting city attorney to direct this grand jury to convene for the investigation and consideration of those matters involving environmental, consumer protection, workplace safety, labor, fraud, hate crime, or discrimination violations that he or she desires to submit to it, and to take full charge of the presentation of the matters to the grand jury, issue subpoenas, and do all other things incident thereto to the same extent as the Attorney General or district attorney may do, except that the prosecuting city attorney may not prepare indictments. The bill would also provide that a statement of the costs directly related to the impanelment and activities of the grand jury from the presiding judge of the superior court where the grand jury was impaneled that has been certified by the prosecuting attorney shall be submitted to the prosecuting city attorney for reimbursement of the costs to the county and court out of the prosecuting city attorney's own budget. (2) Existing law provides that the grand jury or district attorney may require by subpoena the attendance of any person before the grand jury as interpreter, as specified, and the compensation for the interpreter's services constitutes a charge against the county. This bill would, until January 1, 2014, provide that the prosecuting city attorney of any city within the County of Los Angeles having a population in excess of 3,000,000 people may also require the services of an interpreter and in that case the compensation for the interpreter's services constitutes a charge against the city. (3) Existing law provides that a subpoena requiring the attendance of a witness before the grand jury may be signed and issued by the district attorney, the district attorney's investigator, or, upon request of the grand jury, by any judge of the superior court, for witnesses in the state in support of the prosecution, for those witnesses whose testimony in the judge's opinion is material in an investigation before the grand jury, and for any other witnesses as the grand jury, upon an investigation pending before them, may direct. This bill would, until January 1, 2014, provide that a subpoena requiring the attendance of a witness before the grand jury may also be signed and issued by the prosecuting city attorney of any city within the County of Los Angeles having a population in excess of 3,000,000 people, or by an investigator of a district attorney or prosecuting city attorney, as applicable. (4) By imposing new requirements relating to grand juries, which are county charges, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (5) 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.
Who sponsors SB 1168?
SB 1168 is sponsored by Cedillo.
What is the current status of SB 1168?
This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SB 1168?
Track SB 1168 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 1168

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 1168

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →