Bill Commons

CA AB 284

dead

Law enforcement: Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA).

California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · lower

Quick answers

Did CA AB 284 pass?

No. CA AB 284 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 284 about?

Existing law requires each state and local agency that employs peace officers to annually report to the Attorney General specified data on all stops conducted by that agency's peace officers for the preceding calendar year. Existing law defines "stop" for purposes of these provisions to mean any detention by a peace officer of a person or any peace officer interaction with a person in which the peace officer conducts a search of the person's body or property in the person's possession or control. Existing law requires the Attorney General to establish the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA) for the purpose of eliminating racial and identity profiling and improving diversity and racial and identity sensitivity in law enforcement. Existing law requires RIPA to include various members, including 2 representatives of human or civil rights tax-exempt organizations, 2 representatives of community organizations, and 2 religious clergy members, as specified. Existing law authorizes the Governor, President pro Tempore of the Senate, and Speaker of the Assembly to each prescribe up to 2 other members to membership of RIPA. This bill would require RIPA to include in its membership the president of the California District Attorneys Association, or their designee. Existing law requires RIPA to issue a report annually that provides RIPA's analysis of, among other things, the reported stop data described above. Existing law also requires the report to provide detailed findings on the past and current status of racial identity profiling and to make policy recommendations for eliminating racial and identity profiling, as specified. This bill would authorize any member of RIPA to cause a dissenting opinion to be included in the report, as specified. The bill would additionally authorize RIPA to include a response to a dissenting opinion in its report.

Who sponsors CA AB 284?

Alanis is the primary sponsor of CA AB 284.

Description

Existing law requires each state and local agency that employs peace officers to annually report to the Attorney General specified data on all stops conducted by that agency's peace officers for the preceding calendar year. Existing law defines "stop" for purposes of these provisions to mean any detention by a peace officer of a person or any peace officer interaction with a person in which the peace officer conducts a search of the person's body or property in the person's possession or control. Existing law requires the Attorney General to establish the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA) for the purpose of eliminating racial and identity profiling and improving diversity and racial and identity sensitivity in law enforcement. Existing law requires RIPA to include various members, including 2 representatives of human or civil rights tax-exempt organizations, 2 representatives of community organizations, and 2 religious clergy members, as specified. Existing law authorizes the Governor, President pro Tempore of the Senate, and Speaker of the Assembly to each prescribe up to 2 other members to membership of RIPA. This bill would require RIPA to include in its membership the president of the California District Attorneys Association, or their designee. Existing law requires RIPA to issue a report annually that provides RIPA's analysis of, among other things, the reported stop data described above. Existing law also requires the report to provide detailed findings on the past and current status of racial identity profiling and to make policy recommendations for eliminating racial and identity profiling, as specified. This bill would authorize any member of RIPA to cause a dissenting opinion to be included in the report, as specified. The bill would additionally authorize RIPA to include a response to a dissenting opinion in its report.

Introduced
2025-03-24
Latest action
2026-02-02 — From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
Bill type
bill
Last updated
—

Subjects

Sponsors

  • Alanisauthor

Committees

Not provided by source.

Action timeline

  1. 2025-01-22

    Read first time. To print.

    reading-1

  2. 2025-01-23

    From printer. May be heard in committee February 22.

  3. 2025-03-24

    Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

    referral-committee

  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. 2025-03-25

    Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.

    referral-committee

  6. 2025-04-02

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

  7. 2025-04-22

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

  8. 2025-04-30

    From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 1.) (April 29).

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

  9. 2025-05-01

    Read second time and amended.

    amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2

  10. 2025-05-05

    Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

    referral-committee

  11. 2025-05-07

    In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  12. 2025-05-14

    In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  13. 2026-01-22

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

  14. 2026-01-31

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

    failure

  15. 2026-02-02

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

    committee-passage,failure

Versions

  • 01/22/25 - Introduced — 2025-01-22Compare
  • 03/24/25 - Amended Assembly — 2025-03-24Compare
  • 05/01/25 - Amended Assembly — 2025-05-01Compare
  • AB284Compare
  • (document, no version)Compare

Documents

Votes

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

    2025-04-29 · pass · 7-1

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

Related bills

No related bills recorded for this bill.

Official source

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB284

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 284. 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.