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 1489: Peace officers.

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 1489 is a assembly bill introduced in the California Assembly on February 21, 2025. According to its official title, it concerns: Peace officers. Primary sponsor: Isaac Bryan (D). 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 defines persons who are peace officers and the entities authorized to appoint them. Existing law prescribes certain minimum standards for a person to be appointed as a peace officer, including moral character and physical and mental condition, and certain disqualifying factors for a person to be employed as a peace officer, including a felony conviction.

This bill would require a law enforcement agency that employs a peace officer to have a policy prohibiting that officer from carrying any firearm when the officer has a blood alcohol concentration greater than 0.00%, whether the officer is on duty or off duty, unless the officer is on duty and engaged in an undercover assignment in the course of their employment as a peace officer. By imposing new duties on local law enforcement, the 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.

Sponsors

Sponsors by party (alphabetical): Democratic 1

NameRolePartyChamberDistrict
Isaac BryanPrimary sponsorDemocraticAssembly55

“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: Held under submission.
  4. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
  5. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.) (April 29). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
  6. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
  7. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. Read second time and amended.
  8. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
  9. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
  10. Read first time.
  11. From printer. May be heard in committee March 24.
  12. Introduced. To print.

Sources

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