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 1667: Serious felonies: furnishing fentanyl to a minor.

In committee 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 1667 is a assembly bill introduced in the California Assembly on January 29, 2026. According to its official title, it concerns: Serious felonies: furnishing fentanyl to a minor. Primary sponsor: Tasha Boerner (D). It lists 3 additional sponsors. Most recent recorded action (May 21, 2026): Ordered to inactive file at the request of Assembly Member Boerner.

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, as added by the Victims’ Bill of Rights, approved as Proposition 8 at the June 8, 1982, statewide primary election, and as amended by the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act of 1998, approved as Proposition 21 at the March 7, 2000, statewide primary election, among other things, defines a serious felony.

Existing law prohibits plea bargaining in a case in which a serious felony is charged and imposes a 5-year enhancement for conviction of a serious felony if the person has previously been convicted of a serious felony.

This bill would include knowingly furnishing fentanyl and fentanyl analogs to a minor within the definition of a serious felony. By expanding the scope of an enhancement, 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.

Sponsors

Sponsors by party (alphabetical): Democratic 2 · Republican 2

NameRolePartyChamberDistrict
Tasha BoernerPrimary sponsorDemocraticAssembly77
Juan AlanisCo-sponsorRepublicanAssembly22
Tom LackeyCo-sponsorRepublicanAssembly34
James RamosCo-sponsorDemocraticAssembly45

“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. Ordered to inactive file at the request of Assembly Member Boerner.
  2. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
  3. Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.
  4. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (May 14).
  5. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
  6. Introduced measure version corrected.
  7. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (March 10). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
  8. Coauthors revised.
  9. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
  10. From printer. May be heard in committee March 1.
  11. Read first time. To print.

Sources

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