AB 2013 — Crimes: public records: disclosure of information.
Last action — In committee: Held under submission.
-
✓Introduced
-
2In Committee
-
3Passed Assembly
-
4Passed Senate
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2017-2018 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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
The California Public Records Act requires state and local agencies to make public records available for inspection by the public, subject to specified criteria and with specified exceptions. Existing law exempts from disclosure any investigatory or security file compiled by any other state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes. Existing law requires, however, that state and local law enforcement agencies make public specified information, including names of victims, relating to the circumstances surrounding all complaints or requests for assistance, among other things, except to the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in the investigation. Existing law allows victims of specified crimes to request that their names be withheld from any public records request, and upon that request prohibits law enforcement agencies from disclosing those names except under specified circumstances. Existing law additionally prohibits law enforcement agencies from disclosing the addresses of victims of specified crimes. This bill would require, subject to exceptions, disclosure of specified information regarding persons involved in criminal investigations, including the full name of a victim, unless a law enforcement agency determines that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the completion of the investigation or a related investigation, or would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation, including a victim or witness, pursuant to the California Public Records Act. The bill would authorize a law enforcement agency, when determining if disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger a person involved in the investigation, to consider a request by the person that a particular item of information be withheld from disclosure if the person presents evidence that disclosure would endanger the person's safety. The bill would, for certain gang-related offenses, if a determination has been made by a law enforcement agency that release of the victim's or witness's name would endanger the victim or witness, prohibit the law enforcement agency from disclosing the names of victims and witnesses involved in those gang-related offenses, except under specified circumstances. The bill would require law enforcement to inform a victim or witness of certain gang-related offenses that their name will be disclosed unless a law enforcement agency determines disclosure would endanger their safety, and that they may request that their name be withheld by law enforcement if the person provides evidence to the law enforcement agency that disclosure of the person's name would endanger the person's safety, and would authorize a law enforcement agency to consider that when making the determination. By imposing new duties on law enforcement agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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. 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 04/16/18 - Amended Assembly Current pdf April 16, 2018
- Amended 04/05/18 - Amended Assembly pdf April 05, 2018
- Introduced 02/05/18 - Introduced pdf February 05, 2018
- AB2013 View text html
Action History
-
In committee: Held under submission.
-
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. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (April 10).
-
Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
-
Read second time and amended.
-
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (April 3).
-
Referred to Coms. on PUB. S. and JUD.
-
From printer. May be heard in committee March 8.
-
Read first time. To print.
Sponsors
- Cunningham · Primary
- Robert Garcia · Cosponsor
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 120 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Cunningham
Co-sponsors (1)
- Garcia, Robert Democratic
Not signed on (120)
120 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 120 →"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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (10)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Holden | — | Yea |
| Maienschein | — | Yea |
| Chau | — | Yea |
| Kiley | — | Yea |
| Gonzalez Fletcher | — | Yea |
| Chiu | — | Yea |
| Cunningham | — | Yea |
| Mark Stone | — | Yea |
| Kalra, Ash | Democratic | Yea |
| Reyes, Eloise Gómez | Democratic | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 86% | 0% | 0% | 14% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Jones-Sawyer | — | Yea |
| Kiley | — | Yea |
| Santiago | — | Not Voting |
| Gonzalez Fletcher | — | Yea |
| Quirk | — | Yea |
| Wendy Carrillo | — | Yea |
| Lackey, Tom | Republican | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does AB 2013 do?
- The California Public Records Act requires state and local agencies to make public records available for inspection by the public, subject to specified criteria and with specified exceptions. Existing law exempts from disclosure any investigatory or security file compiled by any other state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes. Existing law requires, however, that state and local law enforcement agencies make public specified information, including names of victims, relating to the circumstances surrounding all complaints or requests for assistance, among other things, except to the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in the investigation. Existing law allows victims of specified crimes to request that their names be withheld from any public records request, and upon that request prohibits law enforcement agencies from disclosing those names except under specified circumstances. Existing law additionally prohibits law enforcement agencies from disclosing the addresses of victims of specified crimes. This bill would require, subject to exceptions, disclosure of specified information regarding persons involved in criminal investigations, including the full name of a victim, unless a law enforcement agency determines that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the completion of the investigation or a related investigation, or would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation, including a victim or witness, pursuant to the California Public Records Act. The bill would authorize a law enforcement agency, when determining if disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger a person involved in the investigation, to consider a request by the person that a particular item of information be withheld from disclosure if the person presents evidence that disclosure would endanger the person's safety. The bill would, for certain gang-related offenses, if a determination has been made by a law enforcement agency that release of the victim's or witness's name would endanger the victim or witness, prohibit the law enforcement agency from disclosing the names of victims and witnesses involved in those gang-related offenses, except under specified circumstances. The bill would require law enforcement to inform a victim or witness of certain gang-related offenses that their name will be disclosed unless a law enforcement agency determines disclosure would endanger their safety, and that they may request that their name be withheld by law enforcement if the person provides evidence to the law enforcement agency that disclosure of the person's name would endanger the person's safety, and would authorize a law enforcement agency to consider that when making the determination. By imposing new duties on law enforcement agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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. 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 2013?
- AB 2013 is sponsored by Cunningham and Garcia, Robert (Democratic).
- What is the current status of AB 2013?
- This bill died with 2017-2018 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” 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 2013?
- Track AB 2013 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on AB 2013
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 2013
Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →