California 2017-2018 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly

AB 359 — In-custody informants.

Last action — Ordered to inactive file at the request of Senator Hertzberg.

Track this bill free

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

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

This bill died with 2017-2018 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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

Existing law defines an in-custody informant to mean a person, other than a codefendant, percipient witness, accomplice, or coconspirator whose testimony is based upon statements made by the defendant while both the defendant and the informant are held within a correctional institution. Existing law prohibits a law enforcement or correctional official from giving, offering, or promising to give any monetary payment in excess of $50 in return for an in-custody informant's testimony in any criminal proceeding, as specified. Existing law requires the prosecution to file with the court a written statement prior to trial setting out any and all consideration, as defined, promised to, or received by, the in-custody informant when the prosecution calls an in-custody informant as a witness in any criminal trial. This bill would revise the definition of an in-custody informant to refer to a person, other than a codefendant, percipient witness, accomplice, or coconspirator who provides testimony or information for use in the investigation or prosecution of a defendant based upon statements made by the defendant while both the defendant and the informant are housed within a correctional institution. The bill would require the prosecutor, when the prosecution intends to use information or testimony from an in-custody informant in any criminal prosecution, to file with the court a written statement setting out the substance of all communications between the informant and any member of the prosecution, or a law enforcement or correctional agency, regarding the informant's possible testimony or participation in information gathering, and setting out any and all consideration impliedly or expressly offered or promised to, or requested or received by, the in-custody informant. The bill would require the statement to contain specified information, including the informant's complete criminal history, including pending criminal charges or investigations in which the informant is a suspect. The bill would authorize disclosure of the statement to the defense to be denied, restricted, or deferred upon a showing of good cause, as defined. The bill would also revise the definition of consideration for purposes of these provisions. This bill would expand the scope of the prohibition against a law enforcement or correctional official giving, offering, or promising to give a monetary payment to make it applicable to a member of a prosecutorial entity, among other changes. The bill would also make the provision applicable to property and gifts, among other benefits, and would limit the combined value of those benefits to $100. The bill would also make technical changes.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Ordered to inactive file at the request of Senator Hertzberg.

  2. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  3. Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

  4. Ordered to second reading.

  5. From inactive file.

  6. Ordered to inactive file at the request of Senator Hertzberg.

  7. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

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

  9. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  10. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (June 27).

  11. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

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

  13. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 59. Noes 12. Page 2035.)

  14. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  15. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (March 21).

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

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

  18. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  19. From printer. May be heard in committee March 11.

  20. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Jones-Sawyer · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 7 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Jones-Sawyer

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

Do pass

Passed 5 Yea · 2 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 2000
Unaffiliated 3200
Total 5200
% of votes cast 71%29%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Skinner — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Anderson — Nay
Bradford — Yea
Mark Stone — Nay
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

AB 359 JONES-SAWYER Assembly Third Reading

Passed 59 Yea · 12 Nay · 9 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 43808
Republican 3201
Democratic 13200
Total 591209
% of votes cast 74%15%0%11%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Acosta — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Harper — Nay
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Steinorth — Not Voting
Weber — Yea
Low — Yea
Gonzalez Fletcher — Yea
Medina — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Chau — Yea
Salas — Yea
Chu — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Thurmond — Yea
Ting — Yea
Burke — Yea
Gray — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Gloria — Nay
Gomez — Yea
Holden — Yea
Kiley — Yea
Fong — Not Voting
Levine — Yea
Maienschein — Not Voting
Mayes — Not Voting
McCarty — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Chávez — Nay
Cooley — Nay
Cooper — Not Voting
O'Donnell — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Voepel — Nay
Waldron — Yea
Baker — Yea
Bigelow — Not Voting
Brough — Not Voting
Wood — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Cunningham — Not Voting
Dababneh — Yea
Daly — Yea
Frazier — Nay
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Nay
Mark Stone — Yea
Travis Allen — Nay
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Nay
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Nay
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Nay
Choi, Steven S. Republican Not Voting
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 6 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5001
Republican 1000
Total 6001
% of votes cast 86%0%0%14%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Cunningham — Not Voting
Gonzalez Fletcher — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea

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 359 do?
Existing law defines an in-custody informant to mean a person, other than a codefendant, percipient witness, accomplice, or coconspirator whose testimony is based upon statements made by the defendant while both the defendant and the informant are held within a correctional institution. Existing law prohibits a law enforcement or correctional official from giving, offering, or promising to give any monetary payment in excess of $50 in return for an in-custody informant's testimony in any criminal proceeding, as specified. Existing law requires the prosecution to file with the court a written statement prior to trial setting out any and all consideration, as defined, promised to, or received by, the in-custody informant when the prosecution calls an in-custody informant as a witness in any criminal trial. This bill would revise the definition of an in-custody informant to refer to a person, other than a codefendant, percipient witness, accomplice, or coconspirator who provides testimony or information for use in the investigation or prosecution of a defendant based upon statements made by the defendant while both the defendant and the informant are housed within a correctional institution. The bill would require the prosecutor, when the prosecution intends to use information or testimony from an in-custody informant in any criminal prosecution, to file with the court a written statement setting out the substance of all communications between the informant and any member of the prosecution, or a law enforcement or correctional agency, regarding the informant's possible testimony or participation in information gathering, and setting out any and all consideration impliedly or expressly offered or promised to, or requested or received by, the in-custody informant. The bill would require the statement to contain specified information, including the informant's complete criminal history, including pending criminal charges or investigations in which the informant is a suspect. The bill would authorize disclosure of the statement to the defense to be denied, restricted, or deferred upon a showing of good cause, as defined. The bill would also revise the definition of consideration for purposes of these provisions. This bill would expand the scope of the prohibition against a law enforcement or correctional official giving, offering, or promising to give a monetary payment to make it applicable to a member of a prosecutorial entity, among other changes. The bill would also make the provision applicable to property and gifts, among other benefits, and would limit the combined value of those benefits to $100. The bill would also make technical changes.
Who sponsors AB 359?
AB 359 is sponsored by Jones-Sawyer.
What is the current status of AB 359?
This bill died with 2017-2018 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” 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 AB 359?
Track AB 359 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 359

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 359

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →