AB 66 — Police: use of force.
Last action — Ordered to inactive file by unanimous consent.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
3Passed Assembly
-
4Passed Senate
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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 to use reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape, or to overcome resistance. Existing law requires law enforcement agencies to maintain a policy on the use of force, as specified. Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to implement courses of instruction for the regular and periodic training of law enforcement officers in the use of force. This bill would prohibit the use of kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents, as defined, by any law enforcement agency to disperse any assembly, protest, demonstration, or other gathering of persons, except in compliance with specified standards set by the bill, and would prohibit their use solely due to a violation of an imposed curfew, verbal threat, or noncompliance with a law enforcement directive. The bill would prohibit the use of chloroacetophenone tear gas or 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile gas by law enforcement agencies to disperse any assembly, protest, demonstration, or other gathering of persons. The bill would include in the standards for the use of kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents to disperse gatherings the requirement that, among other things, those weapons only be fired at a specific target who presents a clear and imminent threat to themselves, the officers, or other persons. The bill would make these provisions inapplicable within a state prison facility. Existing law requires specified law enforcement agencies, by no later than January 1, 2021, to maintain a policy on the use of force that meets specified requirements. This bill would require those agencies, by no later than January 1, 2022, to include in those policies specified guidelines relating to deployment at assemblies, protests, demonstrations, and similar gatherings of people. Existing law requires each law enforcement agency to annually report specified use of force incidents to the Department of Justice and requires the Department of Justice to annually publish a summary of those incidents, as specified. The bill would also require each law enforcement agency, beginning on January 1, 2023, to report any incident in which a kinetic energy projectile or chemical agent is used against a person resulting in a reported injury. The bill would require those agencies, commencing on March 31, 2024, to annually publish a report on their use of kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents. The bill would require a city in which federal law enforcement is operating to request that the federal law enforcement agency refrain from the use of kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents to disperse any assembly, protest, demonstration, or other gathering, except as specified in the standards. By imposing new duties on law enforcement agencies and cities, this bill would create 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
- Amended 08/25/20 - Amended Senate Current pdf August 25, 2020
- Amended 08/20/20 - Amended Senate pdf August 20, 2020
- Amended 07/21/20 - Amended Senate pdf July 21, 2020
- Amended 06/25/20 - Amended Senate pdf June 25, 2020
- Amended 06/17/20 - Amended Senate pdf June 17, 2020
- Amended 01/07/20 - Amended Assembly pdf January 07, 2020
- Amended 04/30/19 - Amended Assembly pdf April 30, 2019
- Amended 04/22/19 - Amended Assembly pdf April 22, 2019
- Amended 03/04/19 - Amended Assembly pdf March 04, 2019
- Introduced 12/03/18 - Introduced pdf December 03, 2018
- AB66 View text html
Action History
-
Ordered to inactive file by unanimous consent.
-
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
-
Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
-
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
-
Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.
-
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (August 20).
-
In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.
-
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.) (August 7). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
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.
-
Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
-
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on RLS.
-
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on RLS.
-
Referred to Com. on RLS.
-
In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
-
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 3888.)
-
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
-
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 18. Noes 0.) (January 23).
-
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
-
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Read second time and amended.
-
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (May 6). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
Re-referred to Com. on REV. & TAX.
-
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on REV. & TAX. Read second time and amended.
-
In committee: Hearing for testimony only.
-
Measure version as amended on April 22 corrected.
-
Re-referred to Com. on REV. & TAX.
-
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on REV. & TAX. Read second time and amended.
-
Re-referred to Com. on REV. & TAX.
-
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on REV. & TAX. Read second time and amended.
-
Referred to Com. on REV. & TAX.
-
From printer. May be heard in committee January 3.
-
Read first time. To print.
Sponsors
- Ash Kalra · Cosponsor
- Chiu · Cosponsor
- McCarty · Cosponsor
- Robert Rivas · Cosponsor
- Santiago · Cosponsor
- Ting · Cosponsor
- Weber · Cosponsor
- Maria Elena Durazo · Cosponsor
- Scott D. Wiener · Cosponsor
- Juan Carrillo · Cosponsor
- Robert Garcia · Cosponsor
- Jeff Gonzalez · Primary
- Jeff Gonzalez · Cosponsor
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 12 co-sponsors · 109 not signed on · 1 voted No
Sponsors (1)
- Gonzalez, Jeff Republican
Co-sponsors (12)
- Kalra, Ash Democratic
- Chiu
- McCarty
- Rivas, Robert Democratic
- Santiago
- Ting
- Weber
- Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic
- Wiener, Scott D. Democratic
- Carrillo, Juan Democratic
- Garcia, Robert Democratic
- Gonzalez, Jeff Republican
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.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 71% | 29% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Portantino | — | Yea |
| Bradford | — | Yea |
| Hill | — | Yea |
| Leyva | — | Yea |
| Wieckowski | — | Yea |
| Bates | — | Nay |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Nay |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Hill | — | Yea |
