California 2015-2016 Regular Session Status: Enacted

AB 666 — Juveniles: sealing of records.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 368, Statutes of 2015.

Track this bill free

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

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

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 24, 2015. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 70% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 8 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 law subjects a person under 18 years of age who commits a crime to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge that person to be a ward of the court, except as specified. Under existing law, juvenile court proceedings to declare a minor a ward of the court are commenced by the filing of a petition by the probation officer, the district attorney after consultation with the probation officer, or the prosecuting attorney, as specified. Existing law requires the juvenile court to order the petition of a minor who is subject to the jurisdiction of the court dismissed if the minor satisfactorily completes a term of probation or an informal program of supervision, as specified, and requires the court to seal all records in the custody of the juvenile court pertaining to that dismissed petition, except as specified. This bill would provide that these provisions do not apply if the petition was sustained based on the commission of certain offenses committed when the individual was 14 years of age or older. The bill would require records pertaining to those cases in the custody of law enforcement agencies, the probation department, or the Department of Justice to be sealed according to a certain procedure. The bill would authorize an individual who has a record that is eligible to be sealed to ask the court to order the sealing of a record pertaining to the case that is in the custody of a public agency other than a law enforcement agency, the probation department, or the Department of Justice. The bill would make records sealed pursuant to this provision available for access or inspection only under specified circumstances. The bill would make related changes. The bill would also require the Judicial Council to adopt rules of court, and make available appropriate forms, providing for the standardized implementation of these provisions by the juvenile courts. By imposing new duties on local agencies relating to sealing juvenile records, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law authorizes a person who is the subject of a juvenile court record, or the county probation officer, to petition the court for the sealing of the records relating to the person's case, including records in the custody of the juvenile court, the probation officer, or any other agencies, including law enforcement agencies and public officials as the petitioner alleges to have custody of the records. Existing law provides that records sealed pursuant to this provision are not open to inspection, except as specified. This bill would additionally make those records open to inspection to comply with data collection or data reporting requirements imposed by other provisions of law and would authorize a court to give a researcher or research organization access to information contained in those records, as specified. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. This bill would incorporate changes to Section 786 of the Welfare and Institutions Code proposed by both this bill and AB 989, which would become operative only if both bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2016, and this bill is chaptered last. 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 these statutory provisions.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 368, Statutes of 2015.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m.

  4. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 42. Noes 34. Page 3146.).

  5. In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.

  6. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 24. Noes 16. Page 2714.).

  7. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  8. Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  9. Measure version as amended on August 31 corrected.

  10. Measure version as amended on August 31 corrected.

  11. Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.

  12. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (August 27).

  13. In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  14. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  15. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.) (July 7).

  16. In committee: Set, first hearing. Testimony taken.

  17. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  18. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  19. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  20. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 42. Noes 33. Page 1767.)

  21. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  22. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 5.) (April 29).

  23. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (April 14). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  24. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  25. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. Read second time and amended.

  26. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  27. From printer. May be heard in committee March 27.

  28. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 12 voted No

Sponsors (1)

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

AB 666 STONE Concurrence in Senate Amendments

Passed 42 Yea · 34 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 392804
Democratic 3100
Republican 0500
Total 423404
% of votes cast 53%43%0%5%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Nay
Alejo — Yea
Bigelow — Nay
Brough — Nay
Brown — Yea
Holden — Yea
Levine — Yea
Maienschein — Nay
Mathis — Nay
Medina — Yea
Perea — Not Voting
Rendon — Yea
Steinorth — Nay
Weber — Yea
Chau — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Chu — Yea
Burke — Yea
Campos — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Lopez — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Low — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Thurmond — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Olsen — Nay
Quirk — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Ting — Yea
Wood — Yea
Salas — Nay
Gatto — Nay
Gray — Nay
Chang — Nay
Chávez — Nay
Harper — Nay
Dababneh — Nay
Baker — Nay
Daly — Nay
Kim — Nay
Linder — Nay
Mayes — Nay
Melendez — Nay
Obernolte — Nay
Rodriguez — Not Voting
Wagner — Nay
Waldron — Nay
Wilk — Nay
Williams — Not Voting
Frazier — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Hadley — Nay
Beth Gaines — Nay
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Nay
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Roger Hernández — Not Voting
Travis Allen — Nay
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Nay
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Gallagher, James Republican Nay
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay
Lackey, Tom Republican Nay

Official roll call →

3rd Reading AB666 Mark Stone By Leno

Passed 24 Yea · 16 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 221500
Democratic 2100
Total 241600
% of votes cast 60%40%0%0%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Nay
Hueso — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Liu — Yea
Moorlach — Nay
Wieckowski — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Hall — Yea
Allen — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
De León — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Leno — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Monning — Yea
Pan — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Cannella — Nay
Runner — Nay
Fuller — Nay
Galgiani — Nay
Bates — Nay
Huff — Nay
Morrell — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Roth — Nay
Vidak — Nay
Hancock — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Mark Stone — Nay
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended

Passed 5 Yea · 2 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5200
Total 5200
% of votes cast 71%29%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Bates — Nay
Beall — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Nielsen — Nay

Official roll call →

Placed on suspense file

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 7000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Bates — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Beall — Yea
Leyva — Yea

Official roll call →

AB 666 STONE Assembly Third Reading

Passed 42 Yea · 33 Nay · 5 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 392605
Democratic 3100
Republican 0600
Total 423305
% of votes cast 53%41%0%6%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Nay
Alejo — Yea
Baker — Nay
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Nay
Brown — Yea
Levine — Yea
Linder — Nay
Mathis — Nay
Nazarian — Yea
Obernolte — Nay
Perea — Nay
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Ting — Yea
Waldron — Nay
Williams — Not Voting
Eggman — Yea
Chávez — Not Voting
Gatto — Nay
Holden — Yea
Burke — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Low — Yea
Lopez — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Medina — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Campos — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Daly — Yea
Dodd — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Frazier — Not Voting
Salas — Nay
Chang — Nay
Gray — Nay
Chau — Yea
Bonilla — Not Voting
Harper — Nay
Kim — Nay
Bigelow — Nay
Chu — Yea
Dababneh — Nay
Maienschein — Nay
Mayes — Nay
Melendez — Nay
Olsen — Nay
Quirk — Yea
Rodriguez — Not Voting
Steinorth — Nay
Thurmond — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Weber — Yea
Wilk — Nay
Wood — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Hadley — Nay
Beth Gaines — Nay
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
Travis Allen — Nay
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Nay
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Gallagher, James Republican Nay
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay
Lackey, Tom Republican Nay
Patterson, Joe Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 12 Yea · 5 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 10300
Democratic 2000
Republican 0200
Total 12500
% of votes cast 71%29%0%0%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Bigelow — Nay
Bloom — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Eggman — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Holden — Yea
Chang — Nay
Daly — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Weber — Yea
Wood — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights
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 AB 666 do?
Existing law subjects a person under 18 years of age who commits a crime to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge that person to be a ward of the court, except as specified. Under existing law, juvenile court proceedings to declare a minor a ward of the court are commenced by the filing of a petition by the probation officer, the district attorney after consultation with the probation officer, or the prosecuting attorney, as specified. Existing law requires the juvenile court to order the petition of a minor who is subject to the jurisdiction of the court dismissed if the minor satisfactorily completes a term of probation or an informal program of supervision, as specified, and requires the court to seal all records in the custody of the juvenile court pertaining to that dismissed petition, except as specified. This bill would provide that these provisions do not apply if the petition was sustained based on the commission of certain offenses committed when the individual was 14 years of age or older. The bill would require records pertaining to those cases in the custody of law enforcement agencies, the probation department, or the Department of Justice to be sealed according to a certain procedure. The bill would authorize an individual who has a record that is eligible to be sealed to ask the court to order the sealing of a record pertaining to the case that is in the custody of a public agency other than a law enforcement agency, the probation department, or the Department of Justice. The bill would make records sealed pursuant to this provision available for access or inspection only under specified circumstances. The bill would make related changes. The bill would also require the Judicial Council to adopt rules of court, and make available appropriate forms, providing for the standardized implementation of these provisions by the juvenile courts. By imposing new duties on local agencies relating to sealing juvenile records, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law authorizes a person who is the subject of a juvenile court record, or the county probation officer, to petition the court for the sealing of the records relating to the person's case, including records in the custody of the juvenile court, the probation officer, or any other agencies, including law enforcement agencies and public officials as the petitioner alleges to have custody of the records. Existing law provides that records sealed pursuant to this provision are not open to inspection, except as specified. This bill would additionally make those records open to inspection to comply with data collection or data reporting requirements imposed by other provisions of law and would authorize a court to give a researcher or research organization access to information contained in those records, as specified. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. This bill would incorporate changes to Section 786 of the Welfare and Institutions Code proposed by both this bill and AB 989, which would become operative only if both bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2016, and this bill is chaptered last. 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 these statutory provisions.
Who sponsors AB 666?
AB 666 is sponsored by Mark Stone.
What is the current status of AB 666?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 24, 2015. Enacted.
Where can I track AB 666?
Track AB 666 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 666

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 AB 666

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →