California 2015-2016 Regular Session Status: Enacted

SB 823 — Criminal procedure: human trafficking.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 650, Statutes of 2016.

Track this bill free

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

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

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 06, 2016. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 76% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 4 sponsors

    1 primary, 3 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 8 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

Existing law defines and proscribes the crimes of human trafficking, solicitation, and prostitution. Existing law provides that if a defendant has been convicted of solicitation or prostitution and has completed any term of probation for that conviction, the defendant may petition the court for relief if the defendant can establish by clear and convincing evidence that the conviction was the result of his or her status as a victim of human trafficking. Existing law authorizes a court to issue an order that (1) sets forth a finding that the defendant was a victim of human trafficking, as specified, (2) dismisses the accusation or information against the defendant, or orders other relief, and (3) notifies the Department of Justice that the defendant was a victim of human trafficking when he or she committed the crime and the relief that has been ordered. Existing law authorizes a person who was adjudicated a ward of the juvenile court for solicitation or prostitution to, upon reaching 18 years of age, petition the court to have his or her record sealed, as specified. This bill would establish a separate petition process for a person who has been arrested for, convicted of, or adjudicated a ward of the juvenile court for, committing a nonviolent offense, as defined, while he or she was a victim of human trafficking. The bill would require the petitioner to establish that the arrest, conviction, or adjudication was the direct result of being a victim of human trafficking in order to obtain relief. The bill would require the petition for relief to be submitted under penalty of perjury, thereby expanding the scope of a crime. The bill would authorize the court, upon making specified findings, to vacate the conviction or adjudication and issue an order that provides the relief described above and also provides for the sealing and destruction of the petitioner's arrest and court records, as specified. The bill would require that the petition be made within a reasonable time after the person has ceased to be a victim of human trafficking, or within a reasonable time after the person has sought services for being a victim of human trafficking, whichever is later. The bill would provide that official documentation, as defined, of a petitioner's status as a victim of human trafficking may be introduced as evidence that his or her participation in the offense was the result of the petitioner's status as a victim of human trafficking. The bill would provide that a petitioner or his or her attorney is not required to appear in person at a hearing for the relief described above if the court finds a compelling reason why the petitioner cannot attend the hearing and may appear via alternate specified methods. The bill would prohibit the disclosure of the full name of a petitioner in the record of a proceeding related to his or her petition that is accessible by the public. The bill would authorize a petitioner who has obtained the relief described above to lawfully deny or refuse to acknowledge an arrest, conviction, or adjudication that is set aside pursuant to that relief. By expanding the scope of a crime and increasing the number of records local agencies would be required to seal and destroy, 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. 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.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 650, Statutes of 2016.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 1:30 p.m.

  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 34. Noes 5. Page 5424.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  6. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 57. Noes 21. Page 6080.) Ordered to the Senate.

  7. Ordered to third reading.

  8. Read third time and amended.

  9. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  10. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 14. Noes 5.) (August 11).

  11. August 3 set for first hearing. Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  12. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

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

  14. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (June 21).

  15. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  16. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  17. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 25. Noes 13. Page 4140.) Ordered to the Assembly.

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

  19. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 3998.) (May 27).

  20. Set for hearing May 27.

  21. April 25 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  22. Set for hearing April 25.

  23. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 1. Page 3521.) (April 12). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  24. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  25. Set for hearing April 12.

  26. Referred to Coms. on PUB. S. and APPR.

  27. From printer. May be acted upon on or after February 6.

  28. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Block · Primary
  • Glazer · Cosponsor
  • Hertzberg · Cosponsor
  • Wieckowski · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 3 co-sponsors · 118 not signed on · 9 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Block

Co-sponsors (3)

  • Glazer
  • Hertzberg
  • Wieckowski

Not signed on (118)

118 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 118 →

"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

Unfinished Business SB823 Block Concurrence

Passed 34 Yea · 5 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 31500
Democratic 3000
Total 34500
% of votes cast 87%13%0%0%
How each member voted (39)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Yea
Bates — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Hill — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Moorlach — Nay
Pan — Yea
Roth — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Allen — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
De León — Yea
Lara — Yea
Leno — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Hall — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Huff — Yea
Liu — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Monning — Yea
Morrell — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Vidak — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Mark Stone — Nay
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

SB 823 Block Senate Third Reading By GONZALEZ

Passed 57 Yea · 21 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 501802
Democratic 5000
Republican 2300
Total 572102
% of votes cast 71%26%0%3%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Nay
Alejo — Yea
Bigelow — Nay
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Nay
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Linder — Not Voting
Mathis — Nay
Mullin — Yea
Olsen — Nay
Rodriguez — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Weber — Yea
Williams — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Chávez — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Campos — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Dababneh — Yea
Salas — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Gray — Yea
Brown — Yea
Low — Yea
Medina — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Lopez — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Burke — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Harper — Nay
Chang — Nay
Holden — Yea
Kim — Not Voting
Levine — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Baker — Yea
Chau — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Chu — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Daly — Yea
Mayes — Nay
McCarty — Yea
Melendez — Nay
Obernolte — Nay
Quirk — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Steinorth — Nay
Thurmond — Yea
Ting — Yea
Waldron — Nay
Wilk — Nay
Wood — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Hadley — Nay
Beth Gaines — Nay
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Nay
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
Travis Allen — Nay
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 14 Yea · 5 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 12301
Democratic 2000
Republican 0200
Total 14501
% of votes cast 70%25%0%5%
How each member voted (20)
Member Party Vote
Bigelow — Nay
Bloom — Yea
Holden — Yea
Obernolte — Nay
Quirk — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Eggman — Yea
Daly — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Chang — Not Voting
Weber — Yea
Wood — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

3rd Reading

Passed 25 Yea · 13 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 221302
Democratic 3000
Total 251302
% of votes cast 63%33%0%5%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Nay
Bates — Nay
Hueso — Yea
Leno — Yea
Mendoza — Not Voting
Nielsen — Nay
Pan — Yea
Vidak — Nay
Wolk — Yea
Fuller — Nay
Galgiani — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Allen — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
De León — Yea
Cannella — Nay
Runner — Not Voting
Hall — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Huff — Nay
Leyva — Yea
Liu — Yea
Monning — Yea
Moorlach — Nay
Morrell — Nay
Pavley — Yea
Roth — Nay
Wieckowski — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Mark Stone — Nay
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended

Passed 5 Yea · 2 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 4200
Democratic 1000
Total 5200
% of votes cast 71%29%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Bates — Nay
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Nielsen — Nay
Beall — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Placed on suspense file

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 6000
Democratic 1000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Bates — Yea
Beall — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic 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 SB 823 do?
Existing law defines and proscribes the crimes of human trafficking, solicitation, and prostitution. Existing law provides that if a defendant has been convicted of solicitation or prostitution and has completed any term of probation for that conviction, the defendant may petition the court for relief if the defendant can establish by clear and convincing evidence that the conviction was the result of his or her status as a victim of human trafficking. Existing law authorizes a court to issue an order that (1) sets forth a finding that the defendant was a victim of human trafficking, as specified, (2) dismisses the accusation or information against the defendant, or orders other relief, and (3) notifies the Department of Justice that the defendant was a victim of human trafficking when he or she committed the crime and the relief that has been ordered. Existing law authorizes a person who was adjudicated a ward of the juvenile court for solicitation or prostitution to, upon reaching 18 years of age, petition the court to have his or her record sealed, as specified. This bill would establish a separate petition process for a person who has been arrested for, convicted of, or adjudicated a ward of the juvenile court for, committing a nonviolent offense, as defined, while he or she was a victim of human trafficking. The bill would require the petitioner to establish that the arrest, conviction, or adjudication was the direct result of being a victim of human trafficking in order to obtain relief. The bill would require the petition for relief to be submitted under penalty of perjury, thereby expanding the scope of a crime. The bill would authorize the court, upon making specified findings, to vacate the conviction or adjudication and issue an order that provides the relief described above and also provides for the sealing and destruction of the petitioner's arrest and court records, as specified. The bill would require that the petition be made within a reasonable time after the person has ceased to be a victim of human trafficking, or within a reasonable time after the person has sought services for being a victim of human trafficking, whichever is later. The bill would provide that official documentation, as defined, of a petitioner's status as a victim of human trafficking may be introduced as evidence that his or her participation in the offense was the result of the petitioner's status as a victim of human trafficking. The bill would provide that a petitioner or his or her attorney is not required to appear in person at a hearing for the relief described above if the court finds a compelling reason why the petitioner cannot attend the hearing and may appear via alternate specified methods. The bill would prohibit the disclosure of the full name of a petitioner in the record of a proceeding related to his or her petition that is accessible by the public. The bill would authorize a petitioner who has obtained the relief described above to lawfully deny or refuse to acknowledge an arrest, conviction, or adjudication that is set aside pursuant to that relief. By expanding the scope of a crime and increasing the number of records local agencies would be required to seal and destroy, 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. 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.
Who sponsors SB 823?
SB 823 is sponsored by Block, Glazer, Hertzberg, and Wieckowski.
What is the current status of SB 823?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 06, 2016. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 823?
Track SB 823 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 823

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 SB 823

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →