An act to amend Section 1524 of the Penal Code, relating to criminal procedure.
Summary
AB 1118 would amend Penal Code Section 1524, which governs the grounds and procedures for issuing search warrants in California. The bill