Skip to main content
Independent and nonpartisan. SaveYourState is a civic information resource. It is not a government website and is not affiliated with any government agency, party, or campaign.

California · 2025–26 Regular Session · Assembly Bill

AB 1118: Criminal procedure: search warrants.

Did not advance Official data

  1. Introduced
  2. In committee
  3. Passed one chamber
  4. Passed both chambers
  5. Enacted
  6. Did not advance

Last official action: ·Record last updated:

Plain-language summary

AB 1118 is a assembly bill introduced in the California Assembly on February 20, 2025. According to its official title, it concerns: Criminal procedure: search warrants. Primary sponsor: Phillip Chen (R). Most recent recorded action (February 2, 2026): From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

Generated automatically from the official title, sponsor list, and status record only. It does not characterize the bill’s purpose or effects. How summaries are written

Official summary

Legislative Counsel’s Digest (official, as of the latest version). Written by nonpartisan legislative staff; reproduced verbatim.

Existing law allows a search warrant to be issued upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, naming or describing the person to be searched or searched for, and particularly describing the property, thing, or things and the place to be searched. Existing law describes search warrants and enumerates the grounds upon which a search warrant may be issued, including, without limitation, for property that was stolen or embezzled, or for property or things that were used to commit a felony.

Existing law authorizes a defendant to move for the return of property or to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a search and seizure if the search or seizure was without a warrant and was unreasonable or, the search and seizure was with a warrant and certain criteria apply. Existing law provides for a hearing on the defendant’s motion where the court receives evidence and determines whether the evidence is inadmissible at any trial or other hearing, except as specified, or returns the property.

This bill would allow a search warrant for stolen or embezzled currency, as specified, to include an order for such currency to be returned to a lawful owner identified in the warrant pursuant to specified procedures including a hearing, if requested, to determine that the currency was stolen or embezzled, before it is returned to its owner. The bill would require an independent hearing, where the agency seizing the currency would have the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the currency was stolen or embezzled. The bill would require the agency seizing the property, no less than 10 days before returning the currency to the lawful owner, to notify the prosecuting authority in the jurisdiction where the embezzlement or theft may reasonably be prosecuted.

Sponsors

Sponsors by party (alphabetical): Republican 1

NameRolePartyChamberDistrict
Phillip ChenPrimary sponsorRepublicanAssembly59

“Support” is shown only as formal sponsorship recorded by the legislature. Roll-call votes are available on the official bill page.

Recent official actions

  1. From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
  2. Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.
  3. In committee: Set, second hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
  4. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
  5. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
  6. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. Read second time and amended.
  7. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
  8. From printer. May be heard in committee March 23.
  9. Read first time. To print.

Sources

  1. California Legislative Information — pubinfo database export
  2. Official bill page