California 2025-2026 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB1388

Introduced
2/21/25  
Refer
3/13/25  
Report Pass
4/10/25  
Refer
4/21/25  
Report Pass
4/30/25  
Refer
4/30/25  
Refer
5/14/25  
Report Pass
5/23/25  
Engrossed
6/3/25  
Refer
6/4/25  
Refer
6/18/25  
Report Pass
7/15/25  
Refer
7/15/25  
Enrolled
9/13/25  

Caption

Law enforcement: settlement agreements.

Impact

If enacted, AB1388 will significantly modify existing laws by tightening the requirements for how law enforcement agencies handle allegations against officers. By necessitating the disclosure of certain misdeeds and misconduct investigations, the bill seeks to mitigate tendencies within agencies to conceal or mishandle misconduct complaints, thereby increasing public trust in law enforcement. Additionally, the bill introduces conditions under which certain information can be withheld, balancing the need for accountability against the requirements of ongoing investigations.

Summary

AB1388, titled 'Law Enforcement: Settlement Agreements', seeks to reinforce and clarify the transparency in accountability regarding law enforcement officers. The bill mandates law enforcement agencies to maintain and report records related to peace officers' misconduct allegations and investigations. This ensures a more robust framework for public access to information that may affect citizens' trust in law enforcement entities. The aim is not only to promote accountability within law enforcement agencies but also to uphold the public’s right to oversight and scrutiny over such entities’ operational conduct.

Sentiment

The overall sentiment around AB1388 appears to be largely supportive among advocates for police reform and transparency, who view it as a necessary step towards more responsible policing practices. However, there are concerns from some law enforcement agencies and their advocates who argue that overly stringent transparency measures may jeopardize the thoroughness of investigations and potentially increase public scrutiny that could deter effective law enforcement operations. Thus, while the bill enjoys support in the reform community, it faces apprehension from law enforcement representatives regarding its practical implications.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the degree of transparency that should be mandated versus the need for investigators to protect ongoing inquiries from public disclosure that could compromise their integrity. Detractors question whether the bill goes too far by potentially exposing sensitive information that may not yet be fully adjudicated. Moreover, debates center around the implications of requiring agencies to report misconduct, and the associated risks this may pose not just to officers but also to community relations and investigative efficacy.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

CA AB1725

Law enforcement settlements and judgments: reporting.

CA AB642

Law enforcement agencies: facial recognition technology.

CA AB2621

Law enforcement training.

CA SB449

Peace officers: Peace Officer Standards Accountability Advisory Board.

CA SB889

California Department of Tax and Fee Administration: earnings withholding orders: settlement agreements: excise taxes.

CA AB3241

Law enforcement: police canines.

CA SB519

Corrections.

CA AB2366

Sales and use tax: administration: settlements.

CA AB1905

Public postsecondary education: employment: settlements, informal resolutions, and retreat rights.

CA AB44

California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System: tribal police.

Similar Bills

CA AB1178

Peace officers: confidentiality of records.

CA AB847

Peace officers: confidentiality of records.

CA SB400

Peace officers: confidentiality of records.

CA AB2557

Peace officers: records.

CA SB852

Searches: supervised persons.