California 2023-2024 Regular Session Status: In Committee 2 D cosponsors

AB 642 — Law enforcement agencies: facial recognition technology.

Last action — From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

Track this bill free

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

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

This bill died with 2023-2024 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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

Existing law, generally, regulates state and local law enforcement agencies regarding subject matter that includes the selection and training of peace officers, the maintenance and release of records, the use of force, and the use of certain equipment. Previous law, until January 1, 2023, prohibited the use of real-time facial recognition technology by law enforcement agencies in connection with body-worn cameras. This bill would prescribe the acceptable and prohibited uses for facial recognition technology (FRT) , as defined, by a law enforcement agency or peace officer, as defined. The bill would set certain requirements for FRT systems and reference databases, as defined, used by law enforcement agencies. The bill would require the Department of Technology, in consultation with the Chief of the Office of Information Security, to issue standards to ensure the confidentiality and cybersecurity of FRT data and results. The bill would require law enforcement agencies to establish written policies that adhere to those standards. The bill would require law enforcement agencies utilizing FRT to keep certain records and to annually report certain data to the California State Auditor. The bill would require any law enforcement agency utilizing FRT to have a written policy, as specified, and to post that policy on their internet website. The bill would require a law enforcement agency to provide certain information to any person that FRT is used to identify. The bill would also require each district attorney's office, city prosecutor's office, and the Attorney General to annually report certain data to the California State Auditor. By imposing a new reporting requirement on district attorneys and city prosecutors, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the California State Auditor to annually analyze the data submitted and to prepare and publicize a report, as specified. The bill would authorize a person harmed by a violation of these provisions to bring a civil action for damages, including statutory damages, as specified. 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. From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.

  3. In committee: Held under submission.

  4. Joint Rule 62(a), file notice suspended. (Page 1580.)

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

  6. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  7. Read second time and amended.

  8. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (April 25).

  9. Re-referred to Com. on P. & C.P.

  10. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on P. & C.P. Read second time and amended.

  11. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on P. & C.P. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (April 11). Re-referred to Com. on P. & C.P.

  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. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

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

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

  17. Referred to Coms. on PUB. S. and P. & C.P.

  18. From printer. May be heard in committee March 12.

  19. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 4 co-sponsors · 117 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Ting

Co-sponsors (4)

Not signed on (117)

117 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 117 →

"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 and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 9 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 7001
Republican 1000
Unaffiliated 1001
Total 9002
% of votes cast 82%0%0%18%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Essayli — Yea
Vince Fong — Not Voting
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
Papan, Diane Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Not Voting
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Privacy and Consumer Protection]

Passed 6 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 0002
Democratic 4000
Unaffiliated 2000
Total 6002
% of votes cast 75%0%0%25%
How each member voted (8)
Member Party Vote
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Ortega, Liz Democratic Yea
Zbur, Rick Chavez Democratic Yea
Alanis, Juan Republican Not Voting
Lackey, Tom Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights technology
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 642 do?
Existing law, generally, regulates state and local law enforcement agencies regarding subject matter that includes the selection and training of peace officers, the maintenance and release of records, the use of force, and the use of certain equipment. Previous law, until January 1, 2023, prohibited the use of real-time facial recognition technology by law enforcement agencies in connection with body-worn cameras. This bill would prescribe the acceptable and prohibited uses for facial recognition technology (FRT) , as defined, by a law enforcement agency or peace officer, as defined. The bill would set certain requirements for FRT systems and reference databases, as defined, used by law enforcement agencies. The bill would require the Department of Technology, in consultation with the Chief of the Office of Information Security, to issue standards to ensure the confidentiality and cybersecurity of FRT data and results. The bill would require law enforcement agencies to establish written policies that adhere to those standards. The bill would require law enforcement agencies utilizing FRT to keep certain records and to annually report certain data to the California State Auditor. The bill would require any law enforcement agency utilizing FRT to have a written policy, as specified, and to post that policy on their internet website. The bill would require a law enforcement agency to provide certain information to any person that FRT is used to identify. The bill would also require each district attorney's office, city prosecutor's office, and the Attorney General to annually report certain data to the California State Auditor. By imposing a new reporting requirement on district attorneys and city prosecutors, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the California State Auditor to annually analyze the data submitted and to prepare and publicize a report, as specified. The bill would authorize a person harmed by a violation of these provisions to bring a civil action for damages, including statutory damages, as specified. 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 642?
AB 642 is sponsored by Ting, Bradford, Jackson, Corey A. (Democratic), Lee, Alex (Democratic), and McCarty.
What is the current status of AB 642?
This bill died with 2023-2024 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 642?
Track AB 642 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 642

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 642

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →