CA SB 421
deadCriminal procedure: protective orders.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · upper
Subscribe in a feed reader. The feed covers recorded actions from the last 30 days; Bill Commons may record an action after it happened at the legislature.
Quick answers
Did CA SB 421 pass?
No. CA SB 421 did not pass — it was defeated or died in the legislative process. Latest recorded action (2026-02-02): Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
What is CA SB 421 about?
Existing law allows the court to issue a protective order restraining a defendant from any contact with the victim if the defendant has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence, human trafficking, a crime in furtherance of a criminal street gang, or a registerable sex offense. Under existing law, the protective order may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. This bill would additionally allow the court to issue a permanent protective order restraining a defendant from any contact with the victim if the defendant has been convicted of any serious or violent felony, as defined, or any felony requiring registration as a sex offender. The bill would also authorize the court to permanently extend certain previously issued orders under certain circumstances. The bill would require the Judicial Council to develop forms, instructions, and rules relating to these orders. The bill would make other conforming changes. By authorizing the issuance of protective orders in certain circumstances and the extension of certain protective orders, a violation of which is punishable as a 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 CA SB 421?
Valladares is the primary sponsor of CA SB 421, joined by 9 cosponsors.
Description
Existing law allows the court to issue a protective order restraining a defendant from any contact with the victim if the defendant has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence, human trafficking, a crime in furtherance of a criminal street gang, or a registerable sex offense. Under existing law, the protective order may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. This bill would additionally allow the court to issue a permanent protective order restraining a defendant from any contact with the victim if the defendant has been convicted of any serious or violent felony, as defined, or any felony requiring registration as a sex offender. The bill would also authorize the court to permanently extend certain previously issued orders under certain circumstances. The bill would require the Judicial Council to develop forms, instructions, and rules relating to these orders. The bill would make other conforming changes. By authorizing the issuance of protective orders in certain circumstances and the extension of certain protective orders, a violation of which is punishable as a 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.
- Introduced
- 2025-02-18
- Latest action
- 2026-02-02 — Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Valladaresauthor
- Alvarado-Gilcoauthor
- Grovecoauthor
- Jonescoauthor
- Niellocoauthor
- Ochoa Boghcoauthor
- Seyartocoauthor
- Alaniscoauthor
- Dixoncoauthor
- Sanchezcoauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
Newest first
2026-02-02
Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
failure
2025-04-01
April 1 set for first hearing. Failed passage in committee. (Ayes 2. Noes 3. Page 611.) Reconsideration granted.
committee-failure,committee-passage-unfavorable
2025-03-18
Set for hearing April 1.
2025-02-26
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
referral-committee
2025-02-19
From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 21.
2025-02-18
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
introduction,reading-1,referral-committee
Versions
Documents
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
Votes
[First] hearing set for [04-01-2025]: Failed passage in Committee. Reconsideration granted
2025-04-01 · pass · 6-0
Member-level votes (6)
- Seyarto: yes
- Gonzalez: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Wiener: yes
- Pérez: yes
- Arreguín: yes
Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2025-04-01 · fail · 2-3
Member-level votes (6)
- Seyarto: yes
- Pérez: yes
- Wiener: no
- Gonzalez: no
- Arreguín: no
- Caballero: other
Related bills
No related bills recorded for this bill.
Official source
Attribution
Data from openstates_bulk_csv, retrieved 2026-07-24T01:34:27.960412Z
Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:
Session-wide evidence can include changes to other bills:
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=SB 421. 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.