California 2023-2024 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB742

Introduced
2/13/23  
Refer
2/23/23  
Introduced
2/13/23  
Report Pass
3/15/23  
Refer
2/23/23  
Refer
3/16/23  
Report Pass
3/15/23  
Report Pass
3/22/23  
Refer
3/16/23  
Report Pass
3/22/23  
Refer
4/26/23  
Refer
3/22/23  
Report Pass
5/18/23  
Refer
4/26/23  
Failed
2/1/24  
Report Pass
5/18/23  

Caption

Law enforcement: police canines.

Impact

If enacted, AB 742 would have a significant impact on law enforcement practices across the state. This legislation is poised to reform how police handle situations involving suspects and public gatherings, particularly in communities of color where police canine programs have historically been linked to systemic abuse and disenfranchisement. Supporters argue that the bill would help foster trust in police among marginalized communities while simultaneously aiming to decrease potential injuries and fatalities caused by canine interventions. The change could also reshape police training programs concerning canine usage and alter policies on crowd control tactics.

Summary

Assembly Bill 742, introduced by Assembly Member Jackson, aims to restrict the use of police canines by law enforcement agencies. The bill explicitly prohibits the deployment of unleashed dogs for apprehension unless the suspect is believed to have committed a felony that poses an imminent threat to life. It also prohibits police canines from being used in crowd control situations and underscores that any severe injury or death caused by a police canine would be attributed to the handler as a form of deadly force. The overall intent is to enhance accountability and reduce the risk of harm caused by police canines during encounters with individuals.

Sentiment

The sentiment around AB 742 is highly contentious. Proponents, including various civil rights advocates, celebrate the bill as a necessary measure to combat fear and distrust stemming from the historical misuse of police canines, especially against people of color. They emphasize the need for enhanced safety and accountability in law enforcement. On the other hand, opponents, primarily from law enforcement organizations, express concern that such restrictions could hinder the ability of police to effectively manage dangerous situations. This polarized view highlights an ongoing conflict between ensuring community safety and protecting individual rights against potential abuses of authority.

Contention

Notable points of contention include discussions on the historical context of police canines within law enforcement and their association with racial violence. Assembly Bill 742 points out the legacy of police dogs as tools of oppression and highlights the disproportionate impact these situations have had on Black individuals. Data presented within the bill shows that bites from police canines frequently result in severe injuries, particularly among communities of color, prompting concerns regarding public safety and civil liberties. The debate surrounding AB 742 emphasizes a broader discourse on law enforcement reform and community trust.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB1022

Peace officers: use of force.

CA AB2042

Police canines: guidelines.

CA AB931

Criminal procedure: use of force by peace officers.

CA AB1709

Law enforcement: use of force.

CA AB79

Weapons: robotic devices and unmanned aircrafts.

CA AB392

Peace officers: deadly force.

CA AB994

Law enforcement: social media.

CA AB1475

Law enforcement: social media.