AB 572: Criminal procedure: interrogations.

Official summary

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

Existing law prohibits the prosecuting attorney, attorney for the defendant, or investigator for either the prosecution or the defendant from interviewing, questioning, or speaking to a victim or witness whose name has been disclosed pursuant to existing law without first clearly identifying themselves and identifying the full name of the agency by whom they are employed, and identifying whether they represent, or have been retained by, the prosecution or the defendant. Under existing law, if an interview takes place in person, the party is also required to show the victim or witness a business card, official badge, or other form of official identification before commencing the interview or questioning.

This bill would require a peace officer, as defined, or a prosecuting attorney, before any initial formal interview of an immediate family member of a person who has been killed or seriously injured by a peace officer, to clearly identify themselves and if the interview takes place in person, to show identification, to inform the person of the status of their family member, to inform the person that they are conducting a formal interview for the purposes of an investigation, as specified, and to inform the person that they have a choice to come to the station for the formal interview if they are asked to go and can have a trusted support person with them. The bill would provide that its provisions do not apply if the immediate family member is under custodial interrogation, as specified, or if the delay would result in the loss or destruction of evidence or pose an imminent threat to public safety. 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): Democratic 7

“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. October 13, 2025Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 697, Statutes of 2025.
2. October 13, 2025Approved by the Governor.
3. September 24, 2025Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3 p.m.
4. September 13, 2025Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 42. Noes 22. Page 3464.).
5. September 13, 2025Joint Rules 61(a)(14) and 51(a)(4) suspended. (Ayes 59. Noes 20. Page 3413.)
6. September 12, 2025In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.
7. September 12, 2025Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 22. Noes 10. Page 2995.).
8. September 8, 2025Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
9. September 5, 2025Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
10. August 20, 2025Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
11. August 19, 2025From committee: Be ordered to second reading pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.
12. July 8, 2025From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.) (July 8). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.