California 2023-2024 Regular Session Status: In Committee 1 D cosponsors

AB 1378 — Criminal procedure: protective order violation.

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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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 allows a court to issue various protective orders to protect victims of, and witnesses to, a crime, as specified. Existing law prohibits the intentional and knowing violation of a protective order, as specified. A violation of this prohibition is a misdemeanor. Existing law requires a minimum term of imprisonment if the violation results in physical injury. Existing law also makes a subsequent violation of these provisions after a conviction, as specified, punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony. This bill would make a violation of a criminal protective order punishable as either a felony or misdemeanor. The bill would make a violation of specified protective orders, where the person is armed with a firearm, punishable as a felony, as specified. This bill would also make conforming changes. By creating a new crime, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

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: Set, first hearing. Failed passage. Reconsideration granted.

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

  5. Introduced measure version corrected.

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

  7. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  8. From printer. May be heard in committee March 20.

  9. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

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

Sponsors (1)

  • Essayli

Co-sponsors (1)

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

Failed 2 Yea · 0 Nay · 6 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 2000
Democratic 0004
Unaffiliated 0002
Total 2006
% of votes cast 25%0%0%75%
How each member voted (8)
Member Party Vote
Jones-Sawyer — Not Voting
Santiago — Not Voting
Bonta, Mia Democratic Not Voting
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Not Voting
Ortega, Liz Democratic Not Voting
Zbur, Rick Chavez Democratic Not Voting
Alanis, Juan Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican 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 AB 1378 do?
Existing law allows a court to issue various protective orders to protect victims of, and witnesses to, a crime, as specified. Existing law prohibits the intentional and knowing violation of a protective order, as specified. A violation of this prohibition is a misdemeanor. Existing law requires a minimum term of imprisonment if the violation results in physical injury. Existing law also makes a subsequent violation of these provisions after a conviction, as specified, punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony. This bill would make a violation of a criminal protective order punishable as either a felony or misdemeanor. The bill would make a violation of specified protective orders, where the person is armed with a firearm, punishable as a felony, as specified. This bill would also make conforming changes. By creating a new crime, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors AB 1378?
AB 1378 is sponsored by Essayli and Rubio, Blanca E. (Democratic).
What is the current status of AB 1378?
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 1378?
Track AB 1378 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 1378

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 1378

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →