AB 2122: Infractions: warrants and penalties.
- Session Year: 2025-2026
- House: Assembly
- Latest Version Date: 2026-08-30
Current Status:
Failed
(2026-09-20: Vetoed by Governor.)
Introduced
In Committee
Awaiting First Chamber Vote
Passed First Chamber
In Committee
Awaiting Second Chamber Vote
Passed Second Chamber
Enacted
What does this bill do?
The bill bars courts and police from issuing judge’s arrest warrants for people who miss court dates or don’t pay fines when the original offense was an infraction, including traffic/Vehicle Code infractions. It also makes failing to appear or missing installment bail or fine payments a misdemeanor only when the underlying charge is not an infraction, and limits bench warrants for other infractions to allowing arrest and booking at the scene followed by immediate release.
The summary is provided by generative AI which can make mistakes. For original language, please view the details in the table below.
(1)Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to willfully fail to appear in court, as specified. Existing law, when a person has failed to appear and has not posted bail, requires the magistrate to issue a warrant for the persons arrest within 20 days of the failure to appear.
This bill would make those sections only apply when the underlying charge is not an infraction.
(2)Existing law authorizes the issuance of a bench warrant of arrest when a person fails to appear in court as promised in specified criminal proceedings.
This bill would prohibit the issuance of a bench warrant of arrest when the underlying crime is an infraction issued pursuant to the Vehicle Code. The bill would require bench warrants for other infractions to be limited to only authorizing arrest and booking at the scene followed by immediate release, as specified.
(3)Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to willfully fail to appear in court for a violation of the Vehicle Code, and requires the court to report a conviction of this offense to the Department of Motor Vehicles.
This bill would make that misdemeanor only apply when the underlying charge is not an infraction. The bill would also remove the requirement for the court to report a conviction of this offense to the department.
(4)Existing law authorizes the imposition of a civil assessment or the issuance of an arrest warrant when a person fails to make an installment payment on bail imposed by the court for an infraction violation of the Vehicle Code. Existing law also makes it a misdemeanor to fail to pay bail in installments or to fail to pay a fine imposed for the violation of a state or local traffic law.
This bill would remove the misdemeanor for failure to pay a bail installment or fine if the original charge was an infraction. The bill would remove the authorization to issue an arrest warrant for failure to pay a bail installment.
(5)Existing law, if a defendant does not appear at the time the case is called for a violation of the Vehicle Code, authorizes the court to declare the bail forfeited and order that no further proceedings be had in the case, or to issue a warrant for the arrest of the defendant. However, if a defendant is charged with specified crimes, including disposing of a flaming or glowing substance on or near a road and littering a highway, has previously been convicted of the same crime, and fails to appear at the time the case is called to trial, existing law authorizes the court to declare the bail forfeited and requires the court to issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the person charged, unless the magistrate finds that undue hardship will be imposed by requiring the defendant to appear.
This bill would remove the requirement that the magistrate issue a bench warrant when the person has committed one of the crimes specified above.
(1)Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to willfully fail to appear in court, as specified. Existing law, when a person has failed to appear and has not posted bail, requires the magistrate to issue a warrant for the persons arrest within 20 days of the failure to appear.
This bill would make those sections only apply when the underlying charge is not an infraction.
(2)Existing law authorizes the issuance of a bench warrant of arrest when a person fails to appear in court as promised in specified criminal proceedings.
This bill would prohibit the issuance of a bench warrant of arrest when the underlying crime is an infraction. infraction issued pursuant to the Vehicle Code. The bill would require bench warrants for other infractions to be limited to only authorizing arrest and booking at the scene followed by immediate release, as specified.
(3)Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to willfully fail to appear in court for a violation of the Vehicle Code, and requires the court to report a conviction of this offense to the Department of Motor Vehicles.
This bill would make that misdemeanor only apply when the underlying charge is not an infraction. The bill would also remove the requirement for the court to report a conviction of this offense to the department.
(4)Existing law authorizes the imposition of a civil assessment or the issuance of an arrest warrant when a person fails to make an installment payment on bail imposed by the court for an infraction violation of the Vehicle Code. Existing law also makes it a misdemeanor to fail to pay bail in installments or to fail to pay a fine imposed for the violation of a state or local traffic law.
This bill would repeal remove the misdemeanor for failure to pay a bail installment or fine. fine if the original charge was an infraction. The bill would remove the authorization to issue an arrest warrant for failure to pay a bail installment.
(5)Existing law, if a defendant does not appear at the time the case is called for a violation of the Vehicle Code, authorizes the court to declare the bail forfeited and order that no further proceedings be had in the case, or to issue a warrant for the arrest of the defendant. However, if a defendant is charged with specified crimes, including disposing of a flaming or glowing substance on or near a road and littering a highway, has previously been convicted of the same crime, and fails to appear at the time the case is called to trial, existing law authorizes the court to declare the bail forfeited and requires the court to issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the person charged, unless the magistrate finds that undue hardship will be imposed by requiring the defendant to appear.
This bill would remove the requirement that the magistrate issue a bench warrant when the person has committed one of the crimes specified above.
(1)Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to willfully fail to appear in court, as specified. Existing law, when a person has failed to appear and has not posted bail, requires the magistrate to issue a warrant for the persons arrest within 20 days of the failure to appear.
This bill would make those sections only apply when the underlying charge is not an infraction.
(2)Existing law authorizes the issuance of a bench warrant of arrest when a person fails to appear in court as promised in specified criminal proceedings.
This bill would prohibit the issuance of a bench warrant of arrest when the underlying crime is an infraction.
(3)Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to willfully fail to appear in court for a violation of the Vehicle Code, and requires the court to report a conviction of this offense to the Department of Motor Vehicles.
This bill would make that misdemeanor only apply when the underlying charge is not an infraction. The bill would also remove the requirement for the court to report a conviction of this offense to the department.
(4)Existing law authorizes the imposition of a civil assessment or the issuance of an arrest warrant when a person fails to make an installment payment on bail imposed by the court for an infraction violation of the Vehicle Code. Existing law also makes it a misdemeanor to fail to pay bail in installments or to fail to pay a fine imposed for the violation of a state or local traffic law.
This bill would repeal the misdemeanor for failure to pay a bail installment or fine. The bill would remove the authorization to issue an arrest warrant for failure to pay a bail installment.
(5)Existing law, if a defendant does not appear at the time the case is called for a violation of the Vehicle Code, authorizes the court to declare the bail forfeited and order that no further proceedings be had in the case, or to issue a warrant for the arrest of the defendant. However, if a defendant is charged with specified crimes, including disposing of a flaming or glowing substance on or near a road and littering a highway, has previously been convicted of the same crime, and fails to appear at the time the case is called to trial, existing law authorizes the court to declare the bail forfeited and requires the court to issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the person charged, unless the magistrate finds that undue hardship will be imposed by requiring the defendant to appear.
This bill would remove the requirement that the magistrate issue a bench warrant when the person has committed one of the crimes specified above.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)Each year California processes over 3 million infractions.
(b)Infractions are low-level violations, enforced by tickets, and punishable only by a fine. Court appearances are not required for infractions so long as a person pays their ticket. When people fail to pay the ticket or alternatively appear in court, however, state law currently authorizes courts to issue bench warrants for their arrest. This sets up a two-tiered system of justice. Those who can afford to pay avoid further punishment, while those who cannot may face incarceration.
(c)An infraction bench warrant converts an otherwise nonjailable offense into the basis for a persons incarceration. The punishment for failing to pay or appear is thus much more severe than the initial ticket or fine. A persons arrest and incarceration on an infraction bench warrant, resulting from nonpayment of a fine, is effectively a form of debtors prison.
(d)Many people who are issued infraction tickets have good reasons for failing to pay or appear in court. Many do not receive notice, cannot afford to pay the ticket, were not able to get off work or get childcare, are experiencing mental or physical health issues, or understandably are fearful of appearing in court.
(e)Many people issued infraction tickets cannot afford to pay. A 2022 Debt Free Justice California survey of people exiting traffic courts found that over 70 percent of people could not afford to pay a $300 assessment. The Federal Reserve Boards Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking found that over 40 percent of families do not have enough money saved to cover a $400 emergency expense.
(f)Black, Brown, and Indigenous people are disproportionately stopped, cited, and arrested by law enforcement for infractions. According to the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board, Black people are nearly 10 times as likely to receive a citation for an infraction as White individuals. Data from the county of San Francisco show that, though Black people only make up 5.8 percent of the local population, due to systemic racism and targeted, unjust policing, 48.7 percent of those arrested for failure to appear or pay traffic court warrants are Black. Data obtained from the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department through a Public Records Act request show that nearly 90 percent of the thousands of people arrested by the Sheriffs Department on traffic infraction bench warrants were Black or Latinx.
(g)A substantial body of social science research, including the research documented in the Ella Baker Center report Who Pays? The True Cost of Incarceration on Families, shows that an arrest can have adverse and long-term consequences, such as negative impacts on ones ability to secure housing, employment, and higher education opportunities, and that even short periods of detention may make people more likely to become involved with the legal system again.
(h)Existing law provides courts with other tools to respond to nonpayment of infraction tickets, which do not involve arrest and incarceration, such as civil collections. Research from ideas42 and the University of Chicago CrimeLab shows that alternatives to warrants such as improved notices and reminders and common sense collections practices are more effective at generating timely court appearances and payments.
SEC. 2.It is the intent of the Legislature to eliminate arrest warrants for infractions as a step towards ending debtors prisons in California.
SEC. 3.Section 19.7 of the Penal Code is amended to read:19.7.Except as otherwise provided by law, all laws relating to misdemeanors, except for the authority to issue bench warrants, shall apply to infractions, including, but not limited to, powers of peace officers, jurisdiction of courts, periods for commencing action and for bringing a case to trial, and burden of proof.
SEC. 4.Section 853.6 of the Penal Code, as amended by Section 5 of Chapter 168 of the Statutes of 2024, is amended to read:853.6.(a)(1)When a person is arrested for an offense declared to be a misdemeanor, including a violation of a city or county ordinance, and does not demand to be taken before a magistrate, that person shall, instead of being taken before a magistrate, be released according to the procedures set forth by this chapter, although nothing prevents an officer from first booking an arrestee pursuant to subdivision (g). If the person is released, the officer or the officers superior shall prepare in duplicate a written notice to appear in court, containing the name and address of the person, the offense charged, and the time when, and place where, the person shall appear in court. If, pursuant to subdivision (i), the person is not released prior to being booked and the officer in charge of the booking or the officers superior determines that the person should be released, the officer or the officers superior shall prepare a written notice to appear in a court.
(2)When a person is arrested for a misdemeanor violation of a protective court order involving domestic violence, as defined in Section 13700, or arrested pursuant to a policy, as described in Section 13701, the person shall be taken before a magistrate instead of being released according to the procedures set forth in this chapter, unless the arresting officer determines that there is not a reasonable likelihood that the offense will continue or resume or that the safety of persons or property would be imminently endangered by release of the person arrested. Prior to adopting these provisions, each city, county, or city and county shall develop a protocol to assist officers to determine when arrest and release is appropriate, rather than taking the arrested person before a magistrate. The county shall establish a committee to develop the protocol, consisting of, at a minimum, the police chief or county sheriff within the jurisdiction, the district attorney, county counsel, city attorney, representatives from domestic violence shelters, domestic violence councils, and other relevant community agencies.
(3)This subdivision does not apply to the crimes specified in Section 1270.1, including crimes defined in each of the following:
(A)Paragraph (1) of subdivision (e) of Section 243.
(B)Section 273.5.
(C)Section 273.6, if the detained person made threats to kill or harm, has engaged in violence against, or has gone to the residence or workplace of, the protected party.
(D)Section 646.9.
(4)This subdivision shall not affect a defendants ability to be released on bail or on their own recognizance, except as specified in Section 1270.1.
(b)Unless waived by the person, the time specified in the notice to appear shall be at least 10 days after arrest if the duplicate notice is to be filed by the officer with the magistrate.
(c)The place specified in the notice shall be the court of the magistrate before whom the person would be taken if the requirement of taking an arrested person before a magistrate were complied with, or shall be an officer authorized by that court to receive a deposit of bail.
(d)The officer shall deliver one copy of the notice to appear to the arrested person, and the arrested person, in order to secure release, shall give their written promise to appear in court as specified in the notice by signing the duplicate notice, which shall be retained by the officer, and the officer may require the arrested person, if the arrested person has no satisfactory identification, to place a right thumbprint, or a left thumbprint or fingerprint if the person has a missing or disfigured right thumb, on the notice to appear. Except for law enforcement purposes relating to the identity of the arrestee, a person or entity shall not sell, give away, allow the distribution of, include in a database, or create a database with, this print. Upon the signing of the duplicate notice, the arresting officer shall immediately release the person arrested from custody.
(e)The officer shall, as soon as practicable, file the duplicate notice, as follows:
(1)It shall be filed with the magistrate if the offense charged is an infraction.
(2)It shall be filed with the magistrate if the prosecuting attorney has previously directed the officer to do so.
(3)(A)The duplicate notice and underlying police reports in support of the charge or charges shall be filed with the prosecuting attorney in cases other than those specified in paragraphs (1) and (2).
(B)If the duplicate notice is filed with the prosecuting attorney, the prosecuting attorney, within their discretion, may initiate prosecution by filing the notice or a formal complaint with the magistrate specified in the duplicate notice within 25 days from the time of arrest. If the prosecution is not to be initiated, the prosecutor shall send notice to the person arrested at the address on the notice to appear. The failure by the prosecutor to file the notice or formal complaint within 25 days of the time of the arrest shall not bar further prosecution of the misdemeanor charged in the notice to appear. However, any further prosecution shall be preceded by a new and separate citation or an arrest warrant.
(C)Upon the filing of the notice with the magistrate by the officer, or the filing of the notice or formal complaint by the prosecutor, the magistrate may fix the amount of bail that in the magistrates judgment, in accordance with Section 1275, is reasonable and sufficient for the appearance of the defendant and shall endorse upon the notice a statement signed by the magistrate in the form set forth in Section 815a. The defendant may, prior to the date upon which the defendant promised to appear in court, deposit with the magistrate the amount of bail set by the magistrate. At the time the case is called for arraignment before the magistrate, if the defendant does not appear, either in person or by counsel, the magistrate may declare the bail forfeited, and may, in the magistrates discretion, order that further proceedings shall not be had in the case, unless the defendant has been charged with a violation of Section 374.3 or 374.7 of this code or of Section 11357, 11360, or 13002 of the Health and Safety Code, or a violation punishable under Section 5008.7 of the Public Resources Code, and the defendant has previously been convicted of a violation of that section or a violation that is punishable under that section, except when the magistrate finds that undue hardship will be imposed upon the defendant by requiring the defendant to appear, the magistrate may declare the bail forfeited and order that further proceedings not be had in the case.
(D)Upon the making of the order that further proceedings not be had, all sums deposited as bail shall immediately be paid into the county treasury for distribution pursuant to Section 1463.
(f)A warrant shall not be issued for the arrest of a person who has given a written promise to appear in court, unless and until the person has violated that promise or has failed to deposit bail, to appear for arraignment, trial, or judgment, or to comply with the terms and provisions of the judgment, as required by law.
(g)The officer may book the arrested person at the scene or at the arresting agency prior to release or indicate on the citation that the arrested person shall appear at the arresting agency to be booked or indicate on the citation that the arrested person shall appear at the arresting agency to be fingerprinted prior to the date the arrested person appears in court. A person arrested for a warrant issued pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 978.5 may not be booked at the arresting agency and shall be released at the scene. If it is indicated on the citation that the arrested person shall be booked or fingerprinted prior to the date of the persons court appearance, the arresting agency, at the time of booking or fingerprinting, shall provide the arrested person with verification of the booking or fingerprinting by making an entry on the citation. If it is indicated on the citation that the arrested person is to be booked or fingerprinted, the magistrate, judge, or court shall, before the proceedings begin, order the defendant to provide verification that the defendant was booked or fingerprinted by the arresting agency. If the defendant cannot produce the verification, the magistrate, judge, or court shall require that the defendant be booked or fingerprinted by the arresting agency before the next court appearance, and that the defendant provide the verification at the next court appearance unless both parties stipulate that booking or fingerprinting is not necessary.
(h)A peace officer shall use the written notice to appear procedure set forth in this section for any misdemeanor offense in which the officer has arrested a person without a warrant pursuant to Section 836 or in which the officer has taken custody of a person pursuant to Section 847.
(i)(1)When a person is arrested by a peace officer for a misdemeanor, that person shall be released according to the procedures set forth in this chapter unless one of the following is a reason for nonrelease, in which case the arresting officer may release the person, except as provided in subdivision (a), or the arresting officer shall indicate, on a form to be established by the officers employing law enforcement agency, which of the following was a reason for the nonrelease:
(A)The person arrested was so intoxicated that they could have been a danger to themselves or to others.
(B)The person arrested required medical examination or medical care or was otherwise unable to care for their own safety.
(C)The person was arrested under one or more of the circumstances listed in Sections 40302 and 40303 of the Vehicle Code.
(D)There were one or more outstanding arrest warrants for the person, other than a warrant issued pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 978.5.
(E)The person could not provide satisfactory evidence of personal identification.
(F)The prosecution of the offense or offenses for which the person was arrested, or the prosecution of any other offense or offenses, would be jeopardized by immediate release of the person arrested.
(G)There was a reasonable likelihood that the offense or offenses would continue or resume, or that the safety of persons or property would be imminently endangered by release of the person arrested.
(H)The person arrested demanded to be taken before a magistrate or refused to sign the notice to appear.
(I)There is reason to believe that the person would not appear at the time and place specified in the notice. The basis for this determination shall be specifically stated.
(J)(i)The person was subject to Section 1270.1.
(ii)The form shall be filed with the arresting agency as soon as practicable and shall be made available to any party having custody of the arrested person, subsequent to the arresting officer, and to any person authorized by law to release the arrested person from custody before trial.
(K)The person has been cited, arrested, or convicted for misdemeanor or felony theft from a store in the previous six months.
(L)There is probable cause to believe that the person arrested is guilty of committing organized retail theft, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 490.4.
(2)The reasons for nonrelease set forth in this subdivision do not apply to arrests for warrants issued pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 978.5.
(j)(1)Once the arresting officer has prepared the written notice to appear and has delivered a copy to the person arrested, the officer shall deliver the remaining original and all copies as provided by subdivision (e).
(2)Any person, including the arresting officer and any member of the officers department or agency, or any peace officer, who alters, conceals, modifies, nullifies, or destroys, or causes to be altered, concealed, modified, nullified, or destroyed, the face side of the remaining original or a copy of a citation that was retained by the officer, for any reason, before it is filed with the magistrate or with a person authorized by the magistrate to receive deposit of bail, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(3)If, after an arrested person has signed and received a copy of a notice to appear, the arresting officer determines that, in the interest of justice, the citation or notice should be dismissed, the arresting agency may recommend, in writing, to the magistrate that the charges be dismissed. The recommendation shall cite the reasons for the recommendation and shall be filed with the court.
(4)If the magistrate makes a finding that there are grounds for dismissal, the finding shall be entered in the record and the charges dismissed.
(5)A personal relationship with any officer, public official, or law enforcement agency shall not be grounds for dismissal.
(k)(1)A person contesting a charge by claiming under penalty of perjury not to be the person issued the notice to appear may choose to submit a right thumbprint, or a left thumbprint if the person has a missing or disfigured right thumb, to the issuing court through the persons local law enforcement agency for comparison with the one placed on the notice to appear. A local law enforcement agency providing this service may charge the requester no more than the actual costs. The issuing court may refer the thumbprint submitted and the notice to appear to the prosecuting attorney for comparison of the thumbprints. When there is no thumbprint or fingerprint on the notice to appear, or when the comparison of thumbprints is inconclusive, the court shall refer the notice to appear or copy thereof back to the issuing agency for further investigation, unless the court finds that referral is not in the interest of justice.
(2)Upon initiation of the investigation or comparison process by referral of the court, the court shall continue the case and the speedy trial period shall be tolled for 45 days.
(3)Upon receipt of the issuing agencys or prosecuting attorneys response, the court may make a finding of factual innocence pursuant to Section 530.6 if the court determines that there is insufficient evidence that the person cited is the person charged and shall immediately notify the Department of Motor Vehicles of its determination. If the Department of Motor Vehicles determines the citation or citations in question formed the basis of a suspension or revocation of the persons driving privilege, the department shall immediately set aside the action.
(4)If the prosecuting attorney or issuing agency fails to respond to a court referral within 45 days, the court shall make a finding of factual innocence pursuant to Section 530.6, unless the court finds that a finding of factual innocence is not in the interest of justice.
(5)The citation or notice to appear may be held by the prosecuting attorney or issuing agency for future adjudication should the arrestee who received the citation or notice to appear be found.
(l)For purposes of this section, the term arresting agency includes any other agency designated by the arresting agency to provide booking or fingerprinting services.
(m)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2031, and as of that date is repealed.
SEC. 5.Section 853.6 of the Penal Code, as amended by Section 6 of Chapter 168 of the Statutes of 2024, is amended to read:853.6.(a)(1)When a person is arrested for an offense declared to be a misdemeanor, including a violation of a city or county ordinance, and does not demand to be taken before a magistrate, that person shall, instead of being taken before a magistrate, be released according to the procedures set forth by this chapter, however an officer may first book an arrestee pursuant to subdivision (g). If the person is released, the officer or the officers superior shall prepare, in duplicate, a written notice to appear in court, containing the name and address of the person, the offense charged, and the time when, and place where, the person shall appear in court. If, pursuant to subdivision (i), the person is not released prior to being booked and the officer in charge of the booking or the officers superior determines that the person should be released, the officer or the officers superior shall prepare a written notice to appear in a court.
(2)When a person is arrested for a misdemeanor violation of a protective court order involving domestic violence, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 13700, or arrested pursuant to a policy described in Section 13701, the person shall be taken before a magistrate instead of being released according to the procedures set forth in this chapter, unless the arresting officer determines that there is not a reasonable likelihood that the offense will continue or resume or that the safety of persons or property would be imminently endangered by release of the person arrested. Prior to adopting these provisions, each city, county, or city and county shall develop a protocol to assist officers to determine when arrest and release is appropriate, rather than taking the arrested person before a magistrate. The county shall establish a committee to develop the protocol, consisting of, at a minimum, the police chief or county sheriff within the jurisdiction, the district attorney, county counsel, city attorney, representatives from domestic violence shelters, domestic violence councils, and other relevant community agencies.
(3)This subdivision shall not apply to the crimes specified in Section 1270.1, including crimes defined in each of the following:
(A)Paragraph (1) of subdivision (e) of Section 243.
(B)Section 273.5.
(C)Section 273.6, if the detained person made threats to kill or harm, has engaged in violence against, or has gone to the residence or workplace of, the protected party.
(D)Section 646.9.
(4)This subdivision does not affect a defendants ability to be released on bail or on their own recognizance, except as specified in Section 1270.1.
(b)Unless waived by the person, the time specified in the notice to appear shall be at least 10 days after arrest if the duplicate notice is to be filed by the officer with the magistrate.
(c)The place specified in the notice shall be the court of the magistrate before whom the person would be taken if the requirement of taking an arrested person before a magistrate were complied with, or shall be an officer authorized by that court to receive a deposit of bail.
(d)The officer shall deliver one copy of the notice to appear to the arrested person, and the arrested person, in order to secure release, shall give their written promise to appear in court as specified in the notice by signing the duplicate notice, which shall be retained by the officer. The officer may require the arrested person, if the arrested person has no satisfactory identification, to place a right thumbprint, or a left thumbprint or fingerprint if the person has a missing or disfigured right thumb, on the notice to appear. Except for law enforcement purposes relating to the identity of the arrestee, a person or entity may not sell, give away, allow the distribution of, include in a database, or create a database with, this print. Upon the person signing the duplicate notice, the arresting officer shall immediately release the person arrested from custody.
(e)The officer shall, as soon as practicable, file the duplicate notice, as follows:
(1)It shall be filed with the magistrate if the offense charged is an infraction.
(2)It shall be filed with the magistrate if the prosecuting attorney has previously directed the officer to do so.
(3)(A)The duplicate notice and underlying police reports in support of the charge or charges shall be filed with the prosecuting attorney in cases other than those specified in paragraphs (1) and (2).
(B)If the duplicate notice is filed with the prosecuting attorney, the prosecuting attorney, within their discretion, may initiate prosecution by filing the notice or a formal complaint with the magistrate specified in the duplicate notice within 25 days from the time of arrest. If the prosecution is not to be initiated, the prosecutor shall send notice to the person arrested at the address on the notice to appear. The failure by the prosecutor to file the notice or formal complaint within 25 days of the time of the arrest shall not bar further prosecution of the misdemeanor charged in the notice to appear. However, any further prosecution shall be preceded by a new and separate citation or an arrest warrant.
(C)Upon the filing of the notice with the magistrate by the officer, or the filing of the notice or formal complaint by the prosecutor, the magistrate may fix the amount of bail that in the magistrates judgment, in accordance with Section 1275, is reasonable and sufficient for the appearance of the defendant and shall endorse upon the notice a statement signed by the magistrate in the form set forth in Section 815a. The defendant may, prior to the date upon which the defendant promised to appear in court, deposit with the magistrate the amount of bail set by the magistrate. When the case is called for arraignment before the magistrate, if the defendant does not appear, either in person or by counsel, the magistrate may declare the bail forfeited, and may, in the magistrates discretion, order that no further proceedings shall be had in the case, unless the defendant has been charged with a violation of Section 374.3 or 374.7 of this code or of Section 11357, 11360, or 13002 of the Health and Safety Code, or a violation punishable under Section 5008.7 of the Public Resources Code, and the defendant has previously been convicted of a violation of that section or a violation that is punishable under that section, except in cases where the magistrate finds that undue hardship will be imposed upon the defendant by requiring the defendant to appear, the magistrate may declare the bail forfeited and order that no further proceedings be had in the case.
(D)Upon the making of the order that no further proceedings be had, all sums deposited as bail shall immediately be paid into the county treasury for distribution pursuant to Section 1463.
(f)A warrant shall not be issued for the arrest of a person who has given a written promise to appear in court, unless and until the person has violated that promise or has failed to deposit bail, to appear for arraignment, trial, or judgment or to comply with the terms and provisions of the judgment, as required by law.
(g)The officer may book the arrested person at the scene or at the arresting agency prior to release or indicate on the citation that the arrested person shall appear at the arresting agency to be booked or indicate on the citation that the arrested person shall appear at the arresting agency to be fingerprinted prior to the date the arrested person appears in court. A person arrested for a warrant issued pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 978.5 may not be booked at the arresting agency and shall be released at the scene. If it is indicated on the citation that the arrested person shall be booked or fingerprinted prior to the date of the persons court appearance, the arresting agency, at the time of booking or fingerprinting, shall provide the arrested person with verification of the booking or fingerprinting by making an entry on the citation. If it is indicated on the citation that the arrested person is to be booked or fingerprinted, the magistrate, judge, or court shall, before the proceedings begin, order the defendant to provide verification that the defendant was booked or fingerprinted by the arresting agency. If the defendant cannot produce the verification, the magistrate, judge, or court shall require that the defendant be booked or fingerprinted by the arresting agency before the next court appearance, and that the defendant provide the verification at the next court appearance unless both parties stipulate that booking or fingerprinting is not necessary.
(h)A peace officer shall use the written notice to appear procedure set forth in this section for any misdemeanor offense in which the officer has arrested a person without a warrant pursuant to Section 836 or in which the officer has taken custody of a person pursuant to Section 847.
(i)(1)When a person is arrested by a peace officer for a misdemeanor, that person shall be released according to the procedures set forth by this chapter unless one of the following is a reason for nonrelease, in which case the arresting officer may release the person, except as provided in subdivision (a), or the arresting officer shall indicate, on a form to be established by the officers employing law enforcement agency, which of the following was a reason for the nonrelease:
(A)The person arrested was so intoxicated that they could have been a danger to themselves or to others.
(B)The person arrested required medical examination or medical care or was otherwise unable to care for their own safety.
(C)The person was arrested under one or more of the circumstances listed in Sections 40302 and 40303 of the Vehicle Code.
(D)There were one or more outstanding arrest warrants for the person, other than a warrant issued pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 978.5.
(E)The person could not provide satisfactory evidence of personal identification.
(F)The prosecution of the offense or offenses for which the person was arrested, or the prosecution of any other offense or offenses, would be jeopardized by immediate release of the person arrested.
(G)There was a reasonable likelihood that the offense or offenses would continue or resume, or that the safety of persons or property would be imminently endangered by release of the person arrested.
(H)The person arrested demanded to be taken before a magistrate or refused to sign the notice to appear.
(I)There is reason to believe that the person would not appear at the time and place specified in the notice. The basis for this determination shall be specifically stated.
(J)(i)The person was subject to Section 1270.1.
(ii)The form shall be filed with the arresting agency as soon as practicable and shall be made available to any party having custody of the arrested person, subsequent to the arresting officer, and to any person authorized by law to release the arrested person from custody before trial.
(2)The reasons for nonrelease set forth in this subdivision do not apply to arrests for warrants issued pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 978.5.
(j)(1)Once the arresting officer has prepared the written notice to appear and has delivered a copy to the person arrested, the officer shall deliver the remaining original and all copies as provided by subdivision (e).
(2)A person, including the arresting officer and any member of the officers department or agency, or any peace officer, who alters, conceals, modifies, nullifies, or destroys, or causes to be altered, concealed, modified, nullified, or destroyed, the face side of the remaining original or any copy of a citation that was retained by the officer, for any reason, before it is filed with the magistrate or with a person authorized by the magistrate to receive deposit of bail, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(3)If, after an arrested person has signed and received a copy of a notice to appear, the arresting officer determines that, in the interest of justice, the citation or notice should be dismissed, the arresting agency may recommend, in writing, to the magistrate that the charges be dismissed. The recommendation shall cite the reasons for the recommendation and shall be filed with the court.
(4)If the magistrate makes a finding that there are grounds for dismissal, the finding shall be entered in the record and the charges dismissed.
(5)A personal relationship with any officer, public official, or law enforcement agency shall not be grounds for dismissal.
(k)(1)A person contesting a charge by claiming under penalty of perjury not to be the person issued the notice to appear may choose to submit a right thumbprint, or a left thumbprint if the person has a missing or disfigured right thumb, to the issuing court through the persons local law enforcement agency for comparison with the one placed on the notice to appear. A local law enforcement agency providing this service may charge the requester no more than the actual costs. The issuing court may refer the thumbprint submitted and the notice to appear to the prosecuting attorney for comparison of the thumbprints. When there is no thumbprint or fingerprint on the notice to appear, or when the comparison of thumbprints is inconclusive, the court shall refer the notice to appear, or a copy thereof, back to the issuing agency for further investigation, unless the court finds that referral is not in the interest of justice.
(2)Upon initiation of the investigation or comparison process by referral of the court, the court shall continue the case and the speedy trial period shall be tolled for 45 days.
(3)Upon receipt of the issuing agencys or prosecuting attorneys response, the court may make a finding of factual innocence pursuant to Section 530.6 if the court determines that there is insufficient evidence that the person cited is the person charged and shall immediately notify the Department of Motor Vehicles of its determination. If the Department of Motor Vehicles determines the citation or citations in question formed the basis of a suspension or revocation of the persons driving privilege, the department shall immediately set aside the action.
(4)If the prosecuting attorney or issuing agency fails to respond to a court referral within 45 days, the court shall make a finding of factual innocence pursuant to Section 530.6, unless the court finds that a finding of factual innocence is not in the interest of justice.
(5)The citation or notice to appear may be held by the prosecuting attorney or issuing agency for future adjudication should the arrestee who received the citation or notice to appear be found.
(l)For purposes of this section, the term arresting agency includes any other agency designated by the arresting agency to provide booking or fingerprinting services.
(m)This section shall become operative on January 1, 2031.
SEC. 6.Section 853.7 of the Penal Code is amended to read:853.7.Any person who willfully violates their written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of their promise to appear in court is guilty of a misdemeanor, regardless of the disposition of the charge upon which they were originally arrested. This section shall not apply where the underlying charge is an infraction.
SEC. 7.Section 853.8 of the Penal Code is amended to read:853.8.When a person signs a written promise to appear at the time and place specified in the written promise to appear and has not posted bail as provided in Section 853.6, the magistrate shall issue and have delivered for execution a warrant for their arrest within 20 days after their failure to appear as promised or within 20 days after their failure to appear after a lawfully granted continuance of their promise to appear. This section does not permit a warrant to issue if the underlying charge is an infraction.
SEC. 8.Section 978.5 of the Penal Code, as added by Section 4 of Chapter 856 of the Statutes of 2022, is amended to read:978.5.(a)A bench warrant of arrest may be issued when a defendant fails to appear in court as required by law, including, but not limited to, any of the following situations:
(1)If the defendant is ordered by a judge or magistrate to personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(2)If the defendant is released from custody on bail and is ordered by a judge or magistrate, or other person authorized to accept bail, to personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(3)If the defendant is released from custody on their own recognizance and promises to personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(4)If the defendant is released from custody or arrest upon citation by a peace officer or other person authorized to issue citations and the defendant has signed a promise to personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(5)If a defendant is authorized to appear by counsel and the court or magistrate orders that the defendant personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(6)If an information or indictment has been filed in the superior court and the court has fixed the date and place for the defendant personally to appear for arraignment.
(b)The bench warrant may be served in any county in the same manner as a warrant of arrest.
(c)This section does not apply to infractions issued pursuant to the Vehicle Code.
(d)For infractions charged under any provision of state law other than the Vehicle Code, or under any local ordinance, a bench warrant issued pursuant to this section shall be limited to authorizing arrest and booking at the scene followed by immediate release according to the procedures outlined in Section 853.6.
SEC. 9.Section 1043 of the Penal Code is amended to read:1043.(a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, the defendant in a felony case shall be personally present at the trial.
(b)The absence of the defendant in a felony case after the trial has commenced in their physical presence shall not prevent continuing the trial to, and including, the return of the verdict in any of the following cases:
(1)Any case in which the defendant, after being warned by the judge that they will be removed if they continue their disruptive behavior, nevertheless insists on acting in a manner so disorderly, disruptive, and disrespectful of the court that the trial cannot be carried on with the defendant present in the courtroom.
(2)Any prosecution for an offense which is not punishable by death in which the defendant is voluntarily absent.
(c)Any defendant who is absent from a trial pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) may reclaim the right to be present at the trial as soon as they are willing to act consistently with the decorum and respect inherent in the concept of courts and judicial proceedings.
(d)Subdivisions (a) and (b) shall not limit the right of a defendant to waive the right to be present in accordance with Section 977.
(e)If the defendant in a misdemeanor case fails to appear in person at the time set for trial or during the course of trial, the court shall proceed with the trial, unless good cause for a continuance exists, if the defendant has authorized their counsel to proceed in their absence pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 977.
If there is no authorization pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 977 and if the defendant fails to appear in person at the time set for trial or during the course of trial, the court, in its discretion, may do one or more of the following, as it deems appropriate:
(1)Continue the matter.
(2)Order bail forfeited or revoke release on the defendants own recognizance.
(3)Issue a bench warrant.
(4)(A)If the defendant is in custody, proceed with the trial in the defendants absence as authorized in subdivision (f).
(B)If the defendant is out of custody, proceed with the trial if the court finds the defendant has absented themselves voluntarily with full knowledge that the trial is to be held or is being held.
(f)(1)A trial shall be deemed to have commenced in the presence of the defendant for purposes of subdivision (b), or may proceed pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (e), if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, all of the following to be true:
(A)The defendant is in custody and is refusing, without good cause, to appear in court on that day for that trial.
(B)The defendant has been informed of their right and obligation to be personally present in court.
(C)The defendant has been informed that the trial will proceed without the defendant being present.
(D)The defendant has been informed that they have the right to remain silent during the trial.
(E)The defendant has been informed that their absence without good cause will constitute a voluntary waiver of any constitutional or statutory right to confront any witnesses against them or to testify on their own behalf.
(F)The defendant has been informed whether or not defense counsel will be present.
(2)The court shall state on the record the reasons for the courts findings and shall cause those findings and reasons to be entered into the minutes.
(3)If the trial lasts for more than one day, the court is required to make the findings required by this subdivision anew for each day that the defendant is absent.
(4)This subdivision does not apply to any trial in which the defendant was personally present in court at the commencement of trial.
(g)This section does not limit the right of the court to order the defendant to be personally present at the trial for purposes of identification unless counsel stipulate to the issue of identity.
(h)Paragraph (3) of subdivision (e) does not apply when the underlying charge is an infraction.
SEC. 10.Section 1803 of the Vehicle Code, as added by Section 9 of Chapter 226 of the Statutes of 2024, is amended to read:1803.(a)(1)(A)The clerk of a court in which a person was convicted of a violation listed in subparagraph (B) shall prepare an abstract of the record of the court covering the case within five days after conviction and immediately forward that abstract to the department at its office at Sacramento.
(B)Pursuant to subparagraph (A), the clerk of the court shall prepare an abstract of the record of the court covering the case for a violation of any of the following:
(i)This code.
(ii)Subdivisions (a) to (f), inclusive, of Section 655 of the Harbors and Navigation Code pertaining to a mechanically propelled vessel but not to manipulating a water ski, an aquaplane, or similar device.
(iii)Section 655.2, 655.6, 658, or 658.5 of the Harbors and Navigation Code.
(iv)Subdivision (a) of Section 192.5 of the Penal Code.
(v)Subdivision (b) of Section 5387 of the Public Utilities Code.
(vi)An offense involving use or possession of controlled substances under Division 10 (commencing with Section 11000) of the Health and Safety Code.
(vii)A felony offense when a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 15210, was involved in, or incidental to, the commission of the offense.
(viii)Any other statute relating to the safe operation of vehicles.
(C)If sentencing is not pronounced in conjunction with the conviction, the abstract shall be forwarded to the department within five days after sentencing, and the abstract shall be certified by the person so required to prepare it to be true and correct.
(2)For the purposes of this section, a forfeiture of bail shall be equivalent to a conviction.
(b)The following violations are not required to be reported under subdivision (a):
(1)Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840).
(2)Section 21113, with respect to parking violations.
(3)Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500) of Division 11, except Section 22526.
(4)Division 12 (commencing with Section 24000), except Sections 24002, 24004, 24250, 24409, 24604, 24800, 25103, 26707, 27151, 27315, 27360, 27800, and 27801 and Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 26301).
(5)Division 15 (commencing with Section 35000), except Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 35550).
(6)A violation for which a person was cited as a pedestrian or while operating a bicycle or a motorized scooter.
(7)Division 16.5 (commencing with Section 38000), except Sections 38301, 38301.3, 38301.5, 38304.1, and 38504.1.
(8)Subdivision (b) of Section 23221, subdivision (b) of Section 23223, subdivision (b) of Section 23225, and subdivision (b) of Section 23226.
(9)Section 40508.
(c)If the court determines that a prior judgment of conviction of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153 is valid or is invalid on constitutional grounds pursuant to Section 41403, the clerk of the court in which the determination is made shall prepare an abstract of that determination and forward it to the department in the same manner as an abstract of record pursuant to subdivision (a).
(d)Within five days of an order terminating or revoking probation under Section 23602, the clerk of the court in which the order terminating or revoking probation was entered shall prepare and immediately forward to the department at its office in Sacramento an abstract of the record of the court order terminating or revoking probation and any other order of the court to the department required by law.
SEC. 11.Section 40508 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40508.(a)A person willfully violating their written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of their promise to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail is guilty of a misdemeanor regardless of the disposition of the charge upon which the person was originally arrested. This subdivision does not apply where the original charge was an infraction.
(b)A person willfully failing to pay bail in installments as agreed to under Section 40510.5 or a lawfully imposed fine for a violation of a provision of this code or a local ordinance adopted pursuant to this code within the time authorized by the court and without lawful excuse having been presented to the court on or before the date the bail or fine is due is guilty of a misdemeanor regardless of the full payment of the bail or fine after that time. This subdivision does not apply where the original charge was an infraction.
(c)A person willfully failing to comply with a condition of a court order for a violation of this code, other than for failure to appear or failure to pay a fine, is guilty of a misdemeanor, regardless of their subsequent compliance with the order.
SEC. 12.Section 40510.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40510.5.(a)The clerk of the court may accept a payment and forfeiture of at least 10 percent of the total bail amount for each infraction violation of this code prior to the date on which the defendant promised to appear, or prior to the expiration of any lawful continuance of that date, or upon receipt of information that an action has been filed and prior to the scheduled court date, if all of the following circumstances exist:
(1)The defendant is charged with an infraction violation of this code or an infraction violation of an ordinance adopted pursuant to this code.
(2)The defendant submits proof of correction, when proof of correction is mandatory for a correctable offense.
(3)The offense does not require an appearance in court.
(4)The defendant signs a written agreement to pay and forfeit the remainder of the required bail according to an installment schedule as agreed upon with the court. The Judicial Council shall prescribe the form of the agreement for payment and forfeiture of bail in installments for infraction violations.
(b)When a clerk accepts an agreement for payment and forfeiture of bail in installments, the clerk shall continue the appearance date of the defendant to the date to complete payment and forfeiture of bail in the agreement.
(c)Except for subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 1269b and Section 1305.1, the provisions of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1268) of Title 10 of Part 2 of the Penal Code do not apply to an agreement to pay and forfeit bail in installments under this section.
(d)For the purposes of reporting violations of this code to the department under Section 1803, the date that the defendant signs an agreement to pay and forfeit bail in installments shall be reported as the date of conviction.
(e)When the defendant fails to make an installment payment according to an agreement under subdivision (a) above, the court may impose a civil assessment as provided in Section 1214.1 of the Penal Code.
(f)Payment of a bail amount under this section is forfeited when collected and shall be distributed by the court in the same manner as other fines, penalties, and forfeitures collected for infractions.
SEC. 13.Section 40512 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40512.(a)(1)Except as specified in paragraph (2) and subdivision (b), if at the time the case is called for arraignment before the magistrate the defendant does not appear, either in person or by counsel, the magistrate may declare the bail forfeited and may, in the magistrates discretion, order that no further proceedings be had in the case, unless the defendant has been charged with a violation of Section 23111 or 23112, or subdivision (a) of Section 23113, and the defendant has been previously convicted of the same offense, except if the magistrate finds that undue hardship will be imposed upon the defendant by requiring the defendant to appear, the magistrate may declare the bail forfeited and order that no further proceedings shall be had in the case.
(2)If the defendant has posted surety bail and the magistrate has ordered the bail forfeited and that no further proceedings shall be had in the case, the bail retains the right to obtain relief from the forfeiture as provided in Section 1305 of the Penal Code if the amount of the bond, money, or property deposited exceeds seven hundred dollars ($700).
(b)(1)If, at the time the case is called for a compliance appearance before the magistrate, the defendant has entered into a bail installment agreement pursuant to Section 40510.5 but has not made an installment payment as agreed and does not appear, either in person or by counsel, the court may continue the arraignment to a date beyond the last agreed upon installment payment, or impose a civil assessment as provided in Section 1214.1 of the Penal Code for the failure to appear.
(2)If, at the time the case is called for a compliance appearance before the magistrate, the defendant has paid all required bail funds and the defendant does not appear, either in person or by counsel, the court may order that no further proceedings shall be had in the case, unless the defendant has been charged with a violation of Section 23111 or 23112, or subdivision (a) of Section 23113, and the defendant has been previously convicted of the same offense, except that if the magistrate finds that undue hardship will be imposed upon the defendant by requiring them to appear, the magistrate may order that no further proceedings shall be had in the case.
(c)Upon the making of the order that no further proceedings shall be had, all sums deposited as bail shall be paid into the city or county treasury, as the case may be.
(d)If a guaranteed traffic arrest bail bond certificate has been filed, the clerk of the court shall bill the issuer for the amount of bail fixed by the uniform countywide schedule of bail required under subdivision (c) of Section 1269b of the Penal Code.
(e)Upon presentation by a court of the bill for a fine or bail assessed against an individual covered by a guaranteed traffic arrest bail bond certificate, the issuer shall pay to the court the amount of the fine or forfeited bail that is within the maximum amount guaranteed by the terms of the certificate.
(f)The court shall return the guaranteed traffic arrest bail bond certificate to the issuer upon receipt of payment in accordance with subdivision (d).
SEC. 14.Section 40512.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40512.5.(a)Except as specified in subdivision (b), if at the time the case is called for trial the defendant does not appear, either in person or by counsel, and has not requested in writing that the trial proceed in their absence, the court may declare the bail forfeited and may, in its discretion, order that no further proceedings be had in the case, or the court may act pursuant to Section 1043 of the Penal Code.
(b)If the defendant has posted surety bail and the magistrate has ordered the bail forfeited and that no further proceedings shall be had in the case, the bail retains the right to obtain relief from the forfeiture as provided in Section 1305 of the Penal Code if the amount of the bond, money, or property deposited exceeds seven hundred dollars ($700).
SEC. 15.Section 40514 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40514.A warrant shall not issue on the charge for the arrest of a person who has given a written promise to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail, unless the person has violated the promise, the lawfully granted continuance of the promise, or has failed to deposit bail, to appear for arraignment, trial, or judgment, or to comply with the terms and provisions of the judgment, as required by law. This section does not permit a warrant to issue if the underlying offense is an infraction.
SEC. 16.Section 40515 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40515.(a)When a person signs a written promise to appear or is granted a continuance of their promise to appear at the time and place specified in the written promise to appear or the continuance thereof, and has not posted full bail or has failed to pay an installment of bail as agreed to under Section 40510.5, the magistrate may issue and have delivered for execution a warrant for the persons arrest within 20 days after the failure to appear before the magistrate or pay an installment of bail as agreed, or if the person promises to appear before an officer authorized to accept bail other than a magistrate and fails to do so on or before the date on which they promised to appear, then, within 20 days after the delivery of the written promise to appear by the officer to a magistrate having jurisdiction over the offense.
(b)When the person violates their promise to appear before an officer authorized to receive bail other than a magistrate, the officer shall immediately deliver to a magistrate having jurisdiction over the offense charged the written promise to appear and the complaint, if any, filed by the arresting officer.
(c)This section does not apply if the underlying charge is an infraction.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)Each year California processes over 3 million infractions.
(b)Infractions are low-level violations, enforced by tickets, and punishable only by a fine. Court appearances are not required for infractions so long as a person pays their ticket. When people fail to pay the ticket or alternatively appear in court, however, state law currently authorizes courts to issue bench warrants for their arrest. This sets up a two-tiered system of justice. Those who can afford to pay avoid further punishment, while those who cannot may face incarceration.
(c)An infraction bench warrant converts an otherwise nonjailable offense into the basis for a persons incarceration. The punishment for failing to pay or appear is thus much more severe than the initial ticket or fine. A persons arrest and incarceration on an infraction bench warrant, resulting from nonpayment of a fine, is effectively a form of debtors prison.
(d)Many people who are issued infraction tickets have good reasons for failing to pay or appear in court. Many do not receive notice, cannot afford to pay the ticket, were not able to get off work or get childcare, are experiencing mental or physical health issues, or understandably are fearful of appearing in court.
(e)Many people issued infraction tickets cannot afford to pay. A 2022 Debt Free Justice California survey of people exiting traffic courts found that over 70 percent of people could not afford to pay a $300 assessment. The Federal Reserve Boards Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking found that over 40 percent of families do not have enough money saved to cover a $400 emergency expense.
(f)Black, Brown, and Indigenous people are disproportionately stopped, cited, and arrested by law enforcement for infractions. According to the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board, Black people are nearly 10 times as likely to receive a citation for an infraction as White individuals. Data from the county of San Francisco show that, though Black people only make up 5.8 percent of the local population, due to systemic racism and targeted, unjust policing, 48.7 percent of those arrested for failure to appear or pay traffic court warrants are Black. Data obtained from the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department through a Public Records Act request show that nearly 90 percent of the thousands of people arrested by the Sheriffs Department on traffic infraction bench warrants were Black or Latinx.
(g)A substantial body of social science research, including the research documented in the Ella Baker Center report Who Pays? The True Cost of Incarceration on Families, shows that an arrest can have adverse and long-term consequences, such as negative impacts on ones ability to secure housing, employment, and higher education opportunities, and that even short periods of detention may make people more likely to become involved with the legal system again.
(h)Existing law provides courts with other tools to respond to nonpayment of infraction tickets, which do not involve arrest and incarceration, such as civil collections. Research from ideas42 and the University of Chicago CrimeLab shows that alternatives to warrants such as improved notices and reminders and common sense collections practices are more effective at generating timely court appearances and payments.
SEC. 2.It is the intent of the Legislature to eliminate arrest warrants for infractions as a step towards ending debtors prisons in California.
SEC. 3.Section 19.7 of the Penal Code is amended to read:19.7.Except as otherwise provided by law, all laws relating to misdemeanors, except for the authority to issue bench warrants, shall apply to infractions, including, but not limited to, powers of peace officers, jurisdiction of courts, periods for commencing action and for bringing a case to trial, and burden of proof.
SEC. 4.Section 853.6 of the Penal Code, as amended by Section 5 of Chapter 168 of the Statutes of 2024, is amended to read:853.6.(a)(1)When a person is arrested for an offense declared to be a misdemeanor, including a violation of a city or county ordinance, and does not demand to be taken before a magistrate, that person shall, instead of being taken before a magistrate, be released according to the procedures set forth by this chapter, although nothing prevents an officer from first booking an arrestee pursuant to subdivision (g). If the person is released, the officer or the officers superior shall prepare in duplicate a written notice to appear in court, containing the name and address of the person, the offense charged, and the time when, and place where, the person shall appear in court. If, pursuant to subdivision (i), the person is not released prior to being booked and the officer in charge of the booking or the officers superior determines that the person should be released, the officer or the officers superior shall prepare a written notice to appear in a court.
(2)When a person is arrested for a misdemeanor violation of a protective court order involving domestic violence, as defined in Section 13700, or arrested pursuant to a policy, as described in Section 13701, the person shall be taken before a magistrate instead of being released according to the procedures set forth in this chapter, unless the arresting officer determines that there is not a reasonable likelihood that the offense will continue or resume or that the safety of persons or property would be imminently endangered by release of the person arrested. Prior to adopting these provisions, each city, county, or city and county shall develop a protocol to assist officers to determine when arrest and release is appropriate, rather than taking the arrested person before a magistrate. The county shall establish a committee to develop the protocol, consisting of, at a minimum, the police chief or county sheriff within the jurisdiction, the district attorney, county counsel, city attorney, representatives from domestic violence shelters, domestic violence councils, and other relevant community agencies.
(3)This subdivision does not apply to the crimes specified in Section 1270.1, including crimes defined in each of the following:
(A)Paragraph (1) of subdivision (e) of Section 243.
(B)Section 273.5.
(C)Section 273.6, if the detained person made threats to kill or harm, has engaged in violence against, or has gone to the residence or workplace of, the protected party.
(D)Section 646.9.
(4)This subdivision shall not affect a defendants ability to be released on bail or on their own recognizance, except as specified in Section 1270.1.
(b)Unless waived by the person, the time specified in the notice to appear shall be at least 10 days after arrest if the duplicate notice is to be filed by the officer with the magistrate.
(c)The place specified in the notice shall be the court of the magistrate before whom the person would be taken if the requirement of taking an arrested person before a magistrate were complied with, or shall be an officer authorized by that court to receive a deposit of bail.
(d)The officer shall deliver one copy of the notice to appear to the arrested person, and the arrested person, in order to secure release, shall give their written promise to appear in court as specified in the notice by signing the duplicate notice, which shall be retained by the officer, and the officer may require the arrested person, if the arrested person has no satisfactory identification, to place a right thumbprint, or a left thumbprint or fingerprint if the person has a missing or disfigured right thumb, on the notice to appear. Except for law enforcement purposes relating to the identity of the arrestee, a person or entity shall not sell, give away, allow the distribution of, include in a database, or create a database with, this print. Upon the signing of the duplicate notice, the arresting officer shall immediately release the person arrested from custody.
(e)The officer shall, as soon as practicable, file the duplicate notice, as follows:
(1)It shall be filed with the magistrate if the offense charged is an infraction.
(2)It shall be filed with the magistrate if the prosecuting attorney has previously directed the officer to do so.
(3)(A)The duplicate notice and underlying police reports in support of the charge or charges shall be filed with the prosecuting attorney in cases other than those specified in paragraphs (1) and (2).
(B)If the duplicate notice is filed with the prosecuting attorney, the prosecuting attorney, within their discretion, may initiate prosecution by filing the notice or a formal complaint with the magistrate specified in the duplicate notice within 25 days from the time of arrest. If the prosecution is not to be initiated, the prosecutor shall send notice to the person arrested at the address on the notice to appear. The failure by the prosecutor to file the notice or formal complaint within 25 days of the time of the arrest shall not bar further prosecution of the misdemeanor charged in the notice to appear. However, any further prosecution shall be preceded by a new and separate citation or an arrest warrant.
(C)Upon the filing of the notice with the magistrate by the officer, or the filing of the notice or formal complaint by the prosecutor, the magistrate may fix the amount of bail that in the magistrates judgment, in accordance with Section 1275, is reasonable and sufficient for the appearance of the defendant and shall endorse upon the notice a statement signed by the magistrate in the form set forth in Section 815a. The defendant may, prior to the date upon which the defendant promised to appear in court, deposit with the magistrate the amount of bail set by the magistrate. At the time the case is called for arraignment before the magistrate, if the defendant does not appear, either in person or by counsel, the magistrate may declare the bail forfeited, and may, in the magistrates discretion, order that further proceedings shall not be had in the case, unless the defendant has been charged with a violation of Section 374.3 or 374.7 of this code or of Section 11357, 11360, or 13002 of the Health and Safety Code, or a violation punishable under Section 5008.7 of the Public Resources Code, and the defendant has previously been convicted of a violation of that section or a violation that is punishable under that section, except when the magistrate finds that undue hardship will be imposed upon the defendant by requiring the defendant to appear, the magistrate may declare the bail forfeited and order that further proceedings not be had in the case.
(D)Upon the making of the order that further proceedings not be had, all sums deposited as bail shall immediately be paid into the county treasury for distribution pursuant to Section 1463.
(f)A warrant shall not be issued for the arrest of a person who has given a written promise to appear in court, unless and until the person has violated that promise or has failed to deposit bail, to appear for arraignment, trial, or judgment, or to comply with the terms and provisions of the judgment, as required by law.
(g)The officer may book the arrested person at the scene or at the arresting agency prior to release or indicate on the citation that the arrested person shall appear at the arresting agency to be booked or indicate on the citation that the arrested person shall appear at the arresting agency to be fingerprinted prior to the date the arrested person appears in court. A person arrested for a warrant issued pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 978.5 may not be booked at the arresting agency and shall be released at the scene. If it is indicated on the citation that the arrested person shall be booked or fingerprinted prior to the date of the persons court appearance, the arresting agency, at the time of booking or fingerprinting, shall provide the arrested person with verification of the booking or fingerprinting by making an entry on the citation. If it is indicated on the citation that the arrested person is to be booked or fingerprinted, the magistrate, judge, or court shall, before the proceedings begin, order the defendant to provide verification that the defendant was booked or fingerprinted by the arresting agency. If the defendant cannot produce the verification, the magistrate, judge, or court shall require that the defendant be booked or fingerprinted by the arresting agency before the next court appearance, and that the defendant provide the verification at the next court appearance unless both parties stipulate that booking or fingerprinting is not necessary.
(h)A peace officer shall use the written notice to appear procedure set forth in this section for any misdemeanor offense in which the officer has arrested a person without a warrant pursuant to Section 836 or in which the officer has taken custody of a person pursuant to Section 847.
(i)(1)When a person is arrested by a peace officer for a misdemeanor, that person shall be released according to the procedures set forth in this chapter unless one of the following is a reason for nonrelease, in which case the arresting officer may release the person, except as provided in subdivision (a), or the arresting officer shall indicate, on a form to be established by the officers employing law enforcement agency, which of the following was a reason for the nonrelease:
(1)(A)The person arrested was so intoxicated that they could have been a danger to themselves or to others.
