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 1178: Peace officers: confidentiality of records.

Enacted Official data

  1. Introduced
  2. In committee
  3. Passed one chamber
  4. Passed both chambers
  5. Enacted

Last official action: ·Record last updated:

Plain-language summary

AB 1178 is a assembly bill introduced in the California Assembly on February 21, 2025. According to its official title, it concerns: Peace officers: confidentiality of records. Primary sponsor: Blanca Pacheco (D). It lists 4 additional sponsors. Most recent recorded action (October 11, 2025): Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 635, Statutes of 2025.

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, the California Public Records Act, generally requires public records to be open for inspection by the public. Existing law provides numerous exceptions to this requirement. Under existing law, the personnel records of peace officers and custodial officers are confidential and not subject to public inspection. Existing law provides certain exemptions to this confidentiality, including the reports, investigations, and findings of certain incidents involving the use of force by a peace officer. Existing law authorizes an agency to redact the records disclosed for specified purposes including, among others, to remove personal data or information, as specified, and where there is a specific, articulable, and particularized reason to believe that disclosure of the record would pose a significant danger to the physical safety of the peace officer, custodial officer, or another person.

This bill would require a court in an action to compel disclosure pursuant to specified provisions, in determining whether there is a specific, articulable, and particularized reason to believe that disclosure of the record would pose a significant danger to the physical safety of a person, to consider whether a particular peace officer is currently operating undercover and their duties demand anonymity.

This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 832.7 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 847 and AB 1388, to be operative only if this bill and AB 847 or AB 1388 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.

Sponsors

Sponsors by party (alphabetical): Democratic 4 · Republican 1

NameRolePartyChamberDistrict
Blanca PachecoPrimary sponsorDemocraticAssembly64
Juan AlanisCo-sponsorRepublicanAssembly22
Stephanie NguyenCo-sponsorDemocraticAssembly10
Michelle RodriguezCo-sponsorDemocraticAssembly53
Blanca RubioCo-sponsorDemocraticAssembly48

“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. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 635, Statutes of 2025.
  2. Approved by the Governor.
  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3 p.m.
  4. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 67. Noes 0. Page 3481.).
  5. Assembly Rule 63 suspended. (Page 3477.)
  6. Joint Rules 61(a)(14) and 51(a)(4) suspended. (Ayes 59. Noes 20. Page 3413.)
  7. In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.
  8. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 29. Noes 2. Page 3005.).
  9. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
  10. Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
  11. Joint Rule 61(a)(13) suspended. (Ayes 28. Noes 8. Page 2568.)
  12. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

Sources

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