Bill Commons

CA AB 1483

dead

Supervision: violations.

California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · lower

Quick answers

Did CA AB 1483 pass?

No. CA AB 1483 did not pass — it was defeated or died in the legislative process (2026-02-02). Latest recorded action (2026-02-02): From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

What is CA AB 1483 about?

Existing law requires prisoners sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison to serve time on parole or community supervision after their release from prison. Existing law authorizes courts to suspend the imposition or execution of punishments in specified criminal cases and instead enforce terms of probation or mandatory supervision. Existing law allows agencies responsible for supervision to determine appropriate responses to alleged violations, which can include, among other things, a one to 10 consecutive day period of flash incarceration. This bill would prohibit a person on any of those forms of supervision from being arrested, detained, or incarcerated for a technical violation of supervision, as defined, unless the person on supervision has had their supervision revoked by a judge after a revocation petition has been filed, except as specified. The bill would define a technical violation as any conduct in violation of a person's conditions of supervision that is not a new misdemeanor or felony. The bill would require a supervision agent to provide a person accused of a technical violation with a written summary of the technical violations alleged against them. The bill would prohibit the use of flash incarceration, and would make conforming changes. The bill would limit confinement pursuant to a revocation of supervision for a technical violation to no more than 7 days for the first revocation, 15 days for the 2nd revocation, and 30 days for the 3rd or subsequent revocation. By increasing duties on local supervision agents, 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, 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 CA AB 1483?

Haney is the primary sponsor of CA AB 1483.

Description

Existing law requires prisoners sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison to serve time on parole or community supervision after their release from prison. Existing law authorizes courts to suspend the imposition or execution of punishments in specified criminal cases and instead enforce terms of probation or mandatory supervision. Existing law allows agencies responsible for supervision to determine appropriate responses to alleged violations, which can include, among other things, a one to 10 consecutive day period of flash incarceration. This bill would prohibit a person on any of those forms of supervision from being arrested, detained, or incarcerated for a technical violation of supervision, as defined, unless the person on supervision has had their supervision revoked by a judge after a revocation petition has been filed, except as specified. The bill would define a technical violation as any conduct in violation of a person's conditions of supervision that is not a new misdemeanor or felony. The bill would require a supervision agent to provide a person accused of a technical violation with a written summary of the technical violations alleged against them. The bill would prohibit the use of flash incarceration, and would make conforming changes. The bill would limit confinement pursuant to a revocation of supervision for a technical violation to no more than 7 days for the first revocation, 15 days for the 2nd revocation, and 30 days for the 3rd or subsequent revocation. By increasing duties on local supervision agents, 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, 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.

Introduced
2025-02-21
Latest action
2026-02-02 — From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
Bill type
bill
Last updated
—

Subjects

Sponsors

  • Haneyauthor

Committees

Not provided by source.

Action timeline

  1. 2025-02-21

    Introduced. To print.

    introduction

  2. 2025-02-22

    From printer. May be heard in committee March 24.

  3. 2025-02-24

    Read first time.

    reading-1

  4. 2025-03-24

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

    amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee

  5. 2025-03-24

    Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

    referral-committee

  6. 2025-03-25

    Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.

    referral-committee

  7. 2025-04-24

    From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 2.) (April 22).

    amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,referral-committee

  8. 2025-04-28

    Read second time and amended.

    amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2

  9. 2025-04-29

    Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

    referral-committee

  10. 2025-05-07

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

    referral-committee

  11. 2025-05-23

    In committee: Held under submission.

  12. 2026-01-31

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

    failure

  13. 2026-02-02

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

    committee-passage,failure

Versions

  • 02/21/25 - Introduced — 2025-02-21Compare
  • 03/24/25 - Amended Assembly — 2025-03-24Compare
  • 04/28/25 - Amended Assembly — 2025-04-28Compare
  • AB1483Compare
  • (document, no version)Compare

Documents

Votes

  • Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

    2025-04-22 · pass · 6-2

    Member-level votes (9)
    • Harabedian: yes
    • Schultz: yes
    • Haney: yes
    • Mark González: yes
    • Ramos: yes
    • Nguyen: yes
    • Lackey: no
    • Alanis: no
    • Sharp-Collins: other

Related bills

No related bills recorded for this bill.

Official source

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1483

Attribution

Data from openstates_bulk_csv, retrieved 2026-07-24T01:34:27.960412Z

Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:

Source and document changesStatus and relationship changes

Use this data

Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=AB 1483. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.

Known limitations

  • Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
  • Committee referrals are not yet captured.
  • Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.

See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.