(2)(B)The person arrested required medical examination or medical care or was otherwise unable to care for their own safety.
(3)(C)The person was arrested under one or more of the circumstances listed in Sections 40302 and 40303 of the Vehicle Code.
(4)(D)There were one or more outstanding arrest warrants for the person. person, other than a warrant issued pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 978.5.
(5)(E)The person could not provide satisfactory evidence of personal identification.
(6)(F)The prosecution of the offense or offenses for which the person was arrested, or the prosecution of any other offense or offenses, would be jeopardized by immediate release of the person arrested.
(7)(G)There was a reasonable likelihood that the offense or offenses would continue or resume, or that the safety of persons or property would be imminently endangered by release of the person arrested.
(8)(H)The person arrested demanded to be taken before a magistrate or refused to sign the notice to appear.
(9)(I)There is reason to believe that the person would not appear at the time and place specified in the notice. The basis for this determination shall be specifically stated.
(10)(A)(J)(i)The person was subject to Section 1270.1.
(B)(ii)The form shall be filed with the arresting agency as soon as practicable and shall be made available to any party having custody of the arrested person, subsequent to the arresting officer, and to any person authorized by law to release the arrested person from custody before trial.
(11)(K)The person has been cited, arrested, or convicted for misdemeanor or felony theft from a store in the previous six months.
(12)(L)There is probable cause to believe that the person arrested is guilty of committing organized retail theft, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 490.4.
(2)The reasons for nonrelease set forth in this subdivision do not apply to arrests for warrants issued pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 978.5.
(j)(1)Once the arresting officer has prepared the written notice to appear and has delivered a copy to the person arrested, the officer shall deliver the remaining original and all copies as provided by subdivision (e).
(2)Any person, including the arresting officer and any member of the officers department or agency, or any peace officer, who alters, conceals, modifies, nullifies, or destroys, or causes to be altered, concealed, modified, nullified, or destroyed, the face side of the remaining original or a copy of a citation that was retained by the officer, for any reason, before it is filed with the magistrate or with a person authorized by the magistrate to receive deposit of bail, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(3)If, after an arrested person has signed and received a copy of a notice to appear, the arresting officer determines that, in the interest of justice, the citation or notice should be dismissed, the arresting agency may recommend, in writing, to the magistrate that the charges be dismissed. The recommendation shall cite the reasons for the recommendation and shall be filed with the court.
(4)If the magistrate makes a finding that there are grounds for dismissal, the finding shall be entered in the record and the charges dismissed.
(5)A personal relationship with any officer, public official, or law enforcement agency shall not be grounds for dismissal.
(k)(1)A person contesting a charge by claiming under penalty of perjury not to be the person issued the notice to appear may choose to submit a right thumbprint, or a left thumbprint if the person has a missing or disfigured right thumb, to the issuing court through the persons local law enforcement agency for comparison with the one placed on the notice to appear. A local law enforcement agency providing this service may charge the requester no more than the actual costs. The issuing court may refer the thumbprint submitted and the notice to appear to the prosecuting attorney for comparison of the thumbprints. When there is no thumbprint or fingerprint on the notice to appear, or when the comparison of thumbprints is inconclusive, the court shall refer the notice to appear or copy thereof back to the issuing agency for further investigation, unless the court finds that referral is not in the interest of justice.
(2)Upon initiation of the investigation or comparison process by referral of the court, the court shall continue the case and the speedy trial period shall be tolled for 45 days.
(3)Upon receipt of the issuing agencys or prosecuting attorneys response, the court may make a finding of factual innocence pursuant to Section 530.6 if the court determines that there is insufficient evidence that the person cited is the person charged and shall immediately notify the Department of Motor Vehicles of its determination. If the Department of Motor Vehicles determines the citation or citations in question formed the basis of a suspension or revocation of the persons driving privilege, the department shall immediately set aside the action.
(4)If the prosecuting attorney or issuing agency fails to respond to a court referral within 45 days, the court shall make a finding of factual innocence pursuant to Section 530.6, unless the court finds that a finding of factual innocence is not in the interest of justice.
(5)The citation or notice to appear may be held by the prosecuting attorney or issuing agency for future adjudication should the arrestee who received the citation or notice to appear be found.
(l)For purposes of this section, the term arresting agency includes any other agency designated by the arresting agency to provide booking or fingerprinting services.
(m)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2031, and as of that date is repealed.
SEC. 5.Section 853.6 of the Penal Code, as amended by Section 6 of Chapter 168 of the Statutes of 2024, is amended to read:853.6.(a)(1)When a person is arrested for an offense declared to be a misdemeanor, including a violation of a city or county ordinance, and does not demand to be taken before a magistrate, that person shall, instead of being taken before a magistrate, be released according to the procedures set forth by this chapter, however an officer may first book an arrestee pursuant to subdivision (g). If the person is released, the officer or the officers superior shall prepare, in duplicate, a written notice to appear in court, containing the name and address of the person, the offense charged, and the time when, and place where, the person shall appear in court. If, pursuant to subdivision (i), the person is not released prior to being booked and the officer in charge of the booking or the officers superior determines that the person should be released, the officer or the officers superior shall prepare a written notice to appear in a court.
(2)When a person is arrested for a misdemeanor violation of a protective court order involving domestic violence, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 13700, or arrested pursuant to a policy described in Section 13701, the person shall be taken before a magistrate instead of being released according to the procedures set forth in this chapter, unless the arresting officer determines that there is not a reasonable likelihood that the offense will continue or resume or that the safety of persons or property would be imminently endangered by release of the person arrested. Prior to adopting these provisions, each city, county, or city and county shall develop a protocol to assist officers to determine when arrest and release is appropriate, rather than taking the arrested person before a magistrate. The county shall establish a committee to develop the protocol, consisting of, at a minimum, the police chief or county sheriff within the jurisdiction, the district attorney, county counsel, city attorney, representatives from domestic violence shelters, domestic violence councils, and other relevant community agencies.
(3)This subdivision shall not apply to the crimes specified in Section 1270.1, including crimes defined in each of the following:
(A)Paragraph (1) of subdivision (e) of Section 243.
(B)Section 273.5.
(C)Section 273.6, if the detained person made threats to kill or harm, has engaged in violence against, or has gone to the residence or workplace of, the protected party.
(D)Section 646.9.
(4)This subdivision does not affect a defendants ability to be released on bail or on their own recognizance, except as specified in Section 1270.1.
(b)Unless waived by the person, the time specified in the notice to appear shall be at least 10 days after arrest if the duplicate notice is to be filed by the officer with the magistrate.
(c)The place specified in the notice shall be the court of the magistrate before whom the person would be taken if the requirement of taking an arrested person before a magistrate were complied with, or shall be an officer authorized by that court to receive a deposit of bail.
(d)The officer shall deliver one copy of the notice to appear to the arrested person, and the arrested person, in order to secure release, shall give their written promise to appear in court as specified in the notice by signing the duplicate notice, which shall be retained by the officer. The officer may require the arrested person, if the arrested person has no satisfactory identification, to place a right thumbprint, or a left thumbprint or fingerprint if the person has a missing or disfigured right thumb, on the notice to appear. Except for law enforcement purposes relating to the identity of the arrestee, a person or entity may not sell, give away, allow the distribution of, include in a database, or create a database with, this print. Upon the person signing the duplicate notice, the arresting officer shall immediately release the person arrested from custody.
(e)The officer shall, as soon as practicable, file the duplicate notice, as follows:
(1)It shall be filed with the magistrate if the offense charged is an infraction.
(2)It shall be filed with the magistrate if the prosecuting attorney has previously directed the officer to do so.
(3)(A)The duplicate notice and underlying police reports in support of the charge or charges shall be filed with the prosecuting attorney in cases other than those specified in paragraphs (1) and (2).
(B)If the duplicate notice is filed with the prosecuting attorney, the prosecuting attorney, within their discretion, may initiate prosecution by filing the notice or a formal complaint with the magistrate specified in the duplicate notice within 25 days from the time of arrest. If the prosecution is not to be initiated, the prosecutor shall send notice to the person arrested at the address on the notice to appear. The failure by the prosecutor to file the notice or formal complaint within 25 days of the time of the arrest shall not bar further prosecution of the misdemeanor charged in the notice to appear. However, any further prosecution shall be preceded by a new and separate citation or an arrest warrant.
(C)Upon the filing of the notice with the magistrate by the officer, or the filing of the notice or formal complaint by the prosecutor, the magistrate may fix the amount of bail that in the magistrates judgment, in accordance with Section 1275, is reasonable and sufficient for the appearance of the defendant and shall endorse upon the notice a statement signed by the magistrate in the form set forth in Section 815a. The defendant may, prior to the date upon which the defendant promised to appear in court, deposit with the magistrate the amount of bail set by the magistrate. When the case is called for arraignment before the magistrate, if the defendant does not appear, either in person or by counsel, the magistrate may declare the bail forfeited, and may, in the magistrates discretion, order that no further proceedings shall be had in the case, unless the defendant has been charged with a violation of Section 374.3 or 374.7 of this code or of Section 11357, 11360, or 13002 of the Health and Safety Code, or a violation punishable under Section 5008.7 of the Public Resources Code, and the defendant has previously been convicted of a violation of that section or a violation that is punishable under that section, except in cases where the magistrate finds that undue hardship will be imposed upon the defendant by requiring the defendant to appear, the magistrate may declare the bail forfeited and order that no further proceedings be had in the case.
(D)Upon the making of the order that no further proceedings be had, all sums deposited as bail shall immediately be paid into the county treasury for distribution pursuant to Section 1463.
(f)A warrant shall not be issued for the arrest of a person who has given a written promise to appear in court, unless and until the person has violated that promise or has failed to deposit bail, to appear for arraignment, trial, or judgment or to comply with the terms and provisions of the judgment, as required by law.
(g)The officer may book the arrested person at the scene or at the arresting agency prior to release or indicate on the citation that the arrested person shall appear at the arresting agency to be booked or indicate on the citation that the arrested person shall appear at the arresting agency to be fingerprinted prior to the date the arrested person appears in court. A person arrested for a warrant issued pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 978.5 may not be booked at the arresting agency and shall be released at the scene. If it is indicated on the citation that the arrested person shall be booked or fingerprinted prior to the date of the persons court appearance, the arresting agency, at the time of booking or fingerprinting, shall provide the arrested person with verification of the booking or fingerprinting by making an entry on the citation. If it is indicated on the citation that the arrested person is to be booked or fingerprinted, the magistrate, judge, or court shall, before the proceedings begin, order the defendant to provide verification that the defendant was booked or fingerprinted by the arresting agency. If the defendant cannot produce the verification, the magistrate, judge, or court shall require that the defendant be booked or fingerprinted by the arresting agency before the next court appearance, and that the defendant provide the verification at the next court appearance unless both parties stipulate that booking or fingerprinting is not necessary.
(h)A peace officer shall use the written notice to appear procedure set forth in this section for any misdemeanor offense in which the officer has arrested a person without a warrant pursuant to Section 836 or in which the officer has taken custody of a person pursuant to Section 847.
(i)(1)When a person is arrested by a peace officer for a misdemeanor, that person shall be released according to the procedures set forth by this chapter unless one of the following is a reason for nonrelease, in which case the arresting officer may release the person, except as provided in subdivision (a), or the arresting officer shall indicate, on a form to be established by the officers employing law enforcement agency, which of the following was a reason for the nonrelease:
(1)(A)The person arrested was so intoxicated that they could have been a danger to themselves or to others.
(2)(B)The person arrested required medical examination or medical care or was otherwise unable to care for their own safety.
(3)(C)The person was arrested under one or more of the circumstances listed in Sections 40302 and 40303 of the Vehicle Code.
(4)(D)There were one or more outstanding arrest warrants for the person. person, other than a warrant issued pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 978.5.
(5)(E)The person could not provide satisfactory evidence of personal identification.
(6)(F)The prosecution of the offense or offenses for which the person was arrested, or the prosecution of any other offense or offenses, would be jeopardized by immediate release of the person arrested.
(7)(G)There was a reasonable likelihood that the offense or offenses would continue or resume, or that the safety of persons or property would be imminently endangered by release of the person arrested.
(8)(H)The person arrested demanded to be taken before a magistrate or refused to sign the notice to appear.
(9)(I)There is reason to believe that the person would not appear at the time and place specified in the notice. The basis for this determination shall be specifically stated.
(10)(A)(J)(i)The person was subject to Section 1270.1.
(B)(ii)The form shall be filed with the arresting agency as soon as practicable and shall be made available to any party having custody of the arrested person, subsequent to the arresting officer, and to any person authorized by law to release the arrested person from custody before trial.
(2)The reasons for nonrelease set forth in this subdivision do not apply to arrests for warrants issued pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 978.5.
(j)(1)Once the arresting officer has prepared the written notice to appear and has delivered a copy to the person arrested, the officer shall deliver the remaining original and all copies as provided by subdivision (e).
(2)A person, including the arresting officer and any member of the officers department or agency, or any peace officer, who alters, conceals, modifies, nullifies, or destroys, or causes to be altered, concealed, modified, nullified, or destroyed, the face side of the remaining original or any copy of a citation that was retained by the officer, for any reason, before it is filed with the magistrate or with a person authorized by the magistrate to receive deposit of bail, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(3)If, after an arrested person has signed and received a copy of a notice to appear, the arresting officer determines that, in the interest of justice, the citation or notice should be dismissed, the arresting agency may recommend, in writing, to the magistrate that the charges be dismissed. The recommendation shall cite the reasons for the recommendation and shall be filed with the court.
(4)If the magistrate makes a finding that there are grounds for dismissal, the finding shall be entered in the record and the charges dismissed.
(5)A personal relationship with any officer, public official, or law enforcement agency shall not be grounds for dismissal.
(k)(1)A person contesting a charge by claiming under penalty of perjury not to be the person issued the notice to appear may choose to submit a right thumbprint, or a left thumbprint if the person has a missing or disfigured right thumb, to the issuing court through the persons local law enforcement agency for comparison with the one placed on the notice to appear. A local law enforcement agency providing this service may charge the requester no more than the actual costs. The issuing court may refer the thumbprint submitted and the notice to appear to the prosecuting attorney for comparison of the thumbprints. When there is no thumbprint or fingerprint on the notice to appear, or when the comparison of thumbprints is inconclusive, the court shall refer the notice to appear, or a copy thereof, back to the issuing agency for further investigation, unless the court finds that referral is not in the interest of justice.
(2)Upon initiation of the investigation or comparison process by referral of the court, the court shall continue the case and the speedy trial period shall be tolled for 45 days.
(3)Upon receipt of the issuing agencys or prosecuting attorneys response, the court may make a finding of factual innocence pursuant to Section 530.6 if the court determines that there is insufficient evidence that the person cited is the person charged and shall immediately notify the Department of Motor Vehicles of its determination. If the Department of Motor Vehicles determines the citation or citations in question formed the basis of a suspension or revocation of the persons driving privilege, the department shall immediately set aside the action.
(4)If the prosecuting attorney or issuing agency fails to respond to a court referral within 45 days, the court shall make a finding of factual innocence pursuant to Section 530.6, unless the court finds that a finding of factual innocence is not in the interest of justice.
(5)The citation or notice to appear may be held by the prosecuting attorney or issuing agency for future adjudication should the arrestee who received the citation or notice to appear be found.
(l)For purposes of this section, the term arresting agency includes any other agency designated by the arresting agency to provide booking or fingerprinting services.
(m)This section shall become operative on January 1, 2031.
SEC. 4.SEC. 6.Section 853.7 of the Penal Code is amended to read:853.7.Any person who willfully violates their written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of their promise to appear in court is guilty of a misdemeanor, regardless of the disposition of the charge upon which they were originally arrested. This section shall not apply where the underlying charge is an infraction.
SEC. 5.SEC. 7.Section 853.8 of the Penal Code is amended to read:853.8.When a person signs a written promise to appear at the time and place specified in the written promise to appear and has not posted bail as provided in Section 853.6, the magistrate shall issue and have delivered for execution a warrant for their arrest within 20 days after their failure to appear as promised or within 20 days after their failure to appear after a lawfully granted continuance of their promise to appear. This section does not permit a warrant to issue if the underlying charge is an infraction.
SEC. 6.SEC. 8.Section 978.5 of the Penal Code, as added by Section 4 of Chapter 856 of the Statutes of 2022, is amended to read:978.5.(a)A bench warrant of arrest may be issued when a defendant fails to appear in court as required by law, including, but not limited to, any of the following situations:
(1)If the defendant is ordered by a judge or magistrate to personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(2)If the defendant is released from custody on bail and is ordered by a judge or magistrate, or other person authorized to accept bail, to personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(3)If the defendant is released from custody on their own recognizance and promises to personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(4)If the defendant is released from custody or arrest upon citation by a peace officer or other person authorized to issue citations and the defendant has signed a promise to personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(5)If a defendant is authorized to appear by counsel and the court or magistrate orders that the defendant personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(6)If an information or indictment has been filed in the superior court and the court has fixed the date and place for the defendant personally to appear for arraignment.
(b)The bench warrant may be served in any county in the same manner as a warrant of arrest.
(c)This section does not apply to infractions. infractions issued pursuant to the Vehicle Code.
(d)For infractions charged under any provision of state law other than the Vehicle Code, or under any local ordinance, a bench warrant issued pursuant to this section shall be limited to authorizing arrest and booking at the scene followed by immediate release according to the procedures outlined in Section 853.6.
SEC. 7.SEC. 9.Section 1043 of the Penal Code is amended to read:1043.(a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, the defendant in a felony case shall be personally present at the trial.
(b)The absence of the defendant in a felony case after the trial has commenced in their physical presence shall not prevent continuing the trial to, and including, the return of the verdict in any of the following cases:
(1)Any case in which the defendant, after being warned by the judge that they will be removed if they continue their disruptive behavior, nevertheless insists on acting in a manner so disorderly, disruptive, and disrespectful of the court that the trial cannot be carried on with the defendant present in the courtroom.
(2)Any prosecution for an offense which is not punishable by death in which the defendant is voluntarily absent.
(c)Any defendant who is absent from a trial pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) may reclaim the right to be present at the trial as soon as they are willing to act consistently with the decorum and respect inherent in the concept of courts and judicial proceedings.
(d)Subdivisions (a) and (b) shall not limit the right of a defendant to waive the right to be present in accordance with Section 977.
(e)If the defendant in a misdemeanor case fails to appear in person at the time set for trial or during the course of trial, the court shall proceed with the trial, unless good cause for a continuance exists, if the defendant has authorized their counsel to proceed in their absence pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 977.
If there is no authorization pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 977 and if the defendant fails to appear in person at the time set for trial or during the course of trial, the court, in its discretion, may do one or more of the following, as it deems appropriate:
(1)Continue the matter.
(2)Order bail forfeited or revoke release on the defendants own recognizance.
(3)Issue a bench warrant.
(4)(A)If the defendant is in custody, proceed with the trial in the defendants absence as authorized in subdivision (f).
(B)If the defendant is out of custody, proceed with the trial if the court finds the defendant has absented themselves voluntarily with full knowledge that the trial is to be held or is being held.
(f)(1)A trial shall be deemed to have commenced in the presence of the defendant for purposes of subdivision (b), or may proceed pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (e), if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, all of the following to be true:
(A)The defendant is in custody and is refusing, without good cause, to appear in court on that day for that trial.
(B)The defendant has been informed of their right and obligation to be personally present in court.
(C)The defendant has been informed that the trial will proceed without the defendant being present.
(D)The defendant has been informed that they have the right to remain silent during the trial.
(E)The defendant has been informed that their absence without good cause will constitute a voluntary waiver of any constitutional or statutory right to confront any witnesses against them or to testify on their own behalf.
(F)The defendant has been informed whether or not defense counsel will be present.
(2)The court shall state on the record the reasons for the courts findings and shall cause those findings and reasons to be entered into the minutes.
(3)If the trial lasts for more than one day, the court is required to make the findings required by this subdivision anew for each day that the defendant is absent.
(4)This subdivision does not apply to any trial in which the defendant was personally present in court at the commencement of trial.
(g)This section does not limit the right of the court to order the defendant to be personally present at the trial for purposes of identification unless counsel stipulate to the issue of identity.
(h)This section does not apply when the underlying charge is an infraction.(h)Paragraph (3) of subdivision (e) does not apply when the underlying charge is an infraction.
SEC. 8.SEC. 10.Section 1803 of the Vehicle Code, as added by Section 9 of Chapter 226 of the Statutes of 2024, is amended to read:1803.(a)(1)(A)The clerk of a court in which a person was convicted of a violation listed in subparagraph (B) shall prepare an abstract of the record of the court covering the case within five days after conviction and immediately forward that abstract to the department at its office at Sacramento.
(B)Pursuant to subparagraph (A), the clerk of the court shall prepare an abstract of the record of the court covering the case for a violation of any of the following:
(i)This code.
(ii)Subdivisions (a) to (f), inclusive, of Section 655 of the Harbors and Navigation Code pertaining to a mechanically propelled vessel but not to manipulating a water ski, an aquaplane, or similar device.
(iii)Section 655.2, 655.6, 658, or 658.5 of the Harbors and Navigation Code.
(iv)Subdivision (a) of Section 192.5 of the Penal Code.
(v)Subdivision (b) of Section 5387 of the Public Utilities Code.
(vi)An offense involving use or possession of controlled substances under Division 10 (commencing with Section 11000) of the Health and Safety Code.
(vii)A felony offense when a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 15210, was involved in, or incidental to, the commission of the offense.
(viii)Any other statute relating to the safe operation of vehicles.
(C)If sentencing is not pronounced in conjunction with the conviction, the abstract shall be forwarded to the department within five days after sentencing, and the abstract shall be certified by the person so required to prepare it to be true and correct.
(2)For the purposes of this section, a forfeiture of bail shall be equivalent to a conviction.
(b)The following violations are not required to be reported under subdivision (a):
(1)Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840).
(2)Section 21113, with respect to parking violations.
(3)Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500) of Division 11, except Section 22526.
(4)Division 12 (commencing with Section 24000), except Sections 24002, 24004, 24250, 24409, 24604, 24800, 25103, 26707, 27151, 27315, 27360, 27800, and 27801 and Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 26301).
(5)Division 15 (commencing with Section 35000), except Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 35550).
(6)A violation for which a person was cited as a pedestrian or while operating a bicycle or a motorized scooter.
(7)Division 16.5 (commencing with Section 38000), except Sections 38301, 38301.3, 38301.5, 38304.1, and 38504.1.
(8)Subdivision (b) of Section 23221, subdivision (b) of Section 23223, subdivision (b) of Section 23225, and subdivision (b) of Section 23226.
(9)Section 40508.
(c)If the court determines that a prior judgment of conviction of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153 is valid or is invalid on constitutional grounds pursuant to Section 41403, the clerk of the court in which the determination is made shall prepare an abstract of that determination and forward it to the department in the same manner as an abstract of record pursuant to subdivision (a).
(d)Within five days of an order terminating or revoking probation under Section 23602, the clerk of the court in which the order terminating or revoking probation was entered shall prepare and immediately forward to the department at its office in Sacramento an abstract of the record of the court order terminating or revoking probation and any other order of the court to the department required by law.
SEC. 9.SEC. 11.Section 40508 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40508.(a)A person willfully violating their written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of their promise to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail is guilty of a misdemeanor regardless of the disposition of the charge upon which the person was originally arrested. This subdivision does not apply where the original charge was an infraction.
(b)A person willfully failing to comply with a condition of a court order for a violation of this code, other than for failure to appear or failure to pay a fine, is guilty of a misdemeanor, regardless of subsequent compliance with the order.(c)If a person convicted of an infraction fails to pay bail in installments as agreed to under Section 40510.5, or a fine or an installment thereof, within the time authorized by the court, the court may, except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, impound the persons drivers license and order the person not to drive for a period not to exceed 30 days. Before returning the license to the person, the court shall endorse on the reverse side of the license that the person was ordered not to drive, the period for which that order was made, and the name of the court making the order. If a defendant with a class C or M drivers license satisfies the court that impounding their drivers license and ordering the defendant not to drive will affect their livelihood, the court shall order that the person limit their driving for a period not to exceed 30 days to driving that is essential in the courts determination to the persons employment, including the persons driving to and from the place of employment if other means of transportation are not reasonably available. The court shall provide for the endorsement of the limitation on the persons license. The impounding of the license and ordering the person not to drive or the order limiting the persons driving does not constitute a suspension of the license, but a violation of the order constitutes contempt of court.(b)A person willfully failing to pay bail in installments as agreed to under Section 40510.5 or a lawfully imposed fine for a violation of a provision of this code or a local ordinance adopted pursuant to this code within the time authorized by the court and without lawful excuse having been presented to the court on or before the date the bail or fine is due is guilty of a misdemeanor regardless of the full payment of the bail or fine after that time. This subdivision does not apply where the original charge was an infraction.
(c)A person willfully failing to comply with a condition of a court order for a violation of this code, other than for failure to appear or failure to pay a fine, is guilty of a misdemeanor, regardless of their subsequent compliance with the order.
SEC. 10.SEC. 12.Section 40510.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40510.5.(a)The clerk of the court may accept a payment and forfeiture of at least 10 percent of the total bail amount for each infraction violation of this code prior to the date on which the defendant promised to appear, or prior to the expiration of any lawful continuance of that date, or upon receipt of information that an action has been filed and prior to the scheduled court date, if all of the following circumstances exist:
(1)The defendant is charged with an infraction violation of this code or an infraction violation of an ordinance adopted pursuant to this code.
(2)The defendant submits proof of correction, when proof of correction is mandatory for a correctable offense.
(3)The offense does not require an appearance in court.
(4)The defendant signs a written agreement to pay and forfeit the remainder of the required bail according to an installment schedule as agreed upon with the court. The Judicial Council shall prescribe the form of the agreement for payment and forfeiture of bail in installments for infraction violations.
(b)When a clerk accepts an agreement for payment and forfeiture of bail in installments, the clerk shall continue the appearance date of the defendant to the date to complete payment and forfeiture of bail in the agreement.
(c)Except for subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 1269b and Section 1305.1, the provisions of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1268) of Title 10 of Part 2 of the Penal Code do not apply to an agreement to pay and forfeit bail in installments under this section.
(d)For the purposes of reporting violations of this code to the department under Section 1803, the date that the defendant signs an agreement to pay and forfeit bail in installments shall be reported as the date of conviction.
(e)When the defendant fails to make an installment payment according to an agreement under subdivision (a) above, the court may impose a civil assessment as provided in Section 1214.1 of the Penal Code.
(f)Payment of a bail amount under this section is forfeited when collected and shall be distributed by the court in the same manner as other fines, penalties, and forfeitures collected for infractions.
SEC. 11.SEC. 13.Section 40512 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40512.(a)(1)Except as specified in paragraph (2) and subdivision (b), if at the time the case is called for arraignment before the magistrate the defendant does not appear, either in person or by counsel, the magistrate may declare the bail forfeited and may, in the magistrates discretion, order that no further proceedings be had in the case, unless the defendant has been charged with a violation of Section 23111 or 23112, or subdivision (a) of Section 23113, and the defendant has been previously convicted of the same offense, except if the magistrate finds that undue hardship will be imposed upon the defendant by requiring the defendant to appear, the magistrate may declare the bail forfeited and order that no further proceedings shall be had in the case.
(2)If the defendant has posted surety bail and the magistrate has ordered the bail forfeited and that no further proceedings shall be had in the case, the bail retains the right to obtain relief from the forfeiture as provided in Section 1305 of the Penal Code if the amount of the bond, money, or property deposited exceeds seven hundred dollars ($700).
(b)(1)If, at the time the case is called for a compliance appearance before the magistrate, the defendant has entered into a bail installment agreement pursuant to Section 40510.5 but has not made an installment payment as agreed and does not appear, either in person or by counsel, the court may continue the arraignment to a date beyond the last agreed upon installment payment, or impose a civil assessment as provided in Section 1214.1 of the Penal Code for the failure to appear.
(2)If, at the time the case is called for a compliance appearance before the magistrate, the defendant has paid all required bail funds and the defendant does not appear, either in person or by counsel, the court may order that no further proceedings shall be had in the case, unless the defendant has been charged with a violation of Section 23111 or 23112, or subdivision (a) of Section 23113, and the defendant has been previously convicted of the same offense, except that if the magistrate finds that undue hardship will be imposed upon the defendant by requiring them to appear, the magistrate may order that no further proceedings shall be had in the case.
(c)Upon the making of the order that no further proceedings shall be had, all sums deposited as bail shall be paid into the city or county treasury, as the case may be.
(d)If a guaranteed traffic arrest bail bond certificate has been filed, the clerk of the court shall bill the issuer for the amount of bail fixed by the uniform countywide schedule of bail required under subdivision (c) of Section 1269b of the Penal Code.
(e)Upon presentation by a court of the bill for a fine or bail assessed against an individual covered by a guaranteed traffic arrest bail bond certificate, the issuer shall pay to the court the amount of the fine or forfeited bail that is within the maximum amount guaranteed by the terms of the certificate.
(f)The court shall return the guaranteed traffic arrest bail bond certificate to the issuer upon receipt of payment in accordance with subdivision (d).
SEC. 12.SEC. 14.Section 40512.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40512.5.(a)Except as specified in subdivision (b), if at the time the case is called for trial the defendant does not appear, either in person or by counsel, and has not requested in writing that the trial proceed in their absence, the court may declare the bail forfeited and may, in its discretion, order that no further proceedings be had in the case, or the court may act pursuant to Section 1043 of the Penal Code.
(b)If the defendant has posted surety bail and the magistrate has ordered the bail forfeited and that no further proceedings shall be had in the case, the bail retains the right to obtain relief from the forfeiture as provided in Section 1305 of the Penal Code if the amount of the bond, money, or property deposited exceeds seven hundred dollars ($700).
SEC. 13.SEC. 15.Section 40514 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40514.A warrant shall not issue on the charge for the arrest of a person who has given a written promise to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail, unless the person has violated the promise, the lawfully granted continuance of the promise, or has failed to deposit bail, to appear for arraignment, trial, or judgment, or to comply with the terms and provisions of the judgment, as required by law. This section does not permit a warrant to issue if the underlying offense is an infraction.
SEC. 14.SEC. 16.Section 40515 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40515.(a)When a person signs a written promise to appear or is granted a continuance of their promise to appear at the time and place specified in the written promise to appear or the continuance thereof, and has not posted full bail or has failed to pay an installment of bail as agreed to under Section 40510.5, the magistrate may issue and have delivered for execution a warrant for the persons arrest within 20 days after the failure to appear before the magistrate or pay an installment of bail as agreed, or if the person promises to appear before an officer authorized to accept bail other than a magistrate and fails to do so on or before the date on which they promised to appear, then, within 20 days after the delivery of the written promise to appear by the officer to a magistrate having jurisdiction over the offense.
(b)When the person violates their promise to appear before an officer authorized to receive bail other than a magistrate, the officer shall immediately deliver to a magistrate having jurisdiction over the offense charged the written promise to appear and the complaint, if any, filed by the arresting officer.
(c)This section does not apply if the underlying charge is an infraction.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)Each year California processes over 3 million infractions.
(b)Infractions are low-level violations, enforced by tickets, and punishable only by a fine. Court appearances are not required for infractions so long as a person pays their ticket. When people fail to pay the ticket or alternatively appear in court, however, state law currently authorizes courts to issue bench warrants for their arrest. This sets up a two-tiered system of justice. Those who can afford to pay avoid further punishment, while those who cannot may face incarceration.
(c)An infraction bench warrant converts an otherwise nonjailable offense into the basis for a persons incarceration. The punishment for failing to pay or appear is thus much more severe than the initial ticket or fine. A persons arrest and incarceration on an infraction bench warrant, resulting from nonpayment of a fine, is effectively a form of debtors prison.
(d)Many people who are issued infraction tickets have good reasons for failing to pay or appear in court. Many do not receive notice, cannot afford to pay the ticket, were not able to get off work or get childcare, are experiencing mental or physical health issues, or understandably are fearful of appearing in court.
(e)Many people issued infraction tickets cannot afford to pay. A 2022 Debt Free Justice California survey of people exiting traffic courts found that over 70 percent of people could not afford to pay a $300 assessment. The Federal Reserve Boards Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking found that over 40 percent of families do not have enough money saved to cover a $400 emergency expense.
(f)Black, Brown, and Indigenous people are disproportionately stopped, cited, and arrested by law enforcement for infractions. According to the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board, Black people are nearly 10 times as likely to receive a citation for an infraction as White individuals. Data from the county of San Francisco show that, though Black people only make up 5.8 percent of the local population, due to systemic racism and targeted, unjust policing, 48.7 percent of those arrested for failure to appear or pay traffic court warrants are Black. Data obtained from the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department through a Public Records Act request show that nearly 90 percent of the thousands of people arrested by the Sheriffs Department on traffic infraction bench warrants were Black or Latinx.
(g)A substantial body of social science research, including the research documented in the Ella Baker Center report Who Pays? The True Cost of Incarceration on Families, shows that an arrest can have adverse and long-term consequences, such as negative impacts on ones ability to secure housing, employment, and higher education opportunities, and that even short periods of detention may make people more likely to become involved with the legal system again.
(h)Existing law provides courts with other tools to respond to nonpayment of infraction tickets, which do not involve arrest and incarceration, such as civil collections. Research from ideas42 and the University of Chicago CrimeLab shows that alternatives to warrants such as improved notices and reminders and common sense collections practices are more effective at generating timely court appearances and payments.
SEC. 2.It is the intent of the Legislature to eliminate arrest warrants for infractions as a step towards ending debtors prisons in California.
SEC. 3.Section 19.7 of the Penal Code is amended to read:19.7.Except as otherwise provided by law, all provisions of law laws relating to misdemeanors misdemeanors, except for the authority to issue bench warrants, shall apply to infractions infractions, including, but not limited to, powers of peace officers, jurisdiction of courts, periods for commencing action and for bringing a case to trial trial, and burden of proof.
SEC. 4.Section 853.7 of the Penal Code is amended to read:853.7.Any person who willfully violates his or her their written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of his or her their promise to appear in court is guilty of a misdemeanor, regardless of the disposition of the charge upon which he or she was they were originally arrested. This section shall not apply where the underlying charge is an infraction.
SEC. 5.Section 853.8 of the Penal Code is amended to read:853.8.When a person signs a written promise to appear at the time and place specified in the written promise to appear and has not posted bail as provided in Section 853.6, the magistrate shall issue and have delivered for execution a warrant for his or her their arrest within 20 days after his or her their failure to appear as promised or within 20 days after his or her their failure to appear after a lawfully granted continuance of his or her their promise to appear. This section does not permit a warrant to issue if the underlying charge is an infraction.
SEC. 6.Section 978.5 of the Penal Code, as added by Section 4 of Chapter 856 of the Statutes of 2022, is amended to read:978.5.(a)A bench warrant of arrest may be issued when a defendant fails to appear in court as required by law, including, but not limited to, any of the following situations:
(1)If the defendant is ordered by a judge or magistrate to personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(2)If the defendant is released from custody on bail and is ordered by a judge or magistrate, or other person authorized to accept bail, to personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(3)If the defendant is released from custody on their own recognizance and promises to personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(4)If the defendant is released from custody or arrest upon citation by a peace officer or other person authorized to issue citations and the defendant has signed a promise to personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(5)If a defendant is authorized to appear by counsel and the court or magistrate orders that the defendant personally appear in court at a specific time and place.
(6)If an information or indictment has been filed in the superior court and the court has fixed the date and place for the defendant personally to appear for arraignment.
(b)The bench warrant may be served in any county in the same manner as a warrant of arrest.
(c)This section shall become operative January 1, 2026.(c)This section does not apply to infractions.
SEC. 7.Section 1043 of the Penal Code is amended to read:1043.(a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, the defendant in a felony case shall be personally present at the trial.
(b)The absence of the defendant in a felony case after the trial has commenced in their physical presence shall not prevent continuing the trial to, and including, the return of the verdict in any of the following cases:
(1)Any case in which the defendant, after being warned by the judge that they will be removed if they continue their disruptive behavior, nevertheless insists on acting in a manner so disorderly, disruptive, and disrespectful of the court that the trial cannot be carried on with the defendant present in the courtroom.
(2)Any prosecution for an offense which is not punishable by death in which the defendant is voluntarily absent.
(c)Any defendant who is absent from a trial pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) may reclaim the right to be present at the trial as soon as they are willing to act consistently with the decorum and respect inherent in the concept of courts and judicial proceedings.
(d)Subdivisions (a) and (b) shall not limit the right of a defendant to waive the right to be present in accordance with Section 977.
(e)If the defendant in a misdemeanor case fails to appear in person at the time set for trial or during the course of trial, the court shall proceed with the trial, unless good cause for a continuance exists, if the defendant has authorized their counsel to proceed in their absence pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 977.
If there is no authorization pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 977 and if the defendant fails to appear in person at the time set for trial or during the course of trial, the court, in its discretion, may do one or more of the following, as it deems appropriate:
(1)Continue the matter.
(2)Order bail forfeited or revoke release on the defendants own recognizance.
(3)Issue a bench warrant.
(4)(A)If the defendant is in custody, proceed with the trial in the defendants absence as authorized in subdivision (f).
(B)If the defendant is out of custody, proceed with the trial if the court finds the defendant has absented themselves voluntarily with full knowledge that the trial is to be held or is being held.
(f)(1)A trial shall be deemed to have commenced in the presence of the defendant for purposes of subdivision (b), or may proceed pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (e), if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, all of the following to be true:
(A)The defendant is in custody and is refusing, without good cause, to appear in court on that day for that trial.
(B)The defendant has been informed of their right and obligation to be personally present in court.
(C)The defendant has been informed that the trial will proceed without the defendant being present.
(D)The defendant has been informed that they have the right to remain silent during the trial.
(E)The defendant has been informed that their absence without good cause will constitute a voluntary waiver of any constitutional or statutory right to confront any witnesses against them or to testify on their own behalf.
(F)The defendant has been informed whether or not defense counsel will be present.
(2)The court shall state on the record the reasons for the courts findings and shall cause those findings and reasons to be entered into the minutes.
(3)If the trial lasts for more than one day, the court is required to make the findings required by this subdivision anew for each day that the defendant is absent.
(4)This subdivision does not apply to any trial in which the defendant was personally present in court at the commencement of trial.
(g)Nothing herein shall This section does not limit the right of the court to order the defendant to be personally present at the trial for purposes of identification unless counsel stipulate to the issue of identity.
(h)This section does not apply when the underlying charge is an infraction.
SEC. 8.Section 1803 of the Vehicle Code, as added by Section 9 of Chapter 226 of the Statutes of 2024, is amended to read:1803.(a)(1)(A)The clerk of a court in which a person was convicted of a violation listed in subparagraph (B) shall prepare an abstract of the record of the court covering the case within five days after conviction and immediately forward that abstract to the department at its office at Sacramento.
(B)Pursuant to subparagraph (A), the clerk of the court shall prepare an abstract of the record of the court covering the case for a violation of any of the following:
(i)This code.
(ii)Subdivisions (a) to (f), inclusive, of Section 655 of the Harbors and Navigation Code pertaining to a mechanically propelled vessel but not to manipulating a water ski, an aquaplane, or similar device.
(iii)Section 655.2, 655.6, 658, or 658.5 of the Harbors and Navigation Code.
(iv)Subdivision (a) of Section 192.5 of the Penal Code.
(v)Subdivision (b) of Section 5387 of the Public Utilities Code.
(vi)An offense involving use or possession of controlled substances under Division 10 (commencing with Section 11000) of the Health and Safety Code.
(vii)A felony offense when a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 15210, was involved in, or incidental to, the commission of the offense.
(viii)Any other statute relating to the safe operation of vehicles.
(C)If sentencing is not pronounced in conjunction with the conviction, the abstract shall be forwarded to the department within five days after sentencing, and the abstract shall be certified by the person so required to prepare it to be true and correct.
(2)For the purposes of this section, a forfeiture of bail shall be equivalent to a conviction.
(b)The following violations are not required to be reported under subdivision (a):
(1)Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840).
(2)Section 21113, with respect to parking violations.
(3)Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500) of Division 11, except Section 22526.
(4)Division 12 (commencing with Section 24000), except Sections 24002, 24004, 24250, 24409, 24604, 24800, 25103, 26707, 27151, 27315, 27360, 27800, and 27801 and Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 26301).
(5)Division 15 (commencing with Section 35000), except Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 35550).
(6)A violation for which a person was cited as a pedestrian or while operating a bicycle or a motorized scooter.
(7)Division 16.5 (commencing with Section 38000), except Sections 38301, 38301.3, 38301.5, 38304.1, and 38504.1.
(8)Subdivision (b) of Section 23221, subdivision (b) of Section 23223, subdivision (b) of Section 23225, and subdivision (b) of Section 23226.
(9)Section 40508.
(c)If the court determines that a prior judgment of conviction of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153 is valid or is invalid on constitutional grounds pursuant to Section 41403, the clerk of the court in which the determination is made shall prepare an abstract of that determination and forward it to the department in the same manner as an abstract of record pursuant to subdivision (a).
(d)Within five days of an order terminating or revoking probation under Section 23602, the clerk of the court in which the order terminating or revoking probation was entered shall prepare and immediately forward to the department at its office in Sacramento an abstract of the record of the court order terminating or revoking probation and any other order of the court to the department required by law.
(e)This section shall become operative on January 1, 2027.SEC. 9.Section 40508 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40508.(a)A person willfully violating their written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of their promise to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail is guilty of a misdemeanor regardless of the disposition of the charge upon which the person was originally arrested. This subdivision does not apply where the original charge was an infraction.
(b) A person willfully failing to pay bail in installments as agreed to under Section 40510.5 or a lawfully imposed fine for a violation of a provision of this code or a local ordinance adopted pursuant to this code within the time authorized by the court and without lawful excuse having been presented to the court on or before the date the bail or fine is due is guilty of a misdemeanor regardless of the full payment of the bail or fine after that time. (c)A person willfully failing to comply with a condition of a court order for a violation of this code, other than for failure to appear or failure to pay a fine, is guilty of a misdemeanor, regardless of their subsequent compliance with the order.(b)A person willfully failing to comply with a condition of a court order for a violation of this code, other than for failure to appear or failure to pay a fine, is guilty of a misdemeanor, regardless of subsequent compliance with the order.
(c)If a person convicted of an infraction fails to pay bail in installments as agreed to under Section 40510.5, or a fine or an installment thereof, within the time authorized by the court, the court may, except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, impound the persons drivers license and order the person not to drive for a period not to exceed 30 days. Before returning the license to the person, the court shall endorse on the reverse side of the license that the person was ordered not to drive, the period for which that order was made, and the name of the court making the order. If a defendant with a class C or M drivers license satisfies the court that impounding their drivers license and ordering the defendant not to drive will affect their livelihood, the court shall order that the person limit their driving for a period not to exceed 30 days to driving that is essential in the courts determination to the persons employment, including the persons driving to and from the place of employment if other means of transportation are not reasonably available. The court shall provide for the endorsement of the limitation on the persons license. The impounding of the license and ordering the person not to drive or the order limiting the persons driving does not constitute a suspension of the license, but a violation of the order constitutes contempt of court.
SEC. 10.Section 40510.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40510.5.(a)The clerk of the court may accept a payment and forfeiture of at least 10 percent of the total bail amount for each infraction violation of this code prior to the date on which the defendant promised to appear, or prior to the expiration of any lawful continuance of that date, or upon receipt of information that an action has been filed and prior to the scheduled court date, if all of the following circumstances exist:
(1)The defendant is charged with an infraction violation of this code or an infraction violation of an ordinance adopted pursuant to this code.
(2)The defendant submits proof of correction, when proof of correction is mandatory for a correctable offense.
(3)The offense does not require an appearance in court.
(4)The defendant signs a written agreement to pay and forfeit the remainder of the required bail according to an installment schedule as agreed upon with the court. The Judicial Council shall prescribe the form of the agreement for payment and forfeiture of bail in installments for infraction violations.
(b)When a clerk accepts an agreement for payment and forfeiture of bail in installments, the clerk shall continue the appearance date of the defendant to the date to complete payment and forfeiture of bail in the agreement.
(c)Except for subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 1269b and Section 1305.1, the provisions of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1268) of Title 10 of Part 2 of the Penal Code do not apply to an agreement to pay and forfeit bail in installments under this section.
(d)For the purposes of reporting violations of this code to the department under Section 1803, the date that the defendant signs an agreement to pay and forfeit bail in installments shall be reported as the date of conviction.
(e)When the defendant fails to make an installment payment according to an agreement under subdivision (a) above, the court may charge a failure to appear or pay under Section 40508 and impose a civil assessment as provided in Section 1214.1 of the Penal Code or issue an arrest warrant for a failure to appear. Code.
(f)Payment of a bail amount under this section is forfeited when collected and shall be distributed by the court in the same manner as other fines, penalties, and forfeitures collected for infractions.
(g)This section shall become operative on January 1, 2022.SEC. 11.Section 40512 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40512.(a)(1)Except as specified in paragraph (2) and subdivision (b), if at the time the case is called for arraignment before the magistrate the defendant does not appear, either in person or by counsel, the magistrate may declare the bail forfeited and may, in his or her the magistrates discretion, order that no further proceedings be had in the case, unless the defendant has been charged with a violation of Section 23111 or 23112, or subdivision (a) of Section 23113, and he or she the defendant has been previously convicted of the same offense, except if the magistrate finds that undue hardship will be imposed upon the defendant by requiring him or her the defendant to appear, the magistrate may declare the bail forfeited and order that no further proceedings shall be had in the case.
(2)If the defendant has posted surety bail and the magistrate has ordered the bail forfeited and that no further proceedings shall be had in the case, the bail retains the right to obtain relief from the forfeiture as provided in Section 1305 of the Penal Code if the amount of the bond, money, or property deposited exceeds seven hundred dollars ($700).
(b)(1)If, at the time the case is called for a compliance appearance before the magistrate, the defendant has entered into a bail installment agreement pursuant to Section 40510.5 but has not made an installment payment as agreed and does not appear, either in person or by counsel, the court may continue the arraignment to a date beyond the last agreed upon installment payment, issue a warrant of arrest, or impose a civil assessment as provided in Section 1214.1 of the Penal Code for the failure to appear.
(2)If, at the time the case is called for a compliance appearance before the magistrate, the defendant has paid all required bail funds and the defendant does not appear, either in person or by counsel, the court may order that no further proceedings shall be had in the case, unless the defendant has been charged with a violation of Section 23111 or 23112, or subdivision (a) of Section 23113, and he or she the defendant has been previously convicted of the same offense, except that if the magistrate finds that undue hardship will be imposed upon the defendant by requiring him or her them to appear, the magistrate may order that no further proceedings shall be had in the case.
(c)Upon the making of the order that no further proceedings shall be had, all sums deposited as bail shall be paid into the city or county treasury, as the case may be.
(d)If a guaranteed traffic arrest bail bond certificate has been filed, the clerk of the court shall bill the issuer for the amount of bail fixed by the uniform countywide schedule of bail required under subdivision (c) of Section 1269b of the Penal Code.
(e)Upon presentation by a court of the bill for a fine or bail assessed against an individual covered by a guaranteed traffic arrest bail bond certificate, the issuer shall pay to the court the amount of the fine or forfeited bail that is within the maximum amount guaranteed by the terms of the certificate.
(f)The court shall return the guaranteed traffic arrest bail bond certificate to the issuer upon receipt of payment in accordance with subdivision (d).
SEC. 12.Section 40512.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40512.5.(a)Except as specified in subdivision (b), if at the time the case is called for trial the defendant does not appear, either in person or by counsel, and has not requested in writing that the trial proceed in his or her their absence, the court may declare the bail forfeited and may, in its discretion, order that no further proceedings be had in the case, or the court may act pursuant to Section 1043 of the Penal Code. However, if the defendant has been charged with a violation of Section 23111 or 23112, or subdivision (a) of Section 23113, and he or she has been previously convicted of a violation of the same section, the court may declare the bail forfeited, but shall issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the person charged, except if the magistrate finds that undue hardship will be imposed upon the defendant by requiring him or her to appear, the magistrate may declare the bail forfeited and order that no further proceedings shall be had in the case.
(b)If the defendant has posted surety bail and the magistrate has ordered the bail forfeited and that no further proceedings shall be had in the case, the bail retains the right to obtain relief from the forfeiture as provided in Section 1305 of the Penal Code if the amount of the bond, money, or property deposited exceeds seven hundred dollars ($700).
SEC. 13.Section 40514 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40514.No A warrant shall not issue on the charge for the arrest of a person who has given his a written promise to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail, unless he the person has violated the promise, the lawfully granted continuance of his the promise, or has failed to deposit bail, to appear for arraignment, trial trial, or judgment, or to comply with the terms and provisions of the judgment, as required by law. This section does not permit a warrant to issue if the underlying offense is an infraction.
SEC. 14.Section 40515 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40515.(a)When a person signs a written promise to appear or is granted a continuance of his or her their promise to appear at the time and place specified in the written promise to appear or the continuance thereof, and has not posted full bail or has failed to pay an installment of bail as agreed to under Section 40510.5, the magistrate may issue and have delivered for execution a warrant for his or her the persons arrest within 20 days after his or her the failure to appear before the magistrate or pay an installment of bail as agreed, or if the person promises to appear before an officer authorized to accept bail other than a magistrate and fails to do so on or before the date on which he or she they promised to appear, then, within 20 days after the delivery of the written promise to appear by the officer to a magistrate having jurisdiction over the offense.
(b)When the person violates his or her their promise to appear before an officer authorized to receive bail other than a magistrate, the officer shall immediately deliver to a magistrate having jurisdiction over the offense charged the written promise to appear and the complaint, if any, filed by the arresting officer.
(c)This section does not apply if the underlying charge is an infraction.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Sep 20, 2026 | Vetoed by Governor. |
| Sep 3, 2026 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m. |
| Aug 27, 2026 | In Assembly. Ordered to Engrossing and Enrolling. |
| Aug 26, 2026 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 25. Noes 11.). |
| Aug 13, 2026 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Aug 13, 2026 | In committee: Reconsideration of a favorable vote granted. |
| Aug 13, 2026 | From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 4. Noes 2.) (August 13). |
| Jun 29, 2026 | In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file. |
| Jun 16, 2026 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 1.) (June 16). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Jun 3, 2026 | Referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| May 22, 2026 | In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. |
| May 22, 2026 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 55. Noes 18. Page 5264.) |
| May 22, 2026 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 55. Noes 18.) |
| May 18, 2026 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| May 14, 2026 | Joint Rule 62(a), file notice suspended. (Page 5030.) |
| May 14, 2026 | Joint Rule 62(a), file notice suspended. |
| May 14, 2026 | From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 11. Noes 4.) (May 14). |
| May 13, 2026 | In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file. |
| Apr 20, 2026 | Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Apr 16, 2026 | Read second time and amended. |
| Apr 15, 2026 | From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 2.) (April 14). |
| Apr 7, 2026 | In committee: Set, second hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. |
| Mar 24, 2026 | In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. |
| Mar 9, 2026 | Referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| Feb 19, 2026 | From printer. May be heard in committee March 21. |
| Feb 18, 2026 | Read first time. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 26, 2026 | Assembly 3rd Reading AB2122 Kalra et al. By Pérez | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Aug 13, 2026 | Do pass | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Aug 13, 2026 | [08-13-2026] set for [First] hearing: Reconsideration of favorable vote granted | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Aug 13, 2026 | Do pass | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Jun 29, 2026 | Placed on suspense file | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Jun 16, 2026 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety |
Passed |
|
| May 22, 2026 | AB 2122 Kalra Assembly Third Reading | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 14, 2026 | Do pass. | Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Apr 14, 2026 | Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| 3 Private Individuals | ** Support | |
| A New PATH | ** Support | |
| A New Way of Life Reentry Project | ** Support | |
| Aclu California Action | ** Support | |
| All of US or None (HQ) (co-source) | ** Support | |
| All Of Us Or None Orange County | ** Support | |
| Alliance for Boys and Men of Color | ** Support | |
| Anti Police-Terror Project | ** Support | |
| Bridges of Hope CA | ** Support | |
| California Attorneys For Criminal Justice | ** Support | |
| California Coalition for Housing and Survivor Justice | ** Support | |
| California Coalition for Women Prisoners | ** Support | |
| California Community Foundation | ** Support | |
| California District Attorneys Association | ** Against | |
| California Immigrant Policy Center | ** Support | |
| California Public Defenders Association | ** Support | |
| California Rural Legal Assistance | ** Support | |
| California State Sheriffs' Association | ** Against | |
| California State Sheriffs’ Association | ** Against | |
| Californians for Safety and Justice | ** Support | |
| Californians United for a Responsible Budget | ** Support | |
| Care First California | ** Support | |
| CD11 Coalition for Human Rights | ** Support | |
| CD11 Coalition Human Rights | ** Support | |
| Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice | ** Support | |
| Child Support Directors Association of California | ** Against | |
| Coalition of California State Tribes | ** Support | |
| Coalition on Homelessness, San Francisco | ** Support | |
| Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (co-source) | ** Support | |
| Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto | ** Support | |
| Community Works West | ** Support | |
| Congregations Organized for Prophetic Engagement | ** Support | |
| Corporation For Supportive Housing | ** Support | |
| Corporation for Supportive Housing (co-source) | ** Support | |
| Corporation for Supportive Housing (Co-Sponsor) | ** Support | |
| Courage California | ** Support | |
| Debt Free Justice California | ** Support | |
| Destination: Home | ** Support | |
| Dignity and Power Now | ** Support | |
| Disability Rights California | ** Support | |
| Drug Policy Alliance | ** Support | |
| Ella Baker Center For Human Rights | ** Support | |
| Empowering Women Impacted by Incarceration | ** Support | |
| Equal Rights for Every Neighbor | ** Support | |
| Families Inspiring Reentry & Reunification 4 Everyone | ** Support | |
| Felony Murder Elimination Project | ** Support | |
| Fresh Lifelines for Youth | ** Support | |
| Friends Committee On Legislation Of California | ** Support | |
| Glide | ** Support | |
| Grace Institute - End Child Poverty in Ca | ** Support | |
| Homeless United for Friendship and Freedom | ** Support | |
| Housing California | ** Support | |
| Housing Is a Human Right - Orange County | ** Support | |
| Housing Is a Human Right-Orange County | ** Support | |
| Indivisible Ca Statestrong | ** Support | |
| Initiate Justice | ** Support | |
| Inland Region Reentry Collaborative | ** Support | |
| John Burton Advocates for Youth | ** Support | |
| Justice2jobs Coalition | ** Support | |
| LA Defensa | ** Support | |
| LA Raza Community Resource Center | ** Support | |
| Law Foundation of Silicon Valley | ** Support | |
| Legal Aid of Marin | ** Support | |
| Legal Services for Prisoners with Children (co-source) | ** Support | |
| Legal Services of Northern California | ** Support | |
| Local 148 Los Angeles County Public Defender's Union | ** Support | |
| Mill Valley Force for Racial Equity and Empowerment | ** Support | |
| Milpa Collective | ** Support | |
| National Alliance to End Homelessness | ** Support | |
| National Consumer Law Center, INC. | ** Support | |
| Peace and Justice Law Center | ** Support | |
| Pillars of the Community | ** Support | |
| Public Advocates | ** Support | |
| Reuniting Families Contra Costa | ** Support | |
| Riverside All of Us or None | ** Support | |
| Rubicon Programs | ** Support | |
| Sacred Heart Community Service | ** Support | |
| San Francisco Public Defender | ** Support | |
| San Francisco Public Defender’s Office (co-source) | ** Support | |
| San Jose State University Record Clearance Project | ** Support | |
| Santa Cruz Fulltimers | ** Support | |
| SF Coalition on Homelessness | ** Support | |
| Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition | ** Support | |
| Smart Justice California, a Project of Beyond Impact | ** Support | |
| Starting Over Inc. | ** Support | |
| SURJ Marin - Showing Up for Racial Justice | ** Support | |
| The Maven Collaborative | ** Support | |
| The Maven Collaborative (co-source) | ** Support | |
| The Maven Collaborative (Co-Sponsor) | ** Support | |
| The People Concern | ** Support | |
| The W. Haywood Burns Institute | ** Support | |
| Time for Change Foundation | ** Support | |
| transitions clinic network | ** Support | |
| Universidad Popular | ** Support | |
| University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law Homeless Advocacy Clinic | ** Support | |
| Urban Peace Movement | ** Support | |
| Venice Justice Committee | ** Support | |
| Vera Institute Of Justice | ** Support | |
| Viet Voices | ** Support | |
| Vital Arts | ** Support | |
| Western Center on Law & Poverty, Inc. (co-source) | ** Support |
GOVERNOR'S VETO
GV Bill Id:AB 2122
Author:(Kalra and Lowenthal)
As Enrolled Ver:August 30, 2026
2/3 vote
SUMMARY
Eliminates certain processes and penalties if an individual is subject to an infraction, including: issuing a bench warrant for the person′s arrest within 20 days of the failure to appear, a misdemeanor charge and conviction reported to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), imposition of a civil fine for failing to appear or failing to make an installment payment on a bail contract, and authorizing the court to declare the bail forfeited and requiring the court to issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the person charged, as specified.
Major Provisions:
- Exempts the issuance of a bench warrant for an infraction, but permits citation and release, from the general rule that all laws relating to misdemeanors apply to infractions.
- Prohibits the issuance of a bench warrant, but permits citation and release, for the failure to pay an infraction ticket.
- Prohibits the issuance of a bench warrant, but permits citation and release, for the failure to appear in court on a written promise to appear when the underlying charge is an infraction.
- Removes the requirement that a court inform the DMV of a willful failure to pay bail in installments or pay the fine for a Vehicle Code infraction, as specified.
- Eliminates the requirement that a misdemeanor shall be issued for failure to pay a bail installment.
- Makes conforming changes to other provisions of law.
- Includes legislative findings and declarations.
Governor’s Veto Message
This bill would, among other things, eliminate the misdemeanor offense for foiling to appear in court on a Vehicle Code infraction and prohibit the issuance of a bench warrant for failing to appear in court for such an infraction.
I share the author's commitment to mitigate disparate punishment for minor offenses aqainst low-income residents of the state. Throughout my administration, I have sought to tackle the issue of burdensome fines, fees, and assessments that disproportionately drag low-income individuals deeper into debt - signing numerous bills that repeal or reduce dozens of criminal fines and fees and discharging nearly $7 billion in debt. In doing so, I strived to provide relief where possible, while also maintaining public safety. This bill, however, does not appropriately balance those twin goals.
Unsafe speed accounted for over 100,000 vehicle crashes last year, and the California Highway Patrol issued nearly 500,000 speeding citations. With few exceptions, the Department of Motor Vehicles (OMV) does not receive information that a person has committed a vehicle offense, including most speeding infractions, until the matter is adjudicated in court. By eliminating misdemeanor liability and arrest authority for failures to appear, this bill could cause additional delays in the court processing of unsafe driving violations and communication of those violations to the OMV.
This year, the State Auditor conducted an audit to review the steps that superior courts and the OMV take to process a conviction. With findings and recommendations from the State Auditor on this issue forthcoming, it would be unwise to cause further delays in the processing of moving violations, which would result in more unsafe drivers on our roads.
COMMENTS
According to the Author
″Infraction bench warrants have functioned as a debtor′s prison, creating a system where people who have money for fines never have to appear in court, while those who cannot pay face potential for arrest for what are otherwise non-jailable, minor offenses. AB 2122 addresses the disparate punishment of low-income people that has done little to further public safety by prohibiting the issuance of a bench warrant if the underlying charge is an infraction. This bill will save millions of dollars annually from not having to execute bench warrants or detain people in county jails, and will remove an ineffective, overly punitive punishment for what is essentially a crime of poverty.″
Arguments in Support
According to the Felony Murder Elimination Project, ″This bill would amend the penal and vehicle code to eliminate bench warrants for minor infractions. Felony Murder Elimination Project is a national nonprofit organization working to end felony murder laws and extreme accomplice liability, and to create meaningful pathways for resentencing and release for people serving excessive sentences. We support AB 2122 because eliminating bench warrants for low-level infractions will help prevent avoidable entries and re-entries into the criminal legal system, reduce the risk of escalation into more serious charges and detention, and promote more proportional and effective responses to minor conduct.
″Under California law, an individual′s failure to pay for an infraction or appear in traffic court can result in a bench warrant, or a judge-issued order that authorizes law enforcement to arrest an individual and bring them before the court.1 People who miss court dates may be jailed for an otherwise non-jailable offense.
″Infraction bench warrants are disproportionately issued to communities of color and low-income individuals. In San Francisco, Black people only make up 5.8% of the local population, but through systemic racism and targeted, unjust policing, they make up 48.7% of those arrested for ″failure to appear or pay″ traffic court warrants. Bench warrants have recently been used as a pretext for immigration enforcement, meaning that people may face ICE arrest and subsequent removal proceedings for a non-jailable offense.
″Research shows that punitive measures are ineffective in compelling people to pay or appear in court.4 Common sense, non-punitive practices like text message reminders and follow-ups help get people to appear in court. Furthermore, courts have other, less punitive means to address failure to pay an infraction, like bank levies, wage garnishment, and tax intercepts. Finally, the MyCitations tool allows individuals to pay their infractions online and permits those individuals to request an infraction reduction in cases of financial need from the safety of their home, substantially decreasing the need to resolve unpaid court debt in person.
″Eliminating bench warrants for infractions will help end an unnecessary pipeline to incarceration and allow families to focus on what matters—devoting their already limited time and resources to meeting their critical needs.″
Arguments in Opposition
According to California State Sheriffs′ Association (CSAA), ″If a person fails to appear in court, existing law generally allows a warrant to issue for the person′s arrest. AB 2122 would eliminate this authority if the underlying offense is an infraction. This bill would remove an important tool that encourages people who have been cited for infraction violations to appear in court or otherwise resolve their cases.
″AB 2122 sends the message that it is acceptable to fail to appear in court, even after having promised to do so. We understand there may be valid reasons why a particular person may not be able to pay the fine on a particular violation, but the answer is not to eliminate the ability of a court to compel the person′s attendance in every case. California has enacted numerous amnesty programs over the last several years and this bill goes too far in trying to address the stated problem. ″For these reasons, CSSA must oppose AB 2122.″
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
- No fiscal impact to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). DMV reports no anticipated implementation costs.
- Likely savings (county General Fund) to local law enforcement and county jails from reduced execution of infraction bench warrants and reduced jail bookings for failure-to-appear and failure-to-pay on infractions. Under current law, a person arrested on an infraction bench warrant may be booked into county jail for an otherwise non-jailable offense pending appearance before a magistrate. Eliminating bench warrant authority for infractions removes this booking pathway. The magnitude depends on current local practice and varies by county; jurisdictions that actively execute infraction bench warrants would experience proportionally larger savings than those that do not. County jail savings are not reimbursable by the state and accrue to county general funds.
- Moderate, potentially growing workload and revenue impacts on the courts (Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF), General Fund). The Judicial Council reports the bill will likely produce more trials in absentia in Vehicle Code infraction cases, with associated fines sent to collections. For infractions outside the Vehicle Code (for example, violations of the Harbors and Navigation Code, Water Code, and Streets and Highways Code), courts lack analogous trial-in-absentia authority, so those infractions would generally remain unadjudicated and the associated fines uncollectible. The Judicial Council also anticipates increased clerk and collections staff workload related to failure-to-appear cases, and loss of revenue from fees and assessments that would have been imposed on adjudicated cases. The Judicial Council expects these impacts to grow over time as the public becomes aware that bench warrants are unavailable as an enforcement mechanism. The state budget provides annual General Fund backfills to the TCTF to offset revenue reductions, totaling approximately $117.3 million in 2025-26. To the extent this bill produces material revenue losses to the TCTF, increased General Fund backfill pressure could result in future budgets.
The Legislative Analyst′s Office recently warned of General Fund structural deficits of around $35 billion per year beginning in the 2027-28 fiscal year.
VOTES
ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 7-2-0
YES: Schultz, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Nguyen, Ramos, Sharp-Collins
NO: Alanis, Lackey
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-4-0
YES: Wicks, Aguiar-Curry, Calderon, Caloza, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache
NO: Hoover, Dixon, Ta, Tangipa
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 55-18-7
YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Connolly, Elhawary, Flora, Fong, Garcia, Gipson, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lee, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Valencia, Ward, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas
NO: Alanis, Bains, Castillo, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Ellis, Gallagher, Jeff Gonzalez, Hadwick, Hoover, Johnson, Lackey, Macedo, Patterson, Sanchez, Tangipa, Wallis
ABS, ABST OR NV: Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Chen, Gabriel, Celeste Rodriguez, Ta, Wicks
SENATE FLOOR: 26-11-3
YES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Cabaldon, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener
NO: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Strickland, Valladares
ABS, ABST OR NV: Blakespear, Caballero, Padilla
UPDATED
VERSION: August 30, 2026
CONSULTANT: Dustin Weber / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0004583
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-4171 | AB 2122 |
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2122
Author: Kalra (D) and Lowenthal (D), et al.
Amended: 4/16/26 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 4-1, 6/16/26
AYES: Arreguín, Cortese, Pérez, Wiener
NOES: Seyarto
NO VOTE RECORDED: Caballero
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 55-18, 5/22/26 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Infractions: warrants and penalties
SOURCE: All of Us or None; Corporation for Supportive Housing; Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice; Legal Services for Prisoners with Children; The Maven Collaborative; San Francisco Public Defender’s Office; Western Center on Law and Poverty
DIGEST:
This bill prohibits the issuance of bench warrants for failure to appear, or failure to pay bail, for an infraction offense of the Vehicle Code; requires that any bench warrant issued for failure to appear for an infraction offense not of the Vehicle Code, or a local ordinance established under the Vehicle Code, be limited to arrest and booking at the scene followed by immediate release; establishes that failure to appear in court, or failure to pay, for any infraction offense is not a misdemeanor.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Establishes that it is the intent of the Legislature that the disposition of any criminal case use the least restrictive means available. (Penal (Pen.) Code, § 17.2, subd. (a).)
- States that specified offenses are wobblettes, chargeable as misdemeanors or infractions. States that such offenses are infractions in the following cases:
- The prosecutor files a complaint charging the offense as an infraction unless the defendant, at the time they are arraigned, after being informed of their rights, elects to have the case proceed as a misdemeanor.
- The court, with the consent of the defendant, determines that the offense is an infraction, in which event the case shall proceed as if the defendant had been arraigned on an infraction complaint. (Pen. Code, § 17, subd. (d).)
- Provides that all provisions of law relating to misdemeanors shall apply to infractions, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 19.7.)
- States that except where a lesser maximum fine is expressly provided, an infraction is punishable by a fine not exceeding $250. (Pen. Code, § 19.8, subd. (a)(2).)
- States that except for specified violations based upon failure to appear, a conviction for an offense made an infraction is not grounds for the suspension, revocation, or denial of a license or for the revocation of probation or parole of the person convicted. (Pen. Code, § 19.8, subd. (c).)
- Establishes that except as otherwise provided by law, in any case in which a person is arrested for an offense declared to be an infraction, the person may be released according to procedures for a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 853.5, subd. (a).)
- Provides that any person who willfully violates his or her written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of his or her promise to appear in court is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 853.7.)
- Requires that when a person signs a written promise to appear at the time and place specified in the written promise to appear and has not posted bail, the magistrate must issue and have delivered for execution a warrant for their arrest within 20 days after their failure to appear as promised or within 20 days after their failure to appear after a lawfully granted continuance. (Pen. Code, § 853.8.)
- States that a bench warrant of arrest may be issued when a defendant fails to appear in court. (Pen. Code, § 978.5, subd. (a).)
- States that a trial of an infraction shall be by the court, but when a defendant has been charged with an infraction and with a public offense for which there is a right to jury trial and a jury trial is not waived, the court may order that the offenses be tried together by jury or that they be tried separately. (Pen. Code, § 1042.5.)
- States that any person who fails to appear as provided by law may be deemed to have elected to have a trial by written declaration upon any alleged infraction, as charged by the citing officer, involving a violation of the Vehicle Code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle (Veh.) Code. (Veh. Code, § 40903, subd. (a).)
This bill:
- Prohibits the issuance of bench warrants for failure to appear or failure to pay bail for a Vehicle Code infraction.
- Requires that any bench warrant issued for failure to appear for an infraction not of the Vehicle Code, or a local ordinance established under the Vehicle Code, be limited to arrest and booking at the scene followed by immediate release.
- Provides that failure to appear in court, or failure to pay, under any infraction offense is not a misdemeanor.
- Makes findings and declarations.
Background
An infraction is a criminal offense that is not punishable with incarceration. Because the punishment for an infraction does not implicate the same loss of liberty, the same constitutional rights that apply to other criminal offenses do not apply to infractions. All provisions of law applicable to misdemeanors, however, also largely apply to infractions. Generally, a person arrested for an infraction must be released upon signing a written notice to appear. After a person has been released on a promise to appear, a bench warrant for arrest can be issued if the person fails to appear in court or fails to deposit bail. A willful violation of a promise to appear is a misdemeanor, even if the original offense was an infraction.
Additionally, a willful failure to pay a bail installment or a lawfully imposed fine for a Vehicle Code infraction, or an infraction of a local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code, is a misdemeanor. Any person who fails to appear for an infraction of the Vehicle Code, or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code, may be deemed to have elected to have a trial by written declaration, as charged by the citing officer—functionally allowing the person to be convicted in absentia.
Functionally, bench warrants result in people who cannot pay for their infraction tickets being incarcerated for offenses, while people who can pay are not. Thus, infraction bench warrants turn non-jailable offenses into the basis for a person’s incarceration. Bench warrants have recently been used as a pretext for immigration enforcement, meaning that people may face ICE arrest and subsequent removal proceedings for a non-jailable offense.
The Judicial Council’s 2021 Court Statistics Report notes that in FY 2019-20, out of all criminal case filings comprised of felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions, the overwhelming majority were infractions. During this same time period, there were 174,553 felony case filings, 636,112 misdemeanor filings, and 3,243,819 infraction cases. The majority of infractions were traffic infractions. There were over 1,000,000 bail forfeitures for traffic infractions and over 19,000 bail forfeitures for non-traffic infractions. Infractions require a huge investment of time and resources, not just for the criminal justice system, but also for system-impacted individuals and families.
Traffic stops are a common means of receiving an infraction. Police officers undertake millions of minor traffic stops annually, with many used as a pretext to investigate drivers for criminal activity, which disproportionately impacts motorists of color. Police officers initiated contact with nearly 29 million U.S. residents aged 16 and older in 2018. Traffic stops account for four-fifths of police-initiated contact. The Stanford Open Policing Project has found that Black drivers are disproportionately stopped relative to Latine and White drivers.
Criminal justice involvement often begins with system contact stemming, at least initially, from an infraction. Under current law, infractions can produce unpayable fees for some that can then balloon into crippling, life-altering debt. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) found predatory monetary practices exist in every phase of the criminal legal process. Moreover, system contact can quickly turn into a misdemeanor if the charged individual is unable to comply with established legal processes. While some individuals may be negligent or unwilling to abide by these processes, many justice-involved individuals may be unable to attend court for legitimate reasons. Many do not receive notice, cannot afford to pay the ticket, are not able to get off work or get childcare, are experiencing mental or physical health issues, or are fearful of appearing in court for a variety of reasons, such as potential immigration enforcement.
Existing law provides courts with other tools to address nonpayment of infraction tickets, like civil collections. In 2017, the Commission on the Future of California's Court System recommended implementing a “civil model of adjudication for minor vehicle infractions.” Research has shown that alternatives such as improved notices, reminders, and commonsense collection practices are more effective than warrants at generating timely court appearances and payments. For example, in New York City, researchers found that changes to the court summons form reduced failures to appear by 13 percent, and that text message reminders reduced failures to appear by 26 percent. Additionally, as of 2024, 12 counties are reportedly not issuing bench warrants in infraction cases, and San Francisco has eliminated the use of infraction bench warrants.
This bill prohibits the issuance of bench warrants for failure to appear, or failure to pay bail, under an infraction offense of the Vehicle Code. Furthermore, for any bench warrant issued for failure to appear for an infraction offense not of the Vehicle Code, the bench warrant must be limited to arrest and booking at the scene followed by immediate release. This bill also provides that failure to appear in court, or failure to pay, under any infraction offense is not a misdemeanor.
There are some concerns that prohibiting the issuance of bench warrants in infraction cases will incentivize prosecutors to charge wobblettes as misdemeanors. However, in those cases, a person would be appointed a public defender to adjudicate whether the case would be charged as an infraction or misdemeanor. Furthermore, this concern may be overstated because prosecutors are already likely to charge wobblette offenses as misdemeanors when they have probable cause to do so.
Additionally, the opposition has raised concerns that prohibiting bench warrants for infractions will result in individuals disregarding infraction offenses because they will not face any consequences. However, individuals charged with infractions are still civilly liable for the offenses, which can result in wage garnishment, bank levies, and other collection methods.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
The Senate Appropriations Committee writes:
Moderate, potentially increasing workload and negative revenue impacts on the courts. Prohibiting the issuance of bench warrants for failure to appear may produce more trials in absentia in Vehicle Code infraction cases, with associated fines sent to collections.
Additional court clerk and collections staff workload related to failure-to-appear cases, and loss of revenue from fees and assessments that would have been imposed on adjudicated cases. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased cost pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a demand for increased General Fund support. The FY 2026-27 Budget appropriates $70 million General Fund to backfill declining revenue to the Trial Court Trust Fund (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund).
Moderate, potentially increasing savings to local law enforcement and county jails from reduced execution of infraction bench warrants and reduced jail bookings for failure to appear and failure to pay infractions and incarceration costs.
SUPPORT: (Verified 8/12/26)
All of US or None (HQ) (co-source)
Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (co-source)
Corporation for Supportive Housing (co-source)
Legal Services for Prisoners With Children (co-source)
San Francisco Public Defender’s Office (co-source)
The Maven Collaborative (co-source)
Western Center on Law & Poverty, INC. (co-source)
A New Way of Life Reentry Project
ACLU California Action
All of US or None Orange County
Alliance for Boys and Men of Color
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Coalition for Housing and Survivor Justice
California Coalition for Women Prisoners
California Community Foundation
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Public Defenders Association
California Rural Legal Assistance
Californians for Safety and Justice
Californians United for a Responsible Budget
Care First California
Cd11 Coalition for Human Rights
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Coalition on Homelessness, San Francisco
Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto
Congregations Organized for Prophetic Engagement
Courage California
Debt Free Justice California
Destination: Home
Dignity and Power Now
Disability Rights California
Drug Policy Alliance
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Equal Rights for Every Neighbor
Families Inspiring Reentry & Reunification 4 Everyone
Felony Murder Elimination Project
Fresh Lifelines for Youth
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Glide
Housing California
Housing Is a Human Right - Orange County
Indivisible CA Statestrong
Initiate Justice
Inland Region Reentry Collaborative
John Burton Advocates for Youth
Justice2jobs Coalition
LA Defensa
LA Raza Community Resource Center
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
Legal Aid of Marin
Legal Services of Northern California
Local 148 Los Angeles County Public Defender's Union
Milpa Collective
National Alliance to End Homelessness
National Consumer Law Center, INC.
Peace and Justice Law Center
Public Advocates
Riverside All of US or None
Rubicon Programs
Sacred Heart Community Service
San Jose State University Record Clearance Project
Santa Cruz Fulltimers
Sf Coalition on Homelessness
Smart Justice California, a Project of Beyond Impact
Starting Over INC.
Time for Change Foundation
Universidad Popular
University of the Pacific Mcgeorge School of Law Homeless Advocacy Clinic
Urban Peace Movement
Venice Justice Committee
Vera Institute of Justice
Vital Arts
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/12/26)
California State Sheriffs' Association
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 55-18, 5/22/26
AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Connolly, Elhawary, Flora, Fong, Garcia, Gipson, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lee, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Valencia, Ward, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas
NOES: Alanis, Bains, Castillo, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Ellis, Gallagher, Jeff Gonzalez, Hadwick, Hoover, Johnson, Lackey, Macedo, Patterson, Sanchez, Tangipa, Wallis
NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Chen, Gabriel, Celeste Rodriguez, Ta, Wicks
Prepared by: Marshal Lawler / PUB. S. /
8/14/26 13:49:09
**** END ****
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair
2025 - 2026 Regular Session
AB 2122 (Kalra) - Infractions: warrants and penalties
Version: | Policy Vote: |
Urgency: | Mandate: |
Hearing Date: | Consultant: |
Bill Summary:
AB 2122 would prohibit the issuance of bench warrants for failure to appear, or failure to pay bail, under an infraction offense of the Vehicle Code. For any bench warrant issued for failure to appear for an infraction offense not of the Vehicle Code, the bench warrant must be limited to arrest and booking at the scene followed by immediate release. The bill further provides that failure to appear in court, or failure to pay, under any infraction offense is not a misdemeanor.
Fiscal Impact:
Moderate, potentially increasing workload and negative revenue impacts on the courts. Prohibiting the issuance of bench warrants for failure to appear may produce more trials in absentia in Vehicle Code infraction cases, with associated fines sent to collections.
Additional court clerk and collections staff workload related to failure-to-appear cases, and loss of revenue from fees and assessments that would have been imposed on adjudicated cases. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased cost pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a demand for increased General Fund support. The FY 2026-27 Budget appropriates $70 million General Fund to backfill declining revenue to the Trial Court Trust Fund (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund).
Moderate, potentially increasing savings to local law enforcement and county jails from reduced execution of infraction bench warrants and reduced jail bookings for failure to appear and failure to pay infractions and incarceration costs.
Background:
An infraction is an offense that is not punishable with incarceration. Because the punishment for an infraction does not implicate the same loss of liberty, the same constitutional rights that apply to other criminal offenses do not apply. However, for the most part, all provisions of law applicable to misdemeanors also apply to infractions. Generally, a person arrested for an infraction must be released on signing a written notice to appear. After a person has been released on a promise to appear, a bench warrant for arrest can be issued if the person fails to appear in court and/or fails to deposit the bail. A willful violation of a promise to appear is a misdemeanor, even if the original offense was an infraction.
Proposed Law:
This bill (1) prohibits the issuance of bench warrants for failure to appear, or failure to pay bail for a Vehicle Code infraction, (2) requires that for any bench warrant issued for failure to appear for an infraction not of the Vehicle Code, or a local ordinance established under the Vehicle Code, be limited to arrest and booking at the scene followed by immediate release, and (3) provides that failure to appear in court, or failure to pay, under any infraction offense is not a misdemeanor.
Related Legislation:
AB1266 (Kalra) 2024, a similar measure to this bill, proposed eliminating misdemeanor liability for, and the court’s authority to issue a bench warrant for, the failure to pay, or to appear in court, for an infraction ticket. AB 1266 was held on the committee’s Suspense File.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair
2025 - 2026 Regular Session
AB 2122 (Kalra) - Infractions: warrants and penalties
Version: | Policy Vote: |
Urgency: | Mandate: |
Hearing Date: | Consultant: |
Bill Summary:
AB 2122 would prohibit the issuance of bench warrants for failure to appear, or failure to pay bail, under an infraction offense of the Vehicle Code. For any bench warrant issued for failure to appear for an infraction offense not of the Vehicle Code, the bench warrant must be limited to arrest and booking at the scene followed by immediate release. The bill further provides that failure to appear in court, or failure to pay, under any infraction offense is not a misdemeanor.
Fiscal Impact:
Moderate, potentially increasing workload and negative revenue impacts on the courts. Prohibiting the issuance of bench warrants for failure to appear will likely produce more trials in absentia in Vehicle Code infraction cases, with associated fines sent to collections.
Additional court clerk and collections staff workload related to failure-to-appear cases, and loss of revenue from fees and assessments that would have been imposed on adjudicated cases. These impacts are likely to increase over time as the public becomes aware that bench warrants are unavailable as an enforcement mechanism. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased cost pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a demand for increased General Fund support. The FY 2026-27 Budget appropriates $70 million General Fund to backfill declining revenue to the Trial Court Trust Fund (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund).
Moderate, potentially increasing savings to local law enforcement and county jails from reduced execution of infraction bench warrants and reduced jail bookings for failure to appear and failure to pay infractions and incarceration costs.
Background:
An infraction is an offense that is not punishable with incarceration. Because the punishment for an infraction does not implicate the same loss of liberty, the same constitutional rights that apply to other criminal offenses do not apply. However, for the most part, all provisions of law applicable to misdemeanors also apply to infractions. Generally, a person arrested for an infraction must be released on signing a written notice to appear. After a person has been released on a promise to appear, a bench warrant for arrest can be issued if the person fails to appear in court and/or fails to deposit the bail. A willful violation of a promise to appear is a misdemeanor, even if the original offense was an infraction.
Proposed Law:
This bill (1) prohibits the issuance of bench warrants for failure to appear, or failure to pay bail for a Vehicle Code infraction, (2) requires that for any bench warrant issued for failure to appear for an infraction not of the Vehicle Code, or a local ordinance established under the Vehicle Code, be limited to arrest and booking at the scene followed by immediate release, and (3) provides that failure to appear in court, or failure to pay, under any infraction offense is not a misdemeanor.
Related Legislation:
AB1266 (Kalra) 2024, a similar measure to this bill, proposed eliminating misdemeanor liability for, and the court’s authority to issue a bench warrant for, the failure to pay, or to appear in court, for an infraction ticket. AB 1266 was held on the committee’s Suspense File.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair
2025 - 2026 Regular Session
AB 2122 (Kalra) - Infractions: warrants and penalties
Version: | Policy Vote: |
Urgency: | Mandate: |
Hearing Date: | Consultant: |
Bill Summary:
AB 2122 would prohibit the issuance of bench warrants for failure to appear, or failure to pay bail, under an infraction offense of the Vehicle Code. For any bench warrant issued for failure to appear for an infraction offense not of the Vehicle Code, the bench warrant must be limited to arrest and booking at the scene followed by immediate release. The bill further provides that failure to appear in court, or failure to pay, under any infraction offense is not a misdemeanor.
Fiscal Impact:
Moderate, potentially increasing workload and negative revenue impacts on the courts. Prohibiting the issuance of bench warrants for failure to appear will likely produce more trials in absentia in Vehicle Code infraction cases, with associated fines sent to collections. For infractions outside the Vehicle Code (for example, violations of the Harbors and Navigation Code, Water Code, and Streets and Highways Code), courts lack analogous trial-in-absentia authority, so those infractions would generally remain unadjudicated and the associated fines uncollectible.
Additional court clerk and collections staff workload related to failure-to-appear cases, and loss of revenue from fees and assessments that would have been imposed on adjudicated cases. These impacts are likely to increase over time as the public becomes aware that bench warrants are unavailable as an enforcement mechanism. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased cost pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a demand for increased General Fund support. The FY 2026-27 Budget appropriates $70 million General Fund to backfill declining revenue to the Trial Court Trust Fund (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund).
Moderate, potentially increasing savings to local law enforcement and county jails from reduced execution of infraction bench warrants and reduced jail bookings for failure to appear and failure to pay infractions and incarceration costs.
Background:
An infraction is an offense that is not punishable with incarceration. Because the punishment for an infraction does not implicate the same loss of liberty, the same constitutional rights that apply to other criminal offenses do not apply. However, for the most part, all provisions of law applicable to misdemeanors also apply to infractions. Generally, a person arrested for an infraction must be released on signing a written notice to appear. After a person has been released on a promise to appear, a bench warrant for arrest can be issued if the person fails to appear in court and/or fails to deposit the bail. A willful violation of a promise to appear is a misdemeanor, even if the original offense was an infraction.
Proposed Law:
This bill (1) prohibits the issuance of bench warrants for failure to appear, or failure to pay bail for a Vehicle Code infraction, (2) requires that for any bench warrant issued for failure to appear for an infraction not of the Vehicle Code, or a local ordinance established under the Vehicle Code, be limited to arrest and booking at the scene followed by immediate release, and (3) provides that failure to appear in court, or failure to pay, under any infraction offense is not a misdemeanor.
Related Legislation:
AB1266 (Kalra) 2024, a similar measure to this bill, proposed eliminating misdemeanor liability for, and the court’s authority to issue a bench warrant for, the failure to pay, or to appear in court, for an infraction ticket. AB 1266 was held on the committee’s Suspense File.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Jesse Arreguín, Chair
2025 - 2026 Regular
Bill No: AB 2122 Hearing Date: June 16, 2026
Author: | Kalra | ||
Version: | April 16, 2026 | ||
Urgency: | No | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | ML | ||
Subject: Infractions: warrants and penalties
HISTORY
Source: All of Us or None; Corporation for Supportive Housing; Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice; Legal Services for Prisoners with Children; Maven Collaborative; San Francisco Public Defender’s Office; Western Center on Law and Poverty
Prior Legislation: AB 1266 (Kalra), held in Senate Appropriations, 2024
AB 2746 (Friedman), Ch. 800, Stats. of 2022
Support: A New Way of life Reentry Project; ACLU California Action; Alliance for Boys and Men of Color; California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California Coalition for Housing and Survivor Justice; California Coalition for Women Prisoners; California Community Foundation; California for Safety and Justice; Californians for Safety and Justice; California Public Defenders Association; California Rural Legal Assistance; CD11 Coalition Human Rights; Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice; Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto; Congregations Organized for Prophetic Engagement; Corporation for Supportive Housing; Courage California; Debt Free Justice California; Disability Rights California; Drug Policy Alliance; Ella Baker Center for Human Rights Equal Rights for Every Neighbor; Felony Murder Elimination Project; Fresh Lifelines for Youth; Friends Committee on Legislation of California; Glide; Housing California; Housing Is a Human Right-Orange County; Initiate Justice; Inland Region Reentry Collaborative; John Burton Advocates for Youth; Justice2Jobs Coalition; La Defensa; La Raza Community Resource Center; Law Foundation of Silicon Valley; Legal Aid of Marin; Local 148 Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Union; Milpa Collective; National Alliance to End Homelessness; National Consumer Law Center; Public Advocates; Rubicon Programs; Sacred Heart Community Service; Santa Cruz Fulltimers; SF Coalition on Homelessness; Smart Justice California; Starting Over; Time for Change Foundation; University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law Homeless Advocacy Clinic; Venice Justice Committee; Vital Arts
Opposition: California State Sheriffs’ Association
Assembly Floor Vote: 55 - 18
PURPOSE
The purposes of this bill are to prohibit the issuance of bench warrants for failure to appear, or failure to pay bail, for an infraction offense of the Vehicle Code; to require that any bench warrant issued for failure to appear for an infraction offense not of the Vehicle Code, or a local ordinance established under the Vehicle Code, be limited to arrest and booking at the scene followed by immediate release; and to establish that failure to appear in court, or failure to pay, for any infraction offense is not a misdemeanor.
Existing law establishes that it is the intent of the Legislature that the disposition of any criminal case use the least restrictive means available. (Pen. Code, § 17.2, subd. (a).)
Existing law states that specified offenses are wobblettes, chargeable as misdemeanors or infractions. States that such offenses are infractions in the following cases:
- The prosecutor files a complaint charging the offense as an infraction unless the defendant, at the time they are arraigned, after being informed of their rights, elects to have the case proceed as a misdemeanor.
- The court, with the consent of the defendant, determines that the offense is an infraction, in which event the case shall proceed as if the defendant had been arraigned on an infraction complaint. (Pen. Code, § 17, subd. (d).)
Existing law provides that all provisions of law relating to misdemeanors shall apply to infractions, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 19.7.)
Existing law states that except where a lesser maximum fine is expressly provided, an infraction is punishable by a fine not exceeding $250. (Pen. Code, § 19.8, subd. (a)(2).)
Existing law states that except for specified violations based upon failure to appear, a conviction for an offense made an infraction is not grounds for the suspension, revocation, or denial of a license or for the revocation of probation or parole of the person convicted. (Pen. Code, § 19.8, subd. (c).)
Existing law establishes that except as otherwise provided by law, in any case in which a person is arrested for an offense declared to be an infraction, the person may be released according to procedures for a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 853.5, subd. (a).)
Existing law provides that any person who willfully violates his or her written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of his or her promise to appear in court is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 853.7.)
Existing law requires that when a person signs a written promise to appear at the time and place specified in the written promise to appear and has not posted bail, the magistrate must issue and have delivered for execution a warrant for their arrest within 20 days after their failure to appear as promised or within 20 days after their failure to appear after a lawfully granted continuance. (Pen. Code, § 853.8.)
Existing law states that a bench warrant of arrest may be issued when a defendant fails to appear in court. (Pen. Code, § 978.5, subd. (a).)
Existing law states that a trial of an infraction shall be by the court, but when a defendant has been charged with an infraction and with a public offense for which there is a right to jury trial and a jury trial is not waived, the court may order that the offenses be tried together by jury or that they be tried separately. (Pen. Code, § 1042.5.)
Existing law states that any person who fails to appear as provided by law may be deemed to have elected to have a trial by written declaration upon any alleged infraction, as charged by the citing officer, involving a violation of the Vehicle Code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code. (Veh. Code, § 40903, subd. (a).)
This bill prohibits the issuance of bench warrants for failure to appear, or failure to pay bail for a Vehicle Code infraction.
This bill requires that for any bench warrant issued for failure to appear for an infraction not of the Vehicle Code, or a local ordinance established under the Vehicle Code, be limited to arrest and booking at the scene followed by immediate release.
This bill provides that failure to appear in court, or failure to pay, under any infraction offense is not a misdemeanor.
This bill makes findings and declarations.
COMMENTS
Need for This Bill
The author writes:
Infraction bench warrants have functioned as a debtor’s prison, creating a system where people who have money for fines never have to appear in court, while those who cannot pay face potential for arrest for what are otherwise non-jailable, minor offenses. AB 2122 addresses the disparate punishment of low-income people that has done little to further public safety by prohibiting the issuance of a bench warrant if the underlying charge is a Vehicle Code infraction. For non-Vehicle Code infractions, [it] permits a non-custodial warrant to be issued. By limiting the use of bench warrants for non-jailable infractions, AB 2122 will save millions of dollars annually from not having to execute bench warrants or detain people in county jails, and will remove an ineffective, overly punitive punishment for what is essentially a crime of poverty.
Criminal Infractions
An infraction is a criminal offense that is not punishable with incarceration.[1] Because the punishment for an infraction does not implicate the same loss of liberty, the same constitutional rights that apply to other criminal offenses do not apply to infractions.[2] All provisions of law applicable to misdemeanors, however, also largely apply to infractions.[3] Generally, a person arrested for an infraction must be released upon signing a written notice to appear.[4] After a person has been released on a promise to appear, a bench warrant for arrest can be issued if the person fails to appear in court or fails to deposit bail.[5] A willful violation of a promise to appear is a misdemeanor, even if the original offense was an infraction.[6]
Additionally, a willful failure to pay a bail installment or a lawfully imposed fine for a Vehicle Code infraction, or an infraction of a local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code, is a misdemeanor.[7] Any person who fails to appear for an infraction of the Vehicle code, or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code, may be deemed to have elected to have a trial by written declaration, as charged by the citing officer—functionally allowing the person to be convicted in absentia.[8]
Functionally, bench warrants result in people who cannot pay for their infraction tickets being incarcerated for offenses, while people who can pay are not. Thus, infraction bench warrants turn non-jailable offenses into the basis for a person’s incarceration. Bench warrants have recently been used as a pretext for immigration enforcement, meaning that people may face ICE arrest and subsequent removal proceedings for a non-jailable offense.[9]
The Judicial Council’s 2021 Court Statistics Report notes that in FY 2019-20, out of all criminal case filings comprised of felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions, the overwhelming majority were infractions.[10] During this same time period, there were 174,553 felony case filings, 636,112 misdemeanor filings, and 3,243,819 infraction cases.[11] The majority of infractions were traffic infractions.[12] There were over 1,000,000 bail forfeitures for traffic infractions and over 19,000 bail forfeitures for non-traffic infractions.[13] Infractions require a huge investment of time and resources, not just for the criminal justice system, but also for system-impacted individuals and families.
Traffic stops are a common means of getting an infraction. Police officers undertake millions of minor traffic stops annually, with many used as a pretext to investigate drivers for criminal activity, which disproportionately impacts motorists of color.[14] Police officers initiated contact with nearly 29 million U.S. residents aged 16 and older in 2018.[15] Traffic stops account for four-fifths of police-initiated contact.[16] The Stanford Open Policing Project has found that Black drivers are disproportionately stopped relative to Latine and White drivers.[17]
Criminal justice involvement often begins with system contact stemming, at least initially, from an infraction. Under current law, infractions can produce unpayable fees for some that can then balloon into crippling, life-altering debt. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) found predatory monetary practices exist in every phase of the criminal legal process.[18] Moreover, system contact can quickly turn into a misdemeanor if the charged individual is unable to comply with established legal processes. While some individuals may be negligent or unwilling to abide by these processes, many justice-involved individuals may be unable to attend court for legitimate reasons. Many do not receive notice, cannot afford to pay the ticket, are not able to get off work or get childcare, are experiencing mental or physical health issues, or are fearful of appearing in court for a variety of reasons, such as, for example, potential immigration enforcement.
Existing law provides courts with other tools to address nonpayment of infraction tickets, like civil collections. In 2017, the Commission on the Future of California's Court System recommended implementing a “civil model of adjudication for minor vehicle infractions.”[19] Research has shown that alternatives such as improved notices, reminders, and commonsense collection practices are more effective than warrants at generating timely court appearances and payments.[20] For example, in New York City, researchers found that changes to the court summons form reduced failures to appear by 13 percent, and that text message reminders reduced failures to appear by 26 percent. Additionally, as of 2024, 12 counties are reportedly not issuing bench warrants in infraction cases, and San Francisco has eliminated the use of infraction bench warrants.
Effect of This Bill
This bill prohibits the issuance of bench warrants for failure to appear, or failure to pay bail, under an infraction offense of the Vehicle Code. Furthermore, for any bench warrant issued for failure to appear for an infraction offense not of the Vehicle Code, the bench warrant must be limited to arrest and booking at the scene followed by immediate release. The bill also provides that failure to appear in court, or failure to pay, under any infraction offense is not a misdemeanor.
There are some concerns that prohibiting the issuance of bench warrants in infraction cases will incentivize prosecutors to charge wobblettes as misdemeanors. However, in those cases, a person would be appointed a public defender to adjudicate whether the case would be charged as an infraction or misdemeanor. Furthermore, this concern may be overstated because prosecutors are already likely to charge wobblette offenses as misdemeanors when they have probable cause to do so.
Additionally, the opposition has raised concerns that prohibiting bench warrants for infractions will result in individuals disregarding infraction offenses because they will not face any consequences. However, individuals charged with infractions are still civilly liable for the offenses, which can result in wage garnishment, bank levies, and other collection methods.
Argument in Support
Debt Free Justice California writes:
Infraction bench warrants are disproportionately issued to communities of color and low-income individuals. Before San Francisco eliminated its use of infraction bench warrants in 2016, Black people only made up 5.8% of the local population, but 48.7% of those arrested for “failure to appear or pay” traffic court warrants. Bench warrants have recently been used as a pretext for immigration enforcement, meaning that people may face ICE arrest and subsequent removal proceedings for a non-jailable offense.
Research shows that punitive measures are ineffective in compelling people to pay or appear in court. Common sense, non-punitive practices like text message reminders and follow-ups help get people to appear in court. Furthermore, courts have other, less punitive means to address failure to pay an infraction, like bank levies, wage garnishment, and tax intercepts. Finally, the MyCitations tool allows individuals to pay their infractions online and permits those individuals to request an infraction reduction in cases of financial need from the safety of their home, substantially decreasing the need to resolve unpaid court debt in person.
Eliminating custodial bench warrants for infractions will help end an unnecessary pipeline to incarceration and allow families to focus on what matters—devoting their already limited time and resources to meeting their critical needs.
Argument in Opposition
The California State Sheriffs’ Association writes:
If a person fails to appear in court, existing law generally allows a warrant to issue for the person’s arrest. AB 2122 would eliminate the authority to hold a person arrested in compliance with such a warrant if the underlying offense is an infraction. This bill would remove an important tool that encourages people who have been cited for infraction violations to appear in court or otherwise resolve their cases.
AB 2122 sends the message that it is acceptable to fail to appear in court, even after having promised to do so. We understand there may be valid reasons why a particular person may not be able to pay the fine on a particular violation, but the answer is not to eliminate the ability of a court to compel the person’s attendance in every case. California has enacted numerous amnesty programs over the last several years and this bill goes too far in trying to address the stated problem.
-- END --
Pen. Code, § 19.6. ↑
Ibid; see also People v. Prince (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 19. ↑
Pen. Code, § 19.7. ↑
Pen. Code, § 853.6, subd. (a). ↑
Pen. Code, §§ 853.6, subd. (f), 853.8; see also Veh. Code, § 40514. ↑
Pen. Code, § 853.7. ↑
Veh. Code, § 40508, subd. (b). ↑
Veh. Code, § 40903, subd. (a). ↑
See Jeremy Loudenback, “Lost and arrested: How a series of disastrous events led a former LA foster youth into ICE custody,” (Nov. 10, 2025), <https://lapublicpress.org/2025/11/lost-and-arrested-part1/>. ↑
2021 Court Statistics Report: Statewide Caseload Trends, at pp. 3-4 (2021) Judicial Council of California <https://courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/courts/default/2024-12/2021-court-statistics-report.pdf>. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Id. at p. 55. ↑
Id. at p. 84. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Judicial Council of Cal., Com. on the Future of Cal.’s Court System, Report to the Chief Justice (2017), p. 85 <https://courts.ca.gov/system/files?file=file/futures-commission-final-report.pdf>. ↑
Cook et al., Using Behavioral Science to Improve Criminal Justice Outcomes: Preventing Failures to Appear in Court (2018) pp. 15–16 <https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/crim-just-report.pdf>>. ↑
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
ATR Bill Id:AB 2122
Author:(Kalra and Lowenthal)
As Amended Ver:April 16, 2026
Majority vote
SUMMARY
Eliminates certain processes and penalties if an individual is subject to an infraction, including: issuing a bench warrant for the person′s arrest within 20 days of the failure to appear, a misdemeanor charge and conviction reported to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), imposition of a civil fine for failing to appear or failing to make an installment payment on a bail contract, and authorizing the court to declare the bail forfeited and requiring the court to issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the person charged, as specified.
Major Provisions
- Exempts the issuance of a bench warrant for an infraction, but permits citation and release, from the general rule that all laws relating to misdemeanors apply to infractions.
- Prohibits the issuance of a bench warrant, but permits citation and release, for the failure to pay an infraction ticket.
- Prohibits the issuance of a bench warrant, but permits citation and release, for the failure to appear in court on a written promise to appear when the underlying charge is an infraction.
- Removes the requirement that a court inform the DMV of a willful failure to pay bail in installments or pay the fine for a Vehicle Code infraction, as specified.
- Eliminates the requirement that a misdemeanor shall be issued for failure to pay a bail installment.
- Makes conforming changes to other provisions of law.
- Includes legislative findings and declarations.
COMMENTS
According to the Author
″Infraction bench warrants have functioned as a debtor′s prison, creating a system where people who have money for fines never have to appear in court, while those who cannot pay face potential for arrest for what are otherwise non-jailable, minor offenses. AB 2122 addresses the disparate punishment of low-income people that has done little to further public safety by prohibiting the issuance of a bench warrant if the underlying charge is an infraction. This bill will save millions of dollars annually from not having to execute bench warrants or detain people in county jails, and will remove an ineffective, overly punitive punishment for what is essentially a crime of poverty.″
Arguments in Support
According to the Felony Murder Elimination Project, ″This bill would amend the penal and vehicle code to eliminate bench warrants for minor infractions. Felony Murder Elimination Project is a national nonprofit organization working to end felony murder laws and extreme accomplice liability, and to create meaningful pathways for resentencing and release for people serving excessive sentences. We support AB 2122 because eliminating bench warrants for low-level infractions will help prevent avoidable entries and re-entries into the criminal legal system, reduce the risk of escalation into more serious charges and detention, and promote more proportional and effective responses to minor conduct.
″Under California law, an individual′s failure to pay for an infraction or appear in traffic court can result in a bench warrant, or a judge-issued order that authorizes law enforcement to arrest an individual and bring them before the court.1 People who miss court dates may be jailed for an otherwise non-jailable offense.
″Infraction bench warrants are disproportionately issued to communities of color and low-income individuals. In San Francisco, Black people only make up 5.8% of the local population, but through systemic racism and targeted, unjust policing, they make up 48.7% of those arrested for ″failure to appear or pay″ traffic court warrants. Bench warrants have recently been used as a pretext for immigration enforcement, meaning that people may face ICE arrest and subsequent removal proceedings for a non-jailable offense.
″Research shows that punitive measures are ineffective in compelling people to pay or appear in court.4 Common sense, non-punitive practices like text message reminders and follow-ups help get people to appear in court. Furthermore, courts have other, less punitive means to address failure to pay an infraction, like bank levies, wage garnishment, and tax intercepts. Finally, the MyCitations tool allows individuals to pay their infractions online and permits those individuals to request an infraction reduction in cases of financial need from the safety of their home, substantially decreasing the need to resolve unpaid court debt in person.
″Eliminating bench warrants for infractions will help end an unnecessary pipeline to incarceration and allow families to focus on what matters—devoting their already limited time and resources to meeting their critical needs.″
Arguments in Opposition
According to California State Sheriffs′ Association (CSAA), ″If a person fails to appear in court, existing law generally allows a warrant to issue for the person′s arrest. AB 2122 would eliminate this authority if the underlying offense is an infraction. This bill would remove an important tool that encourages people who have been cited for infraction violations to appear in court or otherwise resolve their cases.
″AB 2122 sends the message that it is acceptable to fail to appear in court, even after having promised to do so. We understand there may be valid reasons why a particular person may not be able to pay the fine on a particular violation, but the answer is not to eliminate the ability of a court to compel the person′s attendance in every case. California has enacted numerous amnesty programs over the last several years and this bill goes too far in trying to address the stated problem. ″For these reasons, CSSA must oppose AB 2122.″
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
- No fiscal impact to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). DMV reports no anticipated implementation costs.
- Likely savings (county General Fund) to local law enforcement and county jails from reduced execution of infraction bench warrants and reduced jail bookings for failure-to-appear and failure-to-pay on infractions. Under current law, a person arrested on an infraction bench warrant may be booked into county jail for an otherwise non-jailable offense pending appearance before a magistrate. Eliminating bench warrant authority for infractions removes this booking pathway. The magnitude depends on current local practice and varies by county; jurisdictions that actively execute infraction bench warrants would experience proportionally larger savings than those that do not. County jail savings are not reimbursable by the state and accrue to county general funds.
- Moderate, potentially growing workload and revenue impacts on the courts (Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF), General Fund). The Judicial Council reports the bill will likely produce more trials in absentia in Vehicle Code infraction cases, with associated fines sent to collections. For infractions outside the Vehicle Code (for example, violations of the Harbors and Navigation Code, Water Code, and Streets and Highways Code), courts lack analogous trial-in-absentia authority, so those infractions would generally remain unadjudicated and the associated fines uncollectible. The Judicial Council also anticipates increased clerk and collections staff workload related to failure-to-appear cases, and loss of revenue from fees and assessments that would have been imposed on adjudicated cases. The Judicial Council expects these impacts to grow over time as the public becomes aware that bench warrants are unavailable as an enforcement mechanism. The state budget provides annual General Fund backfills to the TCTF to offset revenue reductions, totaling approximately $117.3 million in 2025-26. To the extent this bill produces material revenue losses to the TCTF, increased General Fund backfill pressure could result in future budgets.
The Legislative Analyst′s Office recently warned of General Fund structural deficits of around $35 billion per year beginning in the 2027-28 fiscal year.
VOTES
ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 7-2-0
YES: Schultz, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Nguyen, Ramos, Sharp-Collins
NO: Alanis, Lackey
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-4-0
YES: Wicks, Aguiar-Curry, Calderon, Caloza, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache
NO: Hoover, Dixon, Ta, Tangipa
UPDATED
VERSION: April 16, 2026
CONSULTANT: Dustin Weber / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0002869
Date of Hearing: May 13, 2026
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Buffy Wicks, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2122
Author:(Kalra) – As Amended Ver:April 16, 2026
Policy Committee: | Public Safety | Vote: | 7 - 2 |
|
| ||
|
|
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill prohibits the issuance of a bench warrant when the underlying offense is an infraction, but permits citation and release.
Specifically, this bill:
- Exempts the issuance of a bench warrant for an infraction from the general rule that all laws relating to misdemeanors apply to infractions.
- Prohibits the issuance of a bench warrant for the failure to appear in court on a written promise to appear, or for the failure to pay a fine or bail installment, when the underlying charge is an infraction.
- Provides that, for non-Vehicle Code infractions, a bench warrant is limited to authorizing arrest and booking at the scene followed by immediate release.
- Removes the requirement that a court report to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) a willful failure to pay bail in installments or pay a fine for a Vehicle Code infraction.
- Eliminates the misdemeanor for failure to pay a bail installment or fine for a Vehicle Code violation when the underlying charge is an infraction.
FISCAL EFFECT:
- No fiscal impact to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). DMV reports no anticipated implementation costs.
- Likely savings (county General Fund) to local law enforcement and county jails from reduced execution of infraction bench warrants and reduced jail bookings for failure-to-appear and failure-to-pay on infractions. Under current law, a person arrested on an infraction bench warrant may be booked into county jail for an otherwise non-jailable offense pending appearance before a magistrate. Eliminating bench warrant authority for infractions removes this booking pathway. The magnitude depends on current local practice and varies by county; jurisdictions that actively execute infraction bench warrants would experience proportionally larger savings than those that do not. County jail savings are not reimbursable by the state and accrue to county general funds.
- Moderate, potentially growing workload and revenue impacts on the courts (Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF), General Fund). The Judicial Council reports the bill will likely produce more trials in absentia in Vehicle Code infraction cases, with associated fines sent to collections. For infractions outside the Vehicle Code (for example, violations of the Harbors and Navigation Code, Water Code, and Streets and Highways Code), courts lack analogous trial-in-absentia authority, so those infractions would generally remain unadjudicated and the associated fines uncollectible. The Judicial Council also anticipates increased clerk and collections staff workload related to failure-to-appear cases, and loss of revenue from fees and assessments that would have been imposed on adjudicated cases. The Judicial Council expects these impacts to grow over time as the public becomes aware that bench warrants are unavailable as an enforcement mechanism. The state budget provides annual General Fund backfills to the TCTF to offset revenue reductions, totaling approximately $117.3 million in 2025-26. To the extent this bill produces material revenue losses to the TCTF, increased General Fund backfill pressure could result in future budgets.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office recently warned of General Fund structural deficits of around $35 billion per year beginning in the 2027-28 fiscal year.
COMMENTS:
- Purpose. According to the author:
Infraction bench warrants have functioned as a debtor’s prison, creating a system where people who have money for fines never have to appear in court, while those who cannot pay face potential for arrest for what are otherwise non-jailable, minor offenses. AB 2122 addresses the disparate punishment of low-income people that has done little to further public safety by prohibiting the issuance of a bench warrant if the underlying charge is an infraction. This bill will save millions of dollars annually from not having to execute bench warrants or detain people in county jails, and will remove an ineffective, overly punitive punishment for what is essentially a crime of poverty.
- Background. Infractions are non-jailable offenses punishable by fine, generally not exceeding $250. The Judicial Council reports that California processes over three million infractions annually, the overwhelming majority of which are Vehicle Code traffic infractions. When a peace officer cites a person for an infraction, the person is generally released upon signing a written promise to appear in court at a specified date and time. The signed promise to appear is, in effect, the alternative to being taken into custody at the time of the citation. If the person appears as promised, the case proceeds; if the person fails to appear or fails to pay an installment of bail, several enforcement consequences flow under current law. The court may issue a bench warrant for the person’s arrest within 20 days of the missed appearance, and a person arrested on an infraction bench warrant may be booked into county jail pending appearance before a magistrate. A willful failure to appear or willful failure to pay bail in installments is itself a misdemeanor — meaning the original non-jailable infraction may convert into a jailable offense based on the failure-to-appear conduct. The court may also report the failure to pay to the Department of Motor Vehicles for Vehicle Code infractions.
For Vehicle Code infractions, courts have authority under Vehicle Code Section 40903 to adjudicate the underlying charge by trial in absentia when the defendant fails to appear, and may then refer unpaid fines to civil collections. This means courts can resolve traffic infractions and recover unpaid fines without bringing the defendant into court. Analogous trial-in-absentia authority does not exist for infractions established under other codes — meaning that for non-traffic infractions, the bench warrant has historically been the principal mechanism to bring a defendant before the court for adjudication.
Several mechanisms for collecting infraction fines do not depend on bench warrants. A person cited for an infraction may pay voluntarily without ever appearing in court. Once a fine is imposed — whether through voluntary plea, trial in absentia, or otherwise — courts may refer unpaid amounts to comprehensive civil collections under Penal Code Section 1463.007, which includes wage garnishment, bank levies, tax refund interception, and credit reporting. The court may also impose a civil assessment of up to $100 under Penal Code Section 1214.1 for failure to appear or pay. This bill does not affect this civil penalty framework.
Rather, this bill prohibits the issuance of a bench warrant when the underlying offense is an infraction. Citation and release at the scene by a law enforcement officer remains permitted. The bill also repeals the misdemeanor for failure to appear or failure to pay bail when the underlying charge was an infraction, eliminates the requirement that a court report failure to pay to the DMV for Vehicle Code violations, and authorizes a limited non-custodial bench warrant for non-Vehicle Code infractions — limited to arrest and booking at the scene followed by immediate release. This non-custodial warrant preserves a mechanism to bring defendants before the court for adjudication of non-traffic infractions (such as certain Fish and Game Code, Harbors and Navigation Code, and Public Resources Code violations) without exposing those individuals to incarceration. The Judicial Council notes that even with this provision, the practical ability to compel adjudication of non-Vehicle Code infractions may be limited.
Analysis Prepared by: Shiran Zohar / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
Date of Hearing:
Counsel: Dustin Weber
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON
Nick Schultz, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:
Author:() – As Ver:
As Proposed to be Amended in Committee
SUMMARY:
Eliminates certain processes and penalties if an individual is subject to an infraction, including: issuing a bench warrant for the person’s arrest within 20 days of the failure to appear, a misdemeanor charge and conviction reported to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), imposition of a civil fine for failing to appear or failing to make an installment payment on a bail contract, and authorizing the court to declare the bail forfeited and requiring the court to issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the person charged, as specified. Specifically, this bill:
- Exempts the issuance of a bench warrant for an infraction, but permits citation and release, from the general rule that all laws relating to misdemeanors apply to infractions.
- Prohibits the issuance of a bench warrant, but permits citation and release, for the failure to pay an infraction ticket.
- Prohibits the issuance of a bench warrant, but permits citation and release, for the failure to appear in court on a written promise to appear when the underlying charge is an infraction.
- Removes the requirement that a court inform the DMV of a willful failure to pay bail in installments or pay the fine for a Vehicle Code infraction, as specified.
- Eliminates the requirement that a misdemeanor shall be issued for failure to pay a bail installment.
- Makes conforming changes to other provisions of law.
- Includes legislative findings and declarations.
EXISTING LAW:
- Establishes that it is the intent of the Legislature that the disposition of any criminal case use the least restrictive means available. (Pen. Code, § 17.2, subd. (a).)
- States that specified wobblettes are infractions subject to defined procedures in the following cases:
- The prosecutor files a complaint charging the offense as an infraction unless the defendant, at the time they are arraigned, after being informed of their rights, elects to have the case proceed as a misdemeanor.
- The court, with the consent of the defendant, determines that the offense is an infraction, in which event the case shall proceed as if the defendant had been arraigned on an infraction complaint. (Pen. Code, § 17, subd. (d).)
- Provides that all provisions of law relating to misdemeanors shall apply to infractions, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 19.7.)
- States that except where a lesser maximum fine is expressly provided, an infraction is punishable by a fine not exceeding two hundred fifty dollars ($250) (Pen. Code, § 19.8, subd. (a)(2).)
- States that except for specified violations based upon failure to appear, a conviction for an offense made an infraction is not grounds for the suspension, revocation, or denial of a license or for the revocation of probation or parole of the person convicted. (Pen. Code, § 19.8, subd. (c).)
- Establishes that except as otherwise provided by law, in any case in which a person is arrested for an offense declared to be an infraction, the person may be released according to procedures for a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 853.5, subd. (a).)
- Provides that any person who willfully violates his or her written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of his or her promise to appear in court is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 853.7.)
- Establishes that when a person signs a written promise to appear at the time and place specified in the written promise to appear and has not posted bail, the magistrate shall issue and have delivered for execution a warrant for their arrest within 20 days after their failure to appear as promised or within 20 days after their failure to appear after a lawfully granted continuance. (Pen. Code, § 853.8.)
- States that a bench warrant of arrest may be issued when a defendant fails to appear in court. (Pen. Code, § 978.5, subd. (a).)
- States that a trial of an infraction shall be by the court, but when a defendant has been charged with an infraction and with a public offense for which there is a right to jury trial and a jury trial is not waived, the court may order that the offenses be tried together by jury or that they be tried separately. (Pen. Code, § 1042.5.)
- States that a person willfully failing to comply with a condition of a court order for a violation of this code, other than for failure to appear or failure to pay a fine, is guilty of a misdemeanor, regardless of their subsequent compliance with the order. (Veh. Code, § 40508, subd. (c).)
- Provides that if any person has willfully failed to comply with a court order, except a failure to appear, to pay a fine, or to attend traffic violator school, which was issued for a specified violation, the magistrate or clerk of the court may give notice of the fact to the DMV. (Veh. Code, § 40509.1.)
FISCAL EFFECT:
Unknown
COMMENTS:
- Author's Statement: According to the author, “Infraction bench warrants have functioned as a debtor’s prison, creating a system where people who have money for fines never have to appear in court, while those who cannot pay face potential for arrest for what are otherwise non-jailable, minor offenses. AB 2122 addresses the disparate punishment of low-income people that has done little to further public safety by prohibiting the issuance of a bench warrant if the underlying charge is an infraction. This bill will save millions of dollars annually from not having to execute bench warrants or detain people in county jails, and will remove an ineffective, overly punitive punishment for what is essentially a crime of poverty.”
- Effect of the Bill: AB 2122 would eliminate bench warrants, but permit citation and release, for multiple violations when the underlying offense is an infraction. This bill would prohibit the issuance of a bench warrant of arrest when the underlying crime is an infraction. Citation and release by a law enforcement officer would be permitted, however, which should help address concerns with enforcement of certain infractions. While existing law requires the court to report a conviction of certain Vehicle Code provisions to the DMV, AB 2122 would eliminate that requirement. AB 2122 additionally would repeal issuance of a misdemeanor for failure to pay a bail installment or fine and the authorization to issue an arrest warrant for failure to pay a bail installment.
An infraction is an offense that is not punishable with incarceration. (Pen. Code, § 19.6.) Because the punishment for an infraction does not implicate the same loss of liberty, the same constitutional rights that apply to other criminal offenses do not apply to infractions. (Ibid.; see also People v. Prince (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 19.) All provisions of law applicable to misdemeanors, however, also largely apply to infractions. (Pen. Code, § 19.7.) Generally, a person arrested for an infraction must be released upon signing a written notice to appear. (Pen. Code, § 853.6, subd. (a).) After a person has been released on a promise to appear, a bench warrant for arrest can be issued if the person fails to appear in court or fails to deposit the bail. (Pen. Code §§ 853.6, subd. (f), 853.8; see also Veh. Code, § 40514.) A willful violation of a promise to appear is a misdemeanor, even if the original offense was an infraction. (Pen. Code, § 853.7.)
The intent of AB 2122 appears laudable, but this bill may have unintended impacts on the enforcement of infractions. Restricting the ability to hold individuals to personally account who are subject to infraction penalties could lead to dismissive treatment of those subject to the penalties, in addition to the expected benefits gained by interrupting the cycle of poverty and contact with the criminal justice system. Permitting officers to cite and release a person on scene should help address some of the enforcement concerns. Other impacts are possible here, too, as individuals at higher risk for indiscriminate immigration enforcement may be less likely to encounter Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents if they are able to limit contact with California’s criminal justice system.
Additionally, by limiting enforcement of infractions there may be a perverse incentive created for prosecutors to charge woblettes almost or entirely exclusively as misdemeanors. Prosecutorial discretion could be consciously or unconsciously guided by frustration with the state of the law rather than an honest brokering of the charges warranted for the individual’s conduct. Prosecutors overcharging woblettes as misdemeanors could create further public safety harm. The Sentencing Project found that declining to charge individuals for non-violent misdemeanors reduces their likelihood for future offending.[1] They further noted that research on “prosecutorial reforms seeking to decriminalize poverty through dismissing, declining to prosecute, or diverting people charged with nonviolent misdemeanors like disorderly conduct and shoplifting,” has discovered a decline in subsequent arrests for those impacted by the reform and no increase in crime rates for nonviolent misdemeanor offenses.[2] Declining to pursue certain misdemeanor charges can prevent the stigma and lifelong effects associated with a criminal record.[3] The certainty of these unintended outcomes occurring following implementation of this bill, however, is unclear.
- The Impact of Infractions: AB 2122 would create potentially significant impacts on infractions, which themselves seem to have outsized roles in our lives and the broader criminal justice system.
The Judicial Council’s 2021 Court Statistics Report notes that in FY 2019-20, out of all criminal case filings comprised of felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions, the overwhelming majority were infractions.[4] During this same time period, there were 174,553 felony cases filings, 636,112 misdemeanor filings, and a massive 3,243,819 infraction cases.[5] The majority of infractions were traffic infractions.[6] There were over 1,000,000 bail forfeitures for traffic infractions and over 19,000 bail forfeitures for non-traffic infractions.[7] Infractions require a huge investment of time and resources, not just for the system, but for system-impacted individuals and families.
The Sentencing Project released a four-part report that undertook a comprehensive analysis of persisting racial and economic inequities in the American criminal justice system. The report found one driver of carceral disparity relates to the damaging consequences of criminal legal contact, which are disproportionately experienced by communities of color.[8] Fines, fees, and predatory practices are inequitably experienced by justice-involved Americans and families.[9] The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) found predatory monetary practices exist in every phase of the criminal legal process.[10] By reducing criminal justice system contact for minor offenses, AB 2122 could have a positive socioeconomic impact on already overburdened and underresourced individuals.
Traffic stops are an extraordinarily common means of getting an infraction. Police officers undertake millions of minor traffic stops annually, with many used as a pretext to investigate drivers for criminal activity, which disproportionately impacts motorists of color.[11] Police officers initiated contact with nearly 29 million U.S. residents aged 16 and older in 2018.[12] Traffic stops account for a staggering four-fifths of police-initiated contact.[13] There are clear racial disparities in traffic law enforcement with the Stanford Open Policing Project finding Black drivers disproportionately stopped relative to Latino/a/x and White drivers.[14] Criminal convictions too often create lifelong disadvantage, particularly for African Americans.[15] Employers discriminate against job candidates who have criminal histories, especially against those who are Black, and application questions about criminal histories deter some people from applying to certain jobs and colleges altogether.[16] One study found discovered nearly half of unemployed men had a criminal conviction.[17]
Criminal justice involvement often begins with system contact stemming, at least initially, from an infraction. Under current law, infractions can produce unpayable fees for some that can then balloon into crippling, life-altering debt. Moreover, system contact can quickly turn into a misdemeanor if the charged individual is unable to comply with established legal processes. While some individuals may be negligent or unwilling to abide by these processes, far too often justice-involved individuals are simply faced with impossible choices, like complying with a legal order or risk losing their job(s) and being unable to provide for those counting on them. The provisions of AB 2122 could provide a meaningful step towards slowing the ongoing cycle of poverty, inequality, and criminal justice system contact.
- Argument in Support: According to the Felony Murder Elimination Project, “This bill would amend the penal and vehicle code to eliminate bench warrants for minor infractions. Felony Murder Elimination Project is a national nonprofit organization working to end felony murder laws and extreme accomplice liability, and to create meaningful pathways for resentencing and release for people serving excessive sentences. We support AB 2122 because eliminating bench warrants for low-level infractions will help prevent avoidable entries and re-entries into the criminal legal system, reduce the risk of escalation into more serious charges and detention, and promote more proportional and effective responses to minor conduct.
“Under California law, an individual’s failure to pay for an infraction or appear in traffic court can result in a bench warrant, or a judge-issued order that authorizes law enforcement to arrest an individual and bring them before the court.1 People who miss court dates may be jailed for an otherwise non-jailable offense.
“Infraction bench warrants are disproportionately issued to communities of color and low-income individuals. In San Francisco, Black people only make up 5.8% of the local population, but through systemic racism and targeted, unjust policing, they make up 48.7% of those arrested for “failure to appear or pay” traffic court warrants. Bench warrants have recently been used as a pretext for immigration enforcement, meaning that people may face ICE arrest and subsequent removal proceedings for a non-jailable offense.
“Research shows that punitive measures are ineffective in compelling people to pay or appear in court.4 Common sense, non-punitive practices like text message reminders and follow-ups help get people to appear in court. Furthermore, courts have other, less punitive means to address failure to pay an infraction, like bank levies, wage garnishment, and tax intercepts. Finally, the MyCitations tool allows individuals to pay their infractions online and permits those individuals to request an infraction reduction in cases of financial need from the safety of their home, substantially decreasing the need to resolve unpaid court debt in person.
“Eliminating bench warrants for infractions will help end an unnecessary pipeline to incarceration and allow families to focus on what matters—devoting their already limited time and resources to meeting their critical needs.”
- Argument in Opposition: According to the California District Attorneys Association (CDAA), “This bill would prohibit the issuance of an arrest warrant, bench warrant, or the filing of a new misdemeanor whenever the underlying offense is an infraction, and the offender violates a written promise to appear. This bill eliminates any consequence for the numerous offenders who simply ignore appearing in court and prevents their underlying infraction from being adjudicated.
“Requested Amendments: AB 2122 should either limit its application to the Vehicle Code (or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code) or propose an analogous provision to Vehicle Code § 40903 that is applicable to all California codes. If a mechanism were added to allow adjudication of the underlying infractions, AB 2122 could at least hold individuals accountable while, at the same time, doing so without the threat of incarceration or arrest.
“Although AB 2122 would apply to all California codes, only infractions currently identified in the Vehicle Code may be adjudicated by declaration and, in the event the offender fails to appear, in the offender’s absence. Pursuant to Vehicle Code § 40903, “[a]ny person who fails to appear as provided by law may be deemed to have elected to have a trial by written declaration upon any alleged infraction, as charged by the citing officer, involving a violation of this code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to this code.” Therefore, the underlying vehicle code infraction may be adjudicated in the offender’s absence and, if found guilty, any associated penalty could be sent to civil collections without the need for the court to issue a warrant or the prosecutor to file a misdemeanor charge for failing to appear. This is not the case, however, for the hundreds of infractions that are contained in other California codes.
“Because there is no analogous provision to Vehicle Code § 40903 in other California codes, eliminating the court’s authority to bring persons to court ensures that numerous infractions will never be adjudicated, and offenders will not be held accountable. Oftentimes, these infractions directly impact public safety or public health.
“In addition, AB 2122 may result in several unintended consequences that run contrary to the purpose of the bill:
“Currently numerous violations provide prosecutors with the discretion to file misdemeanor charges instead of an infraction (commonly known as a “wobblette”). Without a mechanism to adjudicate underlying infractions, AB 2122 would incentivize the filing of misdemeanor charges over unenforceable infractions.
“Several infractions currently contain an escalating penalty structure in which multiple infraction violations will ultimately lead to a misdemeanor offense. AB 2122 would nullify any graduated penalty schemes.
“Certain infractions currently involve the imposition of community service hours or other probation obligations, such as restitution, if convicted. By prohibiting courts from issuing a warrant, AB 2122 would deprive courts of their ability to monitor and ensure that offenders are in compliance with their post-conviction obligations.”
- Related Legislation: SB 1218 (Arreguin) would require the DMV to refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if the registered owner or lessee has been mailed a notice of delinquent illegal dumping violation. This bill is pending hearing in the Senate Transportation Committee.
- Prior Legislation:
- SB 76 (Seyarto) would have required the DMV to waive delinquent registration fees and penalties when a transferee or purchaser of a vehicle applies for a transfer of registration if the DMV determines that the fees became due or the penalties accrued before the purchase of the vehicle. SB 76 would have required the DMV to create a system to collect these delinquent fees and penalties from the seller or transferor. SB 76 would have repealed the provision authorizing the DMV to collect the waived fees and penalties in a civil action. SB 76 was vetoed by the Governor and sustained by the Legislature.
- AB 632 (Hart) would have, for specified administrative fines or penalties, authorized a local agency to, subject to specified requirements, file a certified copy of a final administrative order or decision that directs payment of the administrative fine or penalty with the clerk of the superior court of any county, as specified, and require the clerk to enter judgment immediately in conformity with the decision or order. AB 632 would also authorize a local agency to, by ordinance, establish a procedure to collect administrative fines or penalties by lien upon the parcel of land on which the violation occurred if the ordinance meets specified requirements. AB 632 was vetoed by the Governor.
- AB 1125 (Hart), Chapter 356, Statutes of 2023, eliminates the court’s authorization to impound a person’s driver’s license or limit the person’s driving when the person fails to pay the bail in installments.
- SB 932 (Seyarto), of the 2023-24 Legislative Session, would have required the DMV to waive delinquent registration fees and penalties when a transferee or purchaser of a vehicle applies for a transfer of registration if the DMV determines that the fees became due or the penalties accrued before the purchase of the vehicle. SB 932 would have required the DMV to create a system to collect these delinquent fees and penalties from the seller or transferor. SB 932 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
- AB 3243 (Ta), of the 2023-24 Legislative Session, would have, notwithstanding any law, prohibited a person who is subject to specified delinquency penalties and has been determined to have a current income level that meets the eligibility requirements for specified public social services programs, including, among others, the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program, from being required to pay the delinquency penalty in order to renew the registration of their vehicle. AB 3243 would have instead authorized the person to delay payment of their penalty until after the vehicle is registered, but by no later than the expiration date of the vehicle’s registration. AB 3243 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
- AB 1266 (Kalra), of the 2023-24 Legislative Session, would have done what this bill, AB 2122, purports to do. AB 1266 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
- AB 491 (Wallis), of the 2023-24 Legislative Session, would have authorized for specified administrative fines or penalties, a local agency, after the exhaustion of the defined administrative and appeal procedures, to file with the clerk of the superior court of any county a certified copy of a final administrative order or decision of the local agency that directs the payment of an administrative fine or penalty and, if applicable, a copy of an order of the superior court rendered on an appeal from the local agency’s decision. AB 491 was held in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
All of US or None (HQ) (Co-Sponsor)
Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (CURYJ) (Co-Sponsor)
Corporation for Supportive Housing (Co-Sponsor)
Legal Services for Prisoners With Children (Co-Sponsor)
San Francisco Public Defender (Co-Sponsor)
The Maven Collaborative (Co-Sponsor)
A New Path
A New Way of Life Reentry Project
ACLU California Action
Alliance for Boys and Men of Color
Anti Police-terror Project
Bridges of Hope CA
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California for Safety and Justice
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Public Defenders Association
Californians United for a Responsible Budget
Care First California
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Coalition of California State Tribes
Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto
Community Works West
Courage California
Debt Free Justice California
Destination: Home
Dignity and Power Now
Disability Rights California
Drug Policy Alliance 1
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Empowering Women Impacted by Incarceration
Felony Murder Elimination Project
Fresh Lifelines for Youth
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Glide
Grace Institute - End Child Poverty in CA
Homeless United for Friendship and Freedom
Housing California
Indivisible CA Statestrong
Initiate Justice
Justice2jobs Coalition
LA Defensa
Legal Aid of Marin
Local 148 Los Angeles County Public Defender's Union
Mill Valley Force for Racial Equity and Empowerment
National Alliance to End Homelessness
National Consumer Law Center, INC.
Pillars of the Community
Public Advocates
Reuniting Families Contra Costa
Rubicon Programs
Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition
Smart Justice California, a Project of Beyond Impact
Starting Over INC.
Surj Marin - Showing Up for Racial Justice
The People Concern
The W. Haywood Burns Institute
Transitions Clinic Network
University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law Homeless Advocacy Clinic
Vera Institute of Justice
Viet Voices
Western Center on Law & Poverty, INC.
3 Private Individuals
Opposition
California District Attorneys Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Child Support Directors Association of California
Analysis Prepared by:
Ghandnoosh, N. One in Five: Disparities in Crime and Policing (Nov. 2, 2023) The Sentencing Project <https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/one-in-five-disparities-in-crime-and-policing/> [as of Mar. 18, 2026]. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ibid. ↑
2021 Court Statistics Report: Statewide Caseload Trends, at pp. 3-4 (2021) Judicial Council of California <https://courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/courts/default/2024-12/2021-court-statistics-report.pdf> [as of Mar. 18, 2026]. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Id. at p. 55. ↑
Id. at p. 84. ↑
Ghandnoosh, N and Trinka, L. One in Five: How Mass Incarceration Deepens Inequality and Harms Public Safety (Nov. 2, 2023) The Sentencing Project <https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/one-in-five-disparities-in-crime-and-policing/> [as of Mar. 18, 2026]. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Date of Hearing:
Counsel: Dustin Weber
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON
Nick Schultz, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:
Author:() – As Ver:
SUMMARY:
Eliminates certain processes and penalties if an individual is subject to an infraction, including: issuing a bench warrant for the person’s arrest within 20 days of the failure to appear, a misdemeanor charge and conviction reported to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), imposition of a civil fine for failing to appear or failing to make an installment payment on a bail contract, and authorizing the court to declare the bail forfeited and requiring the court to issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the person charged, as specified. Specifically, this bill:
- Exempts the issuance of a bench warrant for an infraction from the general rule that all laws relating to misdemeanors apply to infractions.
- Prohibits the issuance of a bench warrant for the failure to pay an infraction ticket.
- Prohibits the issuance of a bench warrant for the failure to appear in court on a written promise to appear when the underlying charge is an infraction.
- Removes the requirement that a court inform the DMV of a willful failure to pay bail in installments or pay the fine for a Vehicle Code infraction, as specified.
- Eliminates the requirement that a misdemeanor shall be issued for failure to pay a bail installment.
- Makes conforming changes to other provisions of law.
- Includes legislative findings and declarations.
EXISTING LAW:
- Establishes that it is the intent of the Legislature that the disposition of any criminal case use the least restrictive means available. (Pen. Code, § 17.2, subd. (a).)
- States that specified wobblettes are infractions subject to defined procedures in the following cases:
- The prosecutor files a complaint charging the offense as an infraction unless the defendant, at the time they are arraigned, after being informed of their rights, elects to have the case proceed as a misdemeanor.
- The court, with the consent of the defendant, determines that the offense is an infraction, in which event the case shall proceed as if the defendant had been arraigned on an infraction complaint. (Pen. Code, § 17, subd. (d).)
- Provides that all provisions of law relating to misdemeanors shall apply to infractions, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 19.7.)
- States that except where a lesser maximum fine is expressly provided, an infraction is punishable by a fine not exceeding two hundred fifty dollars ($250) (Pen. Code, § 19.8, subd. (a)(2).)
- States that except for specified violations based upon failure to appear, a conviction for an offense made an infraction is not grounds for the suspension, revocation, or denial of a license or for the revocation of probation or parole of the person convicted. (Pen. Code, § 19.8, subd. (c).)
- Establishes that except as otherwise provided by law, in any case in which a person is arrested for an offense declared to be an infraction, the person may be released according to procedures for a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 853.5, subd. (a).)
- Provides that any person who willfully violates his or her written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of his or her promise to appear in court is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 853.7.)
- Establishes that when a person signs a written promise to appear at the time and place specified in the written promise to appear and has not posted bail, the magistrate shall issue and have delivered for execution a warrant for their arrest within 20 days after their failure to appear as promised or within 20 days after their failure to appear after a lawfully granted continuance. (Pen. Code, § 853.8.)
- States that a bench warrant of arrest may be issued when a defendant fails to appear in court. (Pen. Code, § 978.5, subd. (a).)
- States that a trial of an infraction shall be by the court, but when a defendant has been charged with an infraction and with a public offense for which there is a right to jury trial and a jury trial is not waived, the court may order that the offenses be tried together by jury or that they be tried separately. (Pen. Code, § 1042.5.)
- States that a person willfully failing to comply with a condition of a court order for a violation of this code, other than for failure to appear or failure to pay a fine, is guilty of a misdemeanor, regardless of their subsequent compliance with the order. (Veh. Code, § 40508, subd. (c).)
- Provides that if any person has willfully failed to comply with a court order, except a failure to appear, to pay a fine, or to attend traffic violator school, which was issued for a specified violation, the magistrate or clerk of the court may give notice of the fact to the DMV. (Veh. Code, § 40509.1.)
FISCAL EFFECT:
Unknown
COMMENTS:
- Author's Statement: According to the author, “Infraction bench warrants have functioned as a debtor’s prison, creating a system where people who have money for fines never have to appear in court, while those who cannot pay face potential for arrest for what are otherwise non-jailable, minor offenses. AB 2122 addresses the disparate punishment of low-income people that has done little to further public safety by prohibiting the issuance of a bench warrant if the underlying charge is an infraction. This bill will save millions of dollars annually from not having to execute bench warrants or detain people in county jails, and will remove an ineffective, overly punitive punishment for what is essentially a crime of poverty.”
- Effect of the Bill: AB 2122 would eliminate bench warrants for multiple violations when the underlying offense is an infraction.
Among other things, this bill makes the law authorizing a misdemeanor for willfully failing to appear in court, as specified, inapplicable to infractions. Likewise, infractions would not apply to the requirement that when a person has failed to appear and has not posted bail, a magistrate issue a warrant for the person’s arrest within 20 days of the failure to appear.
This bill would prohibit the issuance of a bench warrant of arrest when the underlying crime is an infraction. While existing law requires the court to report a conviction of certain Vehicle Code provisions to the DMV, AB 2122 would eliminate that requirement. AB 2122 additionally would repeal issuance of a misdemeanor for failure to pay a bail installment or fine and the authorization to issue an arrest warrant for failure to pay a bail installment.
An infraction is an offense that is not punishable with incarceration. (Pen. Code, § 19.6.) Because the punishment for an infraction does not implicate the same loss of liberty, the same constitutional rights that apply to other criminal offenses do not apply to infractions. (Ibid.; see also People v. Prince (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 19.) All provisions of law applicable to misdemeanors, however, also largely apply to infractions. (Pen. Code, § 19.7.) Generally, a person arrested for an infraction must be released upon signing a written notice to appear. (Pen. Code, § 853.6, subd. (a).) After a person has been released on a promise to appear, a bench warrant for arrest can be issued if the person fails to appear in court or fails to deposit the bail. (Pen. Code §§ 853.6, subd. (f), 853.8; see also Veh. Code, § 40514.) A willful violation of a promise to appear is a misdemeanor, even if the original offense was an infraction. (Pen. Code, § 853.7.)
The intent of AB 2122 appears laudable, but this bill may have unintended impacts on the enforcement of infractions. Restricting the ability to hold individuals to personally account who are subject to infraction penalties could lead to dismissive treatment of those subject to the penalties, in addition to the expected benefits gained by interrupting the cycle of poverty and contact with the criminal justice system. Other impacts are possible here, too, as individuals at higher risk for indiscriminate immigration enforcement may be less likely to encounter Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents if they are able to limit contact with California’s criminal justice system.
Additionally, by limiting enforcement of infractions there may be a perverse incentive created for prosecutors to charge woblettes almost or entirely exclusively as misdemeanors. Prosecutorial discretion could be consciously or unconsciously guided by frustration with the state of the law rather than an honest brokering of the charges warranted for the individual’s conduct. Prosecutors overcharging woblettes as misdemeanors could create further public safety harm. The Sentencing Project found that declining to charge individuals for non-violent misdemeanors reduces their likelihood for future offending.[1] They further noted that research on “prosecutorial reforms seeking to decriminalize poverty through dismissing, declining to prosecute, or diverting people charged with nonviolent misdemeanors like disorderly conduct and shoplifting,” has discovered a decline in subsequent arrests for those impacted by the reform and no increase in crime rates for nonviolent misdemeanor offenses.[2] Declining to pursue certain misdemeanor charges can prevent the stigma and lifelong effects associated with a criminal record.[3] The certainty of these unintended outcomes occurring following implementation of this bill, however, is unclear.
- The Impact of Infractions: AB 2122 would create potentially significant impacts on infractions, which themselves seem to have outsized roles in our lives and the broader criminal justice system.
The Judicial Council’s 2021 Court Statistics Report notes that in FY 2019-20, out of all criminal case filings comprised of felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions, the overwhelming majority were infractions.[4] During this same time period, there were 174,553 felony cases filings, 636,112 misdemeanor filings, and a massive 3,243,819 infraction cases.[5] The majority of infractions were traffic infractions.[6] There were over 1,000,000 bail forfeitures for traffic infractions and over 19,000 bail forfeitures for non-traffic infractions.[7] Infractions require a huge investment of time and resources, not just for the system, but for system-impacted individuals and families.
The Sentencing Project released a four-part report that undertook a comprehensive analysis of persisting racial and economic inequities in the American criminal justice system. The report found one driver of carceral disparity relates to the damaging consequences of criminal legal contact, which are disproportionately experienced by communities of color.[8] Fines, fees, and predatory practices are inequitably experienced by justice-involved Americans and families.[9] The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) found predatory monetary practices exist in every phase of the criminal legal process.[10] By reducing criminal justice system contact for minor offenses, AB 2122 could have a positive socioeconomic impact on already overburdened and underresourced individuals.
Traffic stops are an extraordinarily common means of getting an infraction. Police officers undertake millions of minor traffic stops annually, with many used as a pretext to investigate drivers for criminal activity, which disproportionately impacts motorists of color.[11] Police officers initiated contact with nearly 29 million U.S. residents aged 16 and older in 2018.[12] Traffic stops account for a staggering four-fifths of police-initiated contact.[13] There are clear racial disparities in traffic law enforcement with the Stanford Open Policing Project finding Black drivers disproportionately stopped relative to Latino/a/x and White drivers.[14] Criminal convictions too often create lifelong disadvantage, particularly for African Americans.[15] Employers discriminate against job candidates who have criminal histories, especially against those who are Black, and application questions about criminal histories deter some people from applying to certain jobs and colleges altogether.[16] One study found discovered nearly half of unemployed men had a criminal conviction.[17]
Criminal justice involvement often begins with system contact stemming, at least initially, from an infraction. Under current law, infractions can produce unpayable fees for some that can then balloon into crippling, life-altering debt. Moreover, system contact can quickly turn into a misdemeanor if the charged individual is unable to comply with established legal processes. While some individuals may be negligent or unwilling to abide by these processes, far too often justice-involved individuals are simply faced with impossible choices, like complying with a legal order or risk losing their job(s) and being unable to provide for those counting on them. The provisions of AB 2122 could provide a meaningful step towards slowing the ongoing cycle of poverty, inequality, and criminal justice system contact.
- Argument in Support: According to the Felony Murder Elimination Project, “This bill would amend the penal and vehicle code to eliminate bench warrants for minor infractions. Felony Murder Elimination Project is a national nonprofit organization working to end felony murder laws and extreme accomplice liability, and to create meaningful pathways for resentencing and release for people serving excessive sentences. We support AB 2122 because eliminating bench warrants for low-level infractions will help prevent avoidable entries and re-entries into the criminal legal system, reduce the risk of escalation into more serious charges and detention, and promote more proportional and effective responses to minor conduct.
“Under California law, an individual’s failure to pay for an infraction or appear in traffic court can result in a bench warrant, or a judge-issued order that authorizes law enforcement to arrest an individual and bring them before the court.1 People who miss court dates may be jailed for an otherwise non-jailable offense.
“Infraction bench warrants are disproportionately issued to communities of color and low-income individuals. In San Francisco, Black people only make up 5.8% of the local population, but through systemic racism and targeted, unjust policing, they make up 48.7% of those arrested for “failure to appear or pay” traffic court warrants. Bench warrants have recently been used as a pretext for immigration enforcement, meaning that people may face ICE arrest and subsequent removal proceedings for a non-jailable offense.
“Research shows that punitive measures are ineffective in compelling people to pay or appear in court.4 Common sense, non-punitive practices like text message reminders and follow-ups help get people to appear in court. Furthermore, courts have other, less punitive means to address failure to pay an infraction, like bank levies, wage garnishment, and tax intercepts. Finally, the MyCitations tool allows individuals to pay their infractions online and permits those individuals to request an infraction reduction in cases of financial need from the safety of their home, substantially decreasing the need to resolve unpaid court debt in person.
“Eliminating bench warrants for infractions will help end an unnecessary pipeline to incarceration and allow families to focus on what matters—devoting their already limited time and resources to meeting their critical needs.”
- Argument in Opposition: According to the California District Attorneys Association (CDAA), “This bill would prohibit the issuance of an arrest warrant, bench warrant, or the filing of a new misdemeanor whenever the underlying offense is an infraction, and the offender violates a written promise to appear. This bill eliminates any consequence for the numerous offenders who simply ignore appearing in court and prevents their underlying infraction from being adjudicated.
“Requested Amendments: AB 2122 should either limit its application to the Vehicle Code (or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code) or propose an analogous provision to Vehicle Code § 40903 that is applicable to all California codes. If a mechanism were added to allow adjudication of the underlying infractions, AB 2122 could at least hold individuals accountable while, at the same time, doing so without the threat of incarceration or arrest.
“Although AB 2122 would apply to all California codes, only infractions currently identified in the Vehicle Code may be adjudicated by declaration and, in the event the offender fails to appear, in the offender’s absence. Pursuant to Vehicle Code § 40903, “[a]ny person who fails to appear as provided by law may be deemed to have elected to have a trial by written declaration upon any alleged infraction, as charged by the citing officer, involving a violation of this code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to this code.” Therefore, the underlying vehicle code infraction may be adjudicated in the offender’s absence and, if found guilty, any associated penalty could be sent to civil collections without the need for the court to issue a warrant or the prosecutor to file a misdemeanor charge for failing to appear. This is not the case, however, for the hundreds of infractions that are contained in other California codes.
“Because there is no analogous provision to Vehicle Code § 40903 in other California codes, eliminating the court’s authority to bring persons to court ensures that numerous infractions will never be adjudicated, and offenders will not be held accountable. Oftentimes, these infractions directly impact public safety or public health.
“In addition, AB 2122 may result in several unintended consequences that run contrary to the purpose of the bill:
“Currently numerous violations provide prosecutors with the discretion to file misdemeanor charges instead of an infraction (commonly known as a “wobblette”). Without a mechanism to adjudicate underlying infractions, AB 2122 would incentivize the filing of misdemeanor charges over unenforceable infractions.
“Several infractions currently contain an escalating penalty structure in which multiple infraction violations will ultimately lead to a misdemeanor offense. AB 2122 would nullify any graduated penalty schemes.
“Certain infractions currently involve the imposition of community service hours or other probation obligations, such as restitution, if convicted. By prohibiting courts from issuing a warrant, AB 2122 would deprive courts of their ability to monitor and ensure that offenders are in compliance with their post-conviction obligations.”
- Related Legislation: SB 1218 (Arreguin) would require the DMV to refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if the registered owner or lessee has been mailed a notice of delinquent illegal dumping violation. This bill is pending hearing in the Senate Transportation Committee.
- Prior Legislation:
- SB 76 (Seyarto) would have required the DMV to waive delinquent registration fees and penalties when a transferee or purchaser of a vehicle applies for a transfer of registration if the DMV determines that the fees became due or the penalties accrued before the purchase of the vehicle. SB 76 would have required the DMV to create a system to collect these delinquent fees and penalties from the seller or transferor. SB 76 would have repealed the provision authorizing the DMV to collect the waived fees and penalties in a civil action. SB 76 was vetoed by the Governor and sustained by the Legislature.
- AB 632 (Hart) would have, for specified administrative fines or penalties, authorized a local agency to, subject to specified requirements, file a certified copy of a final administrative order or decision that directs payment of the administrative fine or penalty with the clerk of the superior court of any county, as specified, and require the clerk to enter judgment immediately in conformity with the decision or order. AB 632 would also authorize a local agency to, by ordinance, establish a procedure to collect administrative fines or penalties by lien upon the parcel of land on which the violation occurred if the ordinance meets specified requirements. AB 632 was vetoed by the Governor.
- AB 1125 (Hart), Chapter 356, Statutes of 2023, eliminates the court’s authorization to impound a person’s driver’s license or limit the person’s driving when the person fails to pay the bail in installments.
- SB 932 (Seyarto), of the 2023-24 Legislative Session, would have required the DMV to waive delinquent registration fees and penalties when a transferee or purchaser of a vehicle applies for a transfer of registration if the DMV determines that the fees became due or the penalties accrued before the purchase of the vehicle. SB 932 would have required the DMV to create a system to collect these delinquent fees and penalties from the seller or transferor. SB 932 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
- AB 3243 (Ta), of the 2023-24 Legislative Session, would have, notwithstanding any law, prohibited a person who is subject to specified delinquency penalties and has been determined to have a current income level that meets the eligibility requirements for specified public social services programs, including, among others, the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program, from being required to pay the delinquency penalty in order to renew the registration of their vehicle. AB 3243 would have instead authorized the person to delay payment of their penalty until after the vehicle is registered, but by no later than the expiration date of the vehicle’s registration. AB 3243 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
- AB 1266 (Kalra), of the 2023-24 Legislative Session, would have done what this bill, AB 2122, purports to do. AB 1266 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
- AB 491 (Wallis), of the 2023-24 Legislative Session, would have authorized for specified administrative fines or penalties, a local agency, after the exhaustion of the defined administrative and appeal procedures, to file with the clerk of the superior court of any county a certified copy of a final administrative order or decision of the local agency that directs the payment of an administrative fine or penalty and, if applicable, a copy of an order of the superior court rendered on an appeal from the local agency’s decision. AB 491 was held in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
All of US or None (HQ) (Co-Sponsor)
Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (CURYJ) (Co-Sponsor)
Corporation for Supportive Housing (Co-Sponsor)
Legal Services for Prisoners With Children (Co-Sponsor)
San Francisco Public Defender (Co-Sponsor)
The Maven Collaborative (Co-Sponsor)
A New Path
A New Way of Life Reentry Project
ACLU California Action
Alliance for Boys and Men of Color
Anti Police-terror Project
Bridges of Hope CA
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California for Safety and Justice
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Public Defenders Association
Californians United for a Responsible Budget
Care First California
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Coalition of California State Tribes
Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto
Community Works West
Courage California
Debt Free Justice California
Destination: Home
Dignity and Power Now
Disability Rights California
Drug Policy Alliance 1
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Empowering Women Impacted by Incarceration
Felony Murder Elimination Project
Fresh Lifelines for Youth
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Glide
Grace Institute - End Child Poverty in CA
Homeless United for Friendship and Freedom
Housing California
Indivisible CA Statestrong
Initiate Justice
Justice2jobs Coalition
LA Defensa
Legal Aid of Marin
Local 148 Los Angeles County Public Defender's Union
Mill Valley Force for Racial Equity and Empowerment
National Alliance to End Homelessness
National Consumer Law Center, INC.
Pillars of the Community
Public Advocates
Reuniting Families Contra Costa
Rubicon Programs
Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition
Smart Justice California, a Project of Beyond Impact
Starting Over INC.
Surj Marin - Showing Up for Racial Justice
The People Concern
The W. Haywood Burns Institute
Transitions Clinic Network
University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law Homeless Advocacy Clinic
Vera Institute of Justice
Viet Voices
Western Center on Law & Poverty, INC.
3 Private Individuals
Opposition
California District Attorneys Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Child Support Directors Association of California
Analysis Prepared by:
Ghandnoosh, N. One in Five: Disparities in Crime and Policing (Nov. 2, 2023) The Sentencing Project <https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/one-in-five-disparities-in-crime-and-policing/> [as of Mar. 18, 2026]. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ibid. ↑
2021 Court Statistics Report: Statewide Caseload Trends, at pp. 3-4 (2021) Judicial Council of California <https://courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/courts/default/2024-12/2021-court-statistics-report.pdf> [as of Mar. 18, 2026]. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Id. at p. 55. ↑
Id. at p. 84. ↑
Ghandnoosh, N and Trinka, L. One in Five: How Mass Incarceration Deepens Inequality and Harms Public Safety (Nov. 2, 2023) The Sentencing Project <https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/one-in-five-disparities-in-crime-and-policing/> [as of Mar. 18, 2026]. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Date of Hearing:
Counsel: Dustin Weber
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON
Nick Schultz, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:
Author:() – As Ver:
SUMMARY:
Eliminates certain processes and penalties if an individual is subject to an infraction, including: issuing a bench warrant for the person’s arrest within 20 days of the failure to appear, a misdemeanor charge and conviction reported to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), imposition of a civil fine for failing to appear or failing to make an installment payment on a bail contract, and authorizing the court to declare the bail forfeited and requiring the court to issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the person charged, as specified. Specifically, this bill:
- Exempts the issuance of a bench warrant for an infraction from the general rule that all laws relating to misdemeanors apply to infractions.
- Prohibits the issuance of a bench warrant for the failure to pay an infraction ticket.
- Prohibits the issuance of a bench warrant for the failure to appear in court on a written promise to appear when the underlying charge is an infraction.
- Removes the requirement that a court inform the DMV of a willful failure to pay bail in installments or pay the fine for a Vehicle Code infraction, as specified.
- Eliminates the requirement that a misdemeanor shall be issued for failure to pay a bail installment.
- Makes conforming changes to other provisions of law.
- Includes legislative findings and declarations.
EXISTING LAW:
- Establishes that it is the intent of the Legislature that the disposition of any criminal case use the least restrictive means available. (Pen. Code, § 17.2, subd. (a).)
- States that specified wobblettes are infractions subject to defined procedures in the following cases:
- The prosecutor files a complaint charging the offense as an infraction unless the defendant, at the time they are arraigned, after being informed of their rights, elects to have the case proceed as a misdemeanor.
- The court, with the consent of the defendant, determines that the offense is an infraction, in which event the case shall proceed as if the defendant had been arraigned on an infraction complaint. (Pen. Code, § 17, subd. (d).)
- Provides that all provisions of law relating to misdemeanors shall apply to infractions, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 19.7.)
- States that except where a lesser maximum fine is expressly provided, an infraction is punishable by a fine not exceeding two hundred fifty dollars ($250) (Pen. Code, § 19.8, subd. (a)(2).)
- States that except for specified violations based upon failure to appear, a conviction for an offense made an infraction is not grounds for the suspension, revocation, or denial of a license or for the revocation of probation or parole of the person convicted. (Pen. Code, § 19.8, subd. (c).)
- Establishes that except as otherwise provided by law, in any case in which a person is arrested for an offense declared to be an infraction, the person may be released according to procedures for a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 853.5, subd. (a).)
- Provides that any person who willfully violates his or her written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of his or her promise to appear in court is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 853.7.)
- Establishes that when a person signs a written promise to appear at the time and place specified in the written promise to appear and has not posted bail, the magistrate shall issue and have delivered for execution a warrant for their arrest within 20 days after their failure to appear as promised or within 20 days after their failure to appear after a lawfully granted continuance. (Pen. Code, § 853.8.)
- States that a bench warrant of arrest may be issued when a defendant fails to appear in court. (Pen. Code, § 978.5, subd. (a).)
- States that a trial of an infraction shall be by the court, but when a defendant has been charged with an infraction and with a public offense for which there is a right to jury trial and a jury trial is not waived, the court may order that the offenses be tried together by jury or that they be tried separately. (Pen. Code, § 1042.5.)
- States that a person willfully failing to comply with a condition of a court order for a violation of this code, other than for failure to appear or failure to pay a fine, is guilty of a misdemeanor, regardless of their subsequent compliance with the order. (Veh. Code, § 40508, subd. (c).)
- Provides that if any person has willfully failed to comply with a court order, except a failure to appear, to pay a fine, or to attend traffic violator school, which was issued for a specified violation, the magistrate or clerk of the court may give notice of the fact to the DMV. (Veh. Code, § 40509.1.)
FISCAL EFFECT:
Unknown
COMMENTS:
- Author's Statement: According to the author, “Infraction bench warrants have functioned as a debtor’s prison, creating a system where people who have money for fines never have to appear in court, while those who cannot pay face potential for arrest for what are otherwise non-jailable, minor offenses. AB 2122 addresses the disparate punishment of low-income people that has done little to further public safety by prohibiting the issuance of a bench warrant if the underlying charge is an infraction. This bill will save millions of dollars annually from not having to execute bench warrants or detain people in county jails, and will remove an ineffective, overly punitive punishment for what is essentially a crime of poverty.”
- Effect of the Bill: AB 2122 would eliminate bench warrants for multiple violations when the underlying offense is an infraction.
Among other things, this bill makes the law authorizing a misdemeanor for willfully failing to appear in court, as specified, inapplicable to infractions. Likewise, infractions would not apply to the requirement that when a person has failed to appear and has not posted bail, a magistrate issue a warrant for the person’s arrest within 20 days of the failure to appear.
This bill would prohibit the issuance of a bench warrant of arrest when the underlying crime is an infraction. While existing law requires the court to report a conviction of certain Vehicle Code provisions to the DMV, AB 2122 would eliminate that requirement. AB 2122 additionally would repeal issuance of a misdemeanor for failure to pay a bail installment or fine and the authorization to issue an arrest warrant for failure to pay a bail installment.
An infraction is an offense that is not punishable with incarceration. (Pen. Code, § 19.6.) Because the punishment for an infraction does not implicate the same loss of liberty, the same constitutional rights that apply to other criminal offenses do not apply to infractions. (Ibid.; see also People v. Prince (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 19.) All provisions of law applicable to misdemeanors, however, also largely apply to infractions. (Pen. Code, § 19.7.) Generally, a person arrested for an infraction must be released upon signing a written notice to appear. (Pen. Code, § 853.6, subd. (a).) After a person has been released on a promise to appear, a bench warrant for arrest can be issued if the person fails to appear in court or fails to deposit the bail. (Pen. Code §§ 853.6, subd. (f), 853.8; see also Veh. Code, § 40514.) A willful violation of a promise to appear is a misdemeanor, even if the original offense was an infraction. (Pen. Code, § 853.7.)
The intent of AB 2122 appears laudable, but this bill may have unintended impacts on the enforcement of infractions. Restricting the ability to hold individuals to personally account who are subject to infraction penalties could lead to dismissive treatment of those subject to the penalties, in addition to the expected benefits gained by interrupting the cycle of poverty and contact with the criminal justice system. Other impacts are possible here, too, as individuals at higher risk for indiscriminate immigration enforcement may be less likely to encounter Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents if they are able to limit contact with California’s criminal justice system.
Additionally, by limiting enforcement of infractions there may be a perverse incentive created for prosecutors to charge woblettes almost or entirely exclusively as misdemeanors. Prosecutorial discretion could be consciously or unconsciously guided by frustration with the state of the law rather than an honest brokering of the charges warranted for the individual’s conduct. Prosecutors overcharging woblettes as misdemeanors could create further public safety harm. The Sentencing Project found that declining to charge individuals for non-violent misdemeanors reduces their likelihood for future offending.[1] They further noted that research on “prosecutorial reforms seeking to decriminalize poverty through dismissing, declining to prosecute, or diverting people charged with nonviolent misdemeanors like disorderly conduct and shoplifting,” has discovered a decline in subsequent arrests for those impacted by the reform and no increase in crime rates for nonviolent misdemeanor offenses.[2] Declining to pursue certain misdemeanor charges can prevent the stigma and lifelong effects associated with a criminal record.[3] The certainty of these unintended outcomes occurring following implementation of this bill, however, is unclear.
- The Impact of Infractions: AB 2122 would create potentially significant impacts on infractions, which themselves seem to have outsized roles in our lives and the broader criminal justice system.
The Judicial Council’s 2021 Court Statistics Report notes that in FY 2019-20, out of all criminal case filings comprised of felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions, the overwhelming majority were infractions.[4] During this same time period, there were 174,553 felony cases filings, 636,112 misdemeanor filings, and a massive 3,243,819 infraction cases.[5] The majority of infractions were traffic infractions.[6] There were over 1,000,000 bail forfeitures for traffic infractions and over 19,000 bail forfeitures for non-traffic infractions.[7] Infractions require a huge investment of time and resources, not just for the system, but for system-impacted individuals and families.
The Sentencing Project released a four-part report that undertook a comprehensive analysis of persisting racial and economic inequities in the American criminal justice system. The report found one driver of carceral disparity relates to the damaging consequences of criminal legal contact, which are disproportionately experienced by communities of color.[8] Fines, fees, and predatory practices are inequitably experienced by justice-involved Americans and families.[9] The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) found predatory monetary practices exist in every phase of the criminal legal process.[10] By reducing criminal justice system contact for minor offenses, AB 2122 could have a positive socioeconomic impact on already overburdened and underresourced individuals.
Traffic stops are an extraordinarily common means of getting an infraction. Police officers undertake millions of minor traffic stops annually, with many used as a pretext to investigate drivers for criminal activity, which disproportionately impacts motorists of color.[11] Police officers initiated contact with nearly 29 million U.S. residents aged 16 and older in 2018.[12] Traffic stops account for a staggering four-fifths of police-initiated contact.[13] There are clear racial disparities in traffic law enforcement with the Stanford Open Policing Project finding Black drivers disproportionately stopped relative to Latino/a/x and White drivers.[14] Criminal convictions too often create lifelong disadvantage, particularly for African Americans.[15] Employers discriminate against job candidates who have criminal histories, especially against those who are Black, and application questions about criminal histories deter some people from applying to certain jobs and colleges altogether.[16] One study found discovered nearly half of unemployed men had a criminal conviction.[17]
Criminal justice involvement often begins with system contact stemming, at least initially, from an infraction. Under current law, infractions can produce unpayable fees for some that can then balloon into crippling, life-altering debt. Moreover, system contact can quickly turn into a misdemeanor if the charged individual is unable to comply with established legal processes. While some individuals may be negligent or unwilling to abide by these processes, far too often justice-involved individuals are simply faced with impossible choices, like complying with a legal order or risk losing their job(s) and being unable to provide for those counting on them. The provisions of AB 2122 could provide a meaningful step towards slowing the ongoing cycle of poverty, inequality, and criminal justice system contact.
- Argument in Support: According to the Felony Murder Elimination Project, “This bill would amend the penal and vehicle code to eliminate bench warrants for minor infractions. Felony Murder Elimination Project is a national nonprofit organization working to end felony murder laws and extreme accomplice liability, and to create meaningful pathways for resentencing and release for people serving excessive sentences. We support AB 2122 because eliminating bench warrants for low-level infractions will help prevent avoidable entries and re-entries into the criminal legal system, reduce the risk of escalation into more serious charges and detention, and promote more proportional and effective responses to minor conduct.
“Under California law, an individual’s failure to pay for an infraction or appear in traffic court can result in a bench warrant, or a judge-issued order that authorizes law enforcement to arrest an individual and bring them before the court.1 People who miss court dates may be jailed for an otherwise non-jailable offense.
“Infraction bench warrants are disproportionately issued to communities of color and low-income individuals. In San Francisco, Black people only make up 5.8% of the local population, but through systemic racism and targeted, unjust policing, they make up 48.7% of those arrested for “failure to appear or pay” traffic court warrants. Bench warrants have recently been used as a pretext for immigration enforcement, meaning that people may face ICE arrest and subsequent removal proceedings for a non-jailable offense.
“Research shows that punitive measures are ineffective in compelling people to pay or appear in court.4 Common sense, non-punitive practices like text message reminders and follow-ups help get people to appear in court. Furthermore, courts have other, less punitive means to address failure to pay an infraction, like bank levies, wage garnishment, and tax intercepts. Finally, the MyCitations tool allows individuals to pay their infractions online and permits those individuals to request an infraction reduction in cases of financial need from the safety of their home, substantially decreasing the need to resolve unpaid court debt in person.
“Eliminating bench warrants for infractions will help end an unnecessary pipeline to incarceration and allow families to focus on what matters—devoting their already limited time and resources to meeting their critical needs.”
- Argument in Opposition: According to the California District Attorneys Association (CDAA), “This bill would prohibit the issuance of an arrest warrant, bench warrant, or the filing of a new misdemeanor whenever the underlying offense is an infraction, and the offender violates a written promise to appear. This bill eliminates any consequence for the numerous offenders who simply ignore appearing in court and prevents their underlying infraction from being adjudicated.
“Requested Amendments: AB 2122 should either limit its application to the Vehicle Code (or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code) or propose an analogous provision to Vehicle Code § 40903 that is applicable to all California codes. If a mechanism were added to allow adjudication of the underlying infractions, AB 2122 could at least hold individuals accountable while, at the same time, doing so without the threat of incarceration or arrest.
“Although AB 2122 would apply to all California codes, only infractions currently identified in the Vehicle Code may be adjudicated by declaration and, in the event the offender fails to appear, in the offender’s absence. Pursuant to Vehicle Code § 40903, “[a]ny person who fails to appear as provided by law may be deemed to have elected to have a trial by written declaration upon any alleged infraction, as charged by the citing officer, involving a violation of this code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to this code.” Therefore, the underlying vehicle code infraction may be adjudicated in the offender’s absence and, if found guilty, any associated penalty could be sent to civil collections without the need for the court to issue a warrant or the prosecutor to file a misdemeanor charge for failing to appear. This is not the case, however, for the hundreds of infractions that are contained in other California codes.
“Because there is no analogous provision to Vehicle Code § 40903 in other California codes, eliminating the court’s authority to bring persons to court ensures that numerous infractions will never be adjudicated, and offenders will not be held accountable. Oftentimes, these infractions directly impact public safety or public health.
“In addition, AB 2122 may result in several unintended consequences that run contrary to the purpose of the bill:
“Currently numerous violations provide prosecutors with the discretion to file misdemeanor charges instead of an infraction (commonly known as a “wobblette”). Without a mechanism to adjudicate underlying infractions, AB 2122 would incentivize the filing of misdemeanor charges over unenforceable infractions.
“Several infractions currently contain an escalating penalty structure in which multiple infraction violations will ultimately lead to a misdemeanor offense. AB 2122 would nullify any graduated penalty schemes.
“Certain infractions currently involve the imposition of community service hours or other probation obligations, such as restitution, if convicted. By prohibiting courts from issuing a warrant, AB 2122 would deprive courts of their ability to monitor and ensure that offenders are in compliance with their post-conviction obligations.”
- Related Legislation: SB 1218 (Arreguin) would require the DMV to refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if the registered owner or lessee has been mailed a notice of delinquent illegal dumping violation. This bill is pending hearing in the Senate Transportation Committee.
- Prior Legislation:
- SB 76 (Seyarto) would have required the DMV to waive delinquent registration fees and penalties when a transferee or purchaser of a vehicle applies for a transfer of registration if the DMV determines that the fees became due or the penalties accrued before the purchase of the vehicle. SB 76 would have required the DMV to create a system to collect these delinquent fees and penalties from the seller or transferor. SB 76 would have repealed the provision authorizing the DMV to collect the waived fees and penalties in a civil action. SB 76 was vetoed by the Governor and sustained by the Legislature.
- AB 632 (Hart) would have, for specified administrative fines or penalties, authorized a local agency to, subject to specified requirements, file a certified copy of a final administrative order or decision that directs payment of the administrative fine or penalty with the clerk of the superior court of any county, as specified, and require the clerk to enter judgment immediately in conformity with the decision or order. AB 632 would also authorize a local agency to, by ordinance, establish a procedure to collect administrative fines or penalties by lien upon the parcel of land on which the violation occurred if the ordinance meets specified requirements. AB 632 was vetoed by the Governor.
- AB 1125 (Hart), Chapter 356, Statutes of 2023, eliminates the court’s authorization to impound a person’s driver’s license or limit the person’s driving when the person fails to pay the bail in installments.
- SB 932 (Seyarto), of the 2023-24 Legislative Session, would have required the DMV to waive delinquent registration fees and penalties when a transferee or purchaser of a vehicle applies for a transfer of registration if the DMV determines that the fees became due or the penalties accrued before the purchase of the vehicle. SB 932 would have required the DMV to create a system to collect these delinquent fees and penalties from the seller or transferor. SB 932 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
- AB 3243 (Ta), of the 2023-24 Legislative Session, would have, notwithstanding any law, prohibited a person who is subject to specified delinquency penalties and has been determined to have a current income level that meets the eligibility requirements for specified public social services programs, including, among others, the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program, from being required to pay the delinquency penalty in order to renew the registration of their vehicle. AB 3243 would have instead authorized the person to delay payment of their penalty until after the vehicle is registered, but by no later than the expiration date of the vehicle’s registration. AB 3243 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
- AB 1266 (Kalra), of the 2023-24 Legislative Session, would have done what this bill, AB 2122, purports to do. AB 1266 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
- AB 491 (Wallis), of the 2023-24 Legislative Session, would have authorized for specified administrative fines or penalties, a local agency, after the exhaustion of the defined administrative and appeal procedures, to file with the clerk of the superior court of any county a certified copy of a final administrative order or decision of the local agency that directs the payment of an administrative fine or penalty and, if applicable, a copy of an order of the superior court rendered on an appeal from the local agency’s decision. AB 491 was held in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
All of US or None (HQ) (Co-Sponsor)
Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (CURYJ) (Co-Sponsor)
Corporation for Supportive Housing (Co-Sponsor)
Legal Services for Prisoners With Children (Co-Sponsor)
San Francisco Public Defender (Co-Sponsor)
The Maven Collaborative (Co-Sponsor)
A New Path
A New Way of Life Reentry Project
ACLU California Action
Alliance for Boys and Men of Color
Anti Police-terror Project
Bridges of Hope CA
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California for Safety and Justice
California Public Defenders Association
Californians United for a Responsible Budget
Care First California
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto
Community Works West
Courage California
Debt Free Justice California
Dignity and Power Now
Disability Rights California
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Empowering Women Impacted by Incarceration
Felony Murder Elimination Project
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Glide
Grace Institute - End Child Poverty in CA
Homeless United for Friendship and Freedom
Housing California
Initiate Justice
Justice2jobs Coalition
LA Defensa
Legal Aid of Marin
Local 148 Los Angeles County Public Defender's Union
Mill Valley Force for Racial Equity and Empowerment
National Alliance to End Homelessness
National Consumer Law Center, INC.
Pillars of the Community
Public Advocates
Reuniting Families Contra Costa
Smart Justice California, a Project of Beyond Impact
Starting Over INC.
Surj Marin - Showing Up for Racial Justice
The People Concern
The W. Haywood Burns Institute
Transitions Clinic Network
University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law Homeless Advocacy Clinic
Vera Institute of Justice
Viet Voices
Western Center on Law & Poverty, INC.
2 Private Individuals
Opposition
California District Attorneys Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Child Support Directors Association of California
Analysis Prepared by:
Ghandnoosh, N. One in Five: Disparities in Crime and Policing (Nov. 2, 2023) The Sentencing Project <https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/one-in-five-disparities-in-crime-and-policing/> [as of Mar. 18, 2026]. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ibid. ↑
2021 Court Statistics Report: Statewide Caseload Trends, at pp. 3-4 (2021) Judicial Council of California <https://courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/courts/default/2024-12/2021-court-statistics-report.pdf> [as of Mar. 18, 2026]. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Id. at p. 55. ↑
Id. at p. 84. ↑
Ghandnoosh, N and Trinka, L. One in Five: How Mass Incarceration Deepens Inequality and Harms Public Safety (Nov. 2, 2023) The Sentencing Project <https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/one-in-five-disparities-in-crime-and-policing/> [as of Mar. 18, 2026]. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Discussed in Hearing
5MIN
Senate Floor
12MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety
1MIN
Assembly Floor
19MIN