| Bradford | — | Yea |
| Portantino | — | Yea |
| Wieckowski | — | Yea |
| Leyva | — | Yea |
| Bates | — | Yea |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Democratic | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 71% | 14% | 0% | 14% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Bradford | — | Yea |
| Mitchell | — | Yea |
| Skinner | — | Yea |
| Morrell | — | Nay |
| Moorlach | — | Not Voting |
| Jackson, Corey A. | Democratic | Yea |
| Wiener, Scott D. | Democratic | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 51 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Democratic | 21 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 78 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| % of votes cast | 98% | 0% | 0% | 3% |
How each member voted (80)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Mathis | — | Yea |
| Cooley | — | Yea |
| Diep | — | Yea |
| Chau | — | Yea |
| Quirk | — | Yea |
| Low | — | Yea |
| Burke | — | Yea |
| Cooper | — | Yea |
| Smith | — | Yea |
| Cunningham | — | Yea |
| Gonzalez | — | Yea |
| Bloom | — | Yea |
| Voepel | — | Yea |
| Rodriguez | — | Yea |
| Chiu | — | Yea |
| Gray | — | Yea |
| Maienschein | — | Yea |
| Mullin | — | Yea |
| Medina | — | Yea |
| Kamlager | — | Yea |
| Chu | — | Yea |
| Ting | — | Yea |
| McCarty | — | Yea |
| O'Donnell | — | Yea |
| Waldron | — | Yea |
| Salas | — | Yea |
| Brough | — | Yea |
| Gloria | — | Yea |
| Obernolte | — | Yea |
| Holden | — | Yea |
| Daly | — | Yea |
| Jones-Sawyer | — | Yea |
| Friedman | — | Yea |
| Nazarian | — | Yea |
| Weber | — | Yea |
| Fong | — | Yea |
| Kiley | — | Yea |
| Mayes | — | Yea |
| Frazier | — | Yea |
| Bigelow | — | Yea |
| Santiago | — | Yea |
| Eggman | — | Yea |
| Levine | — | Yea |
| Wood | — | Yea |
| Melendez | — | Yea |
| Rendon | — | Not Voting |
| Cristina Garcia | — | Yea |
| Eduardo Garcia | — | Yea |
| Jim Patterson | — | Yea |
| Luz Rivas | — | Yea |
| Mark Stone | — | Yea |
| Wendy Carrillo | — | Yea |
| Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Arambula, Joaquin | Democratic | Yea |
| Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca | Democratic | Yea |
| Berman, Marc | Democratic | Yea |
| Boerner, Tasha | Democratic | Yea |
| Bonta, Mia | Democratic | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Cervantes, Sabrina | Democratic | Not Voting |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (18)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Bloom | — | Yea |
| Fong | — | Yea |
| Brough | — | Yea |
| Maienschein | — | Yea |
| Bigelow | — | Yea |
| Quirk | — | Yea |
| Eggman | — | Yea |
| Gonzalez | — | Yea |
| Diep | — | Yea |
| Chau | — | Yea |
| Eduardo Garcia | — | Yea |
| Wendy Carrillo | — | Yea |
| Bonta, Mia | Democratic | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Gabriel, Jesse | Democratic | Yea |
| Petrie-Norris, Cottie | Democratic | Yea |
| Rivas, Robert | Democratic | Yea |
| Dahle, Megan | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (11)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Burke | — | Yea |
| Mullin | — | Yea |
| Brough | — | Yea |
| Mayes | — | Yea |
| Gray | — | Yea |
| Ting | — | Yea |
| Chu | — | Yea |
| Melendez | — | Yea |
| Quirk | — | Yea |
| Petrie-Norris, Cottie | Democratic | Yea |
| Rivas, Robert | Democratic | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does AB 66 do?
- Existing law authorizes a peace officer to use reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape, or to overcome resistance. Existing law requires law enforcement agencies to maintain a policy on the use of force, as specified. Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to implement courses of instruction for the regular and periodic training of law enforcement officers in the use of force. This bill would prohibit the use of kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents, as defined, by any law enforcement agency to disperse any assembly, protest, demonstration, or other gathering of persons, except in compliance with specified standards set by the bill, and would prohibit their use solely due to a violation of an imposed curfew, verbal threat, or noncompliance with a law enforcement directive. The bill would prohibit the use of chloroacetophenone tear gas or 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile gas by law enforcement agencies to disperse any assembly, protest, demonstration, or other gathering of persons. The bill would include in the standards for the use of kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents to disperse gatherings the requirement that, among other things, those weapons only be fired at a specific target who presents a clear and imminent threat to themselves, the officers, or other persons. The bill would make these provisions inapplicable within a state prison facility. Existing law requires specified law enforcement agencies, by no later than January 1, 2021, to maintain a policy on the use of force that meets specified requirements. This bill would require those agencies, by no later than January 1, 2022, to include in those policies specified guidelines relating to deployment at assemblies, protests, demonstrations, and similar gatherings of people. Existing law requires each law enforcement agency to annually report specified use of force incidents to the Department of Justice and requires the Department of Justice to annually publish a summary of those incidents, as specified. The bill would also require each law enforcement agency, beginning on January 1, 2023, to report any incident in which a kinetic energy projectile or chemical agent is used against a person resulting in a reported injury. The bill would require those agencies, commencing on March 31, 2024, to annually publish a report on their use of kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents. The bill would require a city in which federal law enforcement is operating to request that the federal law enforcement agency refrain from the use of kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents to disperse any assembly, protest, demonstration, or other gathering, except as specified in the standards. By imposing new duties on law enforcement agencies and cities, this bill would create 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 66?
- AB 66 is sponsored by Kalra, Ash (Democratic), Chiu, McCarty, Rivas, Robert (Democratic), Santiago, Ting, Weber, Durazo, Maria Elena (Democratic), Wiener, Scott D. (Democratic), Carrillo, Juan (Democratic), Garcia, Robert (Democratic), and Gonzalez, Jeff (Republican).
- What is the current status of AB 66?
- 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 66?
- Track AB 66 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on AB 66
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 66
Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →