California 2019-2020 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly

AB 1709 — Law enforcement: use of force.

Last action — 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.

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 2019-2020 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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 authorizes a peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense to use objectively reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape, or to overcome resistance. Existing law specifies that a peace officer who is making an arrest need not retreat or desist from their efforts by reason of resistance or threatened resistance of the person being arrested. Existing law, except as specified, makes a public entity liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of employment if the act or omission would, apart from this provision, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee or their personal representative. This bill would remove the specification that a peace officer making an arrest need not desist in their efforts because of resistance or threatened resistance from the person being arrested. The bill would also require a peace officer to attempt to control an incident through deescalation tactics, as defined, in an effort to reduce or avoid the need to use force, to render medical aid immediately or as soon as feasible, and to intervene to stop a violation of law or an excessive use of force by another peace officer. Under existing law, a peace officer is justified in using deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that such force is necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person, or to apprehend a fleeing person for any felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless immediately apprehended. This bill would define "necessary" to mean that, as specified, there was no reasonable alternative to the use of deadly force that would prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or to another person.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. 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.

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

  3. Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10(c).

  4. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

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

  6. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  7. Ordered to second reading.

  8. From inactive file.

  9. Ordered to inactive file at the request of Senator Mitchell.

  10. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  11. From committee: Be ordered to second reading pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.

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

  13. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (July 10).

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

  15. Referred to Com. on HEALTH.

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

  17. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 74. Noes 0. Page 1773.)

  18. Read second time. Ordered to Consent Calendar.

  19. From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 18. Noes 0.) (May 8).

  20. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  21. Read second time and amended.

  22. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (April 23).

  23. Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.

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

  25. Referred to Com. on HEALTH.

  26. Read first time.

  27. From printer. May be heard in committee March 25.

  28. Introduced. To print.

Sponsors

  • Weber · Primary
  • Jones-Sawyer · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 120 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Weber

Co-sponsors (1)

  • Jones-Sawyer

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.

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 as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 8 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 6000
Democratic 2000
Republican 0001
Total 8001
% of votes cast 89%0%0%11%
How each member voted (9)
Member Party Vote
Rubio — Yea
Monning — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Pan — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

AB 1709 Jones-Sawyer Consent Calendar Second Day

Passed 74 Yea · 0 Nay · 6 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 43005
Democratic 24001
Republican 7000
Total 74006
% of votes cast 93%0%0%8%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Brough — Yea
Kiley — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Salas — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Smith — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Diep — Yea
Chau — Yea
Gloria — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Voepel — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Gray — Yea
Holden — Yea
Daly — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Kamlager-Dove — Yea
Levine — Yea
Melendez — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Low — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Wood — Yea
Medina — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Chu — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Weber — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Burke — Not Voting
Friedman — Not Voting
Cooley — Not Voting
Ting — Not Voting
Cristina Garcia — Not Voting
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Not Voting
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
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
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass. To Consent Calendar.

Passed 18 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 7000
Unaffiliated 11000
Total 18000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (18)
Member Party Vote
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Diep — Yea
Chau — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 15 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 9000
Democratic 5000
Republican 1000
Total 15000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (15)
Member Party Vote
Burke — Yea
Wood — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety
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 1709 do?
Existing law authorizes a peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense to use objectively reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape, or to overcome resistance. Existing law specifies that a peace officer who is making an arrest need not retreat or desist from their efforts by reason of resistance or threatened resistance of the person being arrested. Existing law, except as specified, makes a public entity liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of employment if the act or omission would, apart from this provision, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee or their personal representative. This bill would remove the specification that a peace officer making an arrest need not desist in their efforts because of resistance or threatened resistance from the person being arrested. The bill would also require a peace officer to attempt to control an incident through deescalation tactics, as defined, in an effort to reduce or avoid the need to use force, to render medical aid immediately or as soon as feasible, and to intervene to stop a violation of law or an excessive use of force by another peace officer. Under existing law, a peace officer is justified in using deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that such force is necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person, or to apprehend a fleeing person for any felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless immediately apprehended. This bill would define "necessary" to mean that, as specified, there was no reasonable alternative to the use of deadly force that would prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or to another person.
Who sponsors AB 1709?
AB 1709 is sponsored by Weber and Jones-Sawyer.
What is the current status of AB 1709?
This bill died with 2019-2020 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 1709?
Track AB 1709 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 1709

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 1709

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →