California 2017-2018 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly 2 D cosponsors

AB 42 — Bail: pretrial release.

Last action — Died on inactive file.

  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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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 provides for the procedure of approving and accepting bail, and issuing an order for the appearance and release of an arrested person. Existing law requires that bail be set in a fixed amount, as specified, and requires, in setting, reducing, or denying bail, a judge or magistrate to take into consideration the protection of the public, the seriousness of the offense charged, the previous criminal record of the defendant, and the probability of his or her appearing at trial or at a hearing of the case. Under existing law, the magistrate or commissioner to whom the application is made is authorized to set bail in an amount that he or she deems sufficient to ensure the defendant's appearance or to ensure the protection of a victim, or family member of a victim, of domestic violence, and to set bail on the terms and conditions that he or she, in his or her discretion, deems appropriate, or he or she may authorize the defendant's release on his or her own recognizance. Existing law provides that a defendant being held for a misdemeanor offense is entitled to be released on his or her own recognizance, unless the court makes a finding on the record that his or her release would compromise public safety or would not reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant as required. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to safely reduce the number of people detained pretrial, while addressing racial and economic disparities in the pretrial system, to ensure that people are not held in pretrial detention simply because of their inability to afford money bail. This bill would implement a revised pretrial release procedure. The bill would require, except when a person is arrested for certain felonies, that a pretrial services agency conduct a pretrial risk assessment on an arrested person and prepare a pretrial services report that includes the results of the pretrial risk assessment and recommendations on conditions of release for the person immediately upon booking. The bill would require the pretrial services agency to transmit the report to a magistrate, judge, or court commissioner and the magistrate, judge, or court commissioner, within an unspecified number of hours, to issue an oral or written order to release the person, with or without release conditions, subject to the person signing a specified release agreement. The bill would require, if a person is in custody at the time of his or her arraignment, the judge or magistrate to consider the pretrial services report and any relevant information provided by the prosecuting attorney or the defendant and to order the pretrial release of the person, with or without conditions, subject to the person signing a specified release agreement. If the judge or magistrate determines that pretrial release, with or without conditions, will not reasonably ensure the appearance of the person in court as required, the bill would require the judge or magistrate to set monetary bail at the least restrictive level necessary to ensure the appearance of the defendant in court as required. The bill would authorize, if the judge or magistrate has set monetary bail, the person to execute an unsecured appearance bond, execute a secured appearance bond, or deposit a percentage of the sum mentioned in the order setting monetary bail. The bill would authorize a prosecuting attorney to file a motion seeking the pretrial detention of a person in certain circumstances, including when the person has been charged with a capital crime and the prosecuting attorney alleges that the facts are evident or the presumption great. The bill would require, if this motion has been filed, a hearing to be held to determine whether to release the person pending trial, unless the person waives the hearing. The bill would authorize the person to be detained pretrial only if the court makes one of several specified findings. The bill would require each county to establish a pretrial services agency that would be responsible for gathering information about newly arrested persons, conducting pretrial risk assessments, preparing individually tailored recommendations to the court regarding release options and conditions, and providing pretrial services and supervision to persons on pretrial release. The bill would require an unspecified agency to take certain actions relating to the implementation of the revised pretrial release procedure, including, among others, selecting a pretrial risk assessment tool to be used in conducting pretrial risk assessments that meets specified requirements and reviewing collected data to monitor compliance with state law and guidelines relating to pretrial release. The bill would also authorize that agency to take certain actions relating to the implementation of the revised pretrial release procedure, including, among other things, providing training and assistance to judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, pretrial services agencies, jail staff, and law enforcement agencies. The bill would require the Board of State and Community Corrections, in consultation with that unspecified agency, to develop a plan that establishes statewide requirements for counties relating to annual reporting of pretrial release and detention information. By imposing additional duties on local agencies, 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

Action History

  1. Died on inactive file.

  2. Ordered to inactive file at the request of Assembly Member Bonta.

  3. Reconsideration granted. (Page 3097.)

  4. Motion to reconsider on the next legislative day made by Assembly Member Bonta.

  5. Read third time. Refused passage. (Ayes 35. Noes 37. Page 2089.).

  6. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  7. Assembly Rule 63 suspended. (Ayes 52. Noes 24. Page 1776.)

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

  9. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 9. Noes 7.) (May 26).

  10. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  11. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 2.) (April 18). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

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

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

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

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

  16. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  17. From printer. May be heard in committee January 5.

  18. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Mitchell · Cosponsor
  • Bloom · Cosponsor
  • Chiu · Cosponsor
  • Eggman · Cosponsor
  • Friedman · Cosponsor
  • Gloria · Cosponsor
  • Hertzberg · Cosponsor
  • Jones-Sawyer · Cosponsor
  • Quirk · Cosponsor
  • Scott D. Wiener · Cosponsor
  • Mia Bonta · Primary
  • Travis Allen · Cosponsor
  • Mark Stone · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 12 co-sponsors · 109 not signed on · 13 voted No

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (12)

Not signed on (109)

109 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 109 →

"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 42 BONTA Assembly Third Reading

Failed 35 Yea · 37 Nay · 8 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 292703
Democratic 6504
Republican 0501
Total 353708
% of votes cast 44%46%0%10%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Acosta — Nay
Bigelow — Nay
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Nay
Harper — Nay
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Levine — Yea
Maienschein — Not Voting
Melendez — Nay
Quirk — Yea
Rodriguez — Nay
Ting — Yea
Voepel — Nay
Burke — Yea
Gonzalez Fletcher — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Chau — Yea
Holden — Yea
Low — Yea
Fong — Nay
Salas — Nay
Mathis — Nay
Chiu — Yea
Chu — Yea
Dababneh — Yea
Mayes — Nay
McCarty — Yea
Medina — Nay
Mullin — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Thurmond — Yea
Weber — Yea
Wood — Yea
Gray — Nay
Frazier — Nay
Rubio — Nay
Bocanegra — Not Voting
Kiley — Nay
Baker — Nay
Chávez — Nay
Cooper — Nay
Cunningham — Nay
O'Donnell — Not Voting
Obernolte — Nay
Steinorth — Nay
Waldron — Nay
Cooley — Nay
Eggman — Yea
Daly — Nay
Gloria — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Nay
Mark Stone — Yea
Travis Allen — Nay
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Nay
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Not Voting
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Nay
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Not Voting
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Nay
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Nay
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Not Voting
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Nay
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Not Voting
Chen, Phillip Republican Nay
Choi, Steven S. Republican Not Voting
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Flora, Heath Republican Nay
Gallagher, James Republican Nay
Lackey, Tom Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 9 Yea · 7 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 6500
Democratic 3101
Republican 0100
Total 9701
% of votes cast 53%41%0%6%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Nay
McCarty — Yea
Obernolte — Nay
Gonzalez Fletcher — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Gray — Nay
Bigelow — Nay
Quirk — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Nay
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Nay
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Not Voting
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights 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 AB 42 do?
Existing law provides for the procedure of approving and accepting bail, and issuing an order for the appearance and release of an arrested person. Existing law requires that bail be set in a fixed amount, as specified, and requires, in setting, reducing, or denying bail, a judge or magistrate to take into consideration the protection of the public, the seriousness of the offense charged, the previous criminal record of the defendant, and the probability of his or her appearing at trial or at a hearing of the case. Under existing law, the magistrate or commissioner to whom the application is made is authorized to set bail in an amount that he or she deems sufficient to ensure the defendant's appearance or to ensure the protection of a victim, or family member of a victim, of domestic violence, and to set bail on the terms and conditions that he or she, in his or her discretion, deems appropriate, or he or she may authorize the defendant's release on his or her own recognizance. Existing law provides that a defendant being held for a misdemeanor offense is entitled to be released on his or her own recognizance, unless the court makes a finding on the record that his or her release would compromise public safety or would not reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant as required. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to safely reduce the number of people detained pretrial, while addressing racial and economic disparities in the pretrial system, to ensure that people are not held in pretrial detention simply because of their inability to afford money bail. This bill would implement a revised pretrial release procedure. The bill would require, except when a person is arrested for certain felonies, that a pretrial services agency conduct a pretrial risk assessment on an arrested person and prepare a pretrial services report that includes the results of the pretrial risk assessment and recommendations on conditions of release for the person immediately upon booking. The bill would require the pretrial services agency to transmit the report to a magistrate, judge, or court commissioner and the magistrate, judge, or court commissioner, within an unspecified number of hours, to issue an oral or written order to release the person, with or without release conditions, subject to the person signing a specified release agreement. The bill would require, if a person is in custody at the time of his or her arraignment, the judge or magistrate to consider the pretrial services report and any relevant information provided by the prosecuting attorney or the defendant and to order the pretrial release of the person, with or without conditions, subject to the person signing a specified release agreement. If the judge or magistrate determines that pretrial release, with or without conditions, will not reasonably ensure the appearance of the person in court as required, the bill would require the judge or magistrate to set monetary bail at the least restrictive level necessary to ensure the appearance of the defendant in court as required. The bill would authorize, if the judge or magistrate has set monetary bail, the person to execute an unsecured appearance bond, execute a secured appearance bond, or deposit a percentage of the sum mentioned in the order setting monetary bail. The bill would authorize a prosecuting attorney to file a motion seeking the pretrial detention of a person in certain circumstances, including when the person has been charged with a capital crime and the prosecuting attorney alleges that the facts are evident or the presumption great. The bill would require, if this motion has been filed, a hearing to be held to determine whether to release the person pending trial, unless the person waives the hearing. The bill would authorize the person to be detained pretrial only if the court makes one of several specified findings. The bill would require each county to establish a pretrial services agency that would be responsible for gathering information about newly arrested persons, conducting pretrial risk assessments, preparing individually tailored recommendations to the court regarding release options and conditions, and providing pretrial services and supervision to persons on pretrial release. The bill would require an unspecified agency to take certain actions relating to the implementation of the revised pretrial release procedure, including, among others, selecting a pretrial risk assessment tool to be used in conducting pretrial risk assessments that meets specified requirements and reviewing collected data to monitor compliance with state law and guidelines relating to pretrial release. The bill would also authorize that agency to take certain actions relating to the implementation of the revised pretrial release procedure, including, among other things, providing training and assistance to judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, pretrial services agencies, jail staff, and law enforcement agencies. The bill would require the Board of State and Community Corrections, in consultation with that unspecified agency, to develop a plan that establishes statewide requirements for counties relating to annual reporting of pretrial release and detention information. By imposing additional duties on local agencies, 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 42?
AB 42 is sponsored by Mitchell, Bloom, Chiu, Eggman, Friedman, Gloria, Hertzberg, Jones-Sawyer, Quirk, Wiener, Scott D. (Democratic), Bonta, Mia (Democratic), Travis Allen, and Mark Stone.
What is the current status of AB 42?
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 42?
Track AB 42 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 42

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 42

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →