California · 2025–26 Regular Session · Assembly Bill
AB 1727: Crimes: theft of DNA.
In committee Official data
- Introduced
- In committee
- Passed one chamber
- Passed both chambers
- Enacted
Last official action: ·Record last updated:
Plain-language summary
AB 1727 is a assembly bill introduced in the California Assembly on February 5, 2026. According to its official title, it concerns: Crimes: theft of DNA. Primary sponsor: Tri Ta (R). Most recent recorded action (May 14, 2026): In committee: Held under submission.
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 Genetic Information Privacy Act, requires a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company, as defined, to provide a consumer with certain information regarding the company’s policies and procedures for the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure, as applicable, of genetic data, and to obtain a consumer’s express consent for collection, use, or disclosure of the consumer’s genetic data, as specified. Existing law assesses a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000 for a negligent violation of these provisions, and a civil penalty between $1,000 and $10,000, inclusive, for a willful violation of these provisions.
This bill would require all local law enforcement agencies in the state to report to the Attorney General starting July 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, the number of reports filed in the past year on the theft of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and the current status of those cases. The bill would require the Attorney General to, on or before January 1, 2028, report to the Legislature, and post on its internet website, the number of police reports filed on the theft of DNA and the current status of those cases. By increasing duties on local law enforcement, 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, 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): Republican 1
| Name | Role | Party | Chamber | District |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tri Ta | Primary sponsor | Republican | Assembly | 70 |
“Support” is shown only as formal sponsorship recorded by the legislature. Roll-call votes are available on the official bill page.
Recent official actions
- In committee: Held under submission.
- Joint Rule 62(a), file notice suspended. (Page 5030.)
- In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
- Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
- Read second time and amended.
- From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (April 21).
- In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
- Re-referred to Com. on P. & C.P.
- Read second time and amended.
- From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on P. & C.P. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (March 17).
- In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
- Referred to Coms. on PUB. S. and P. & C.P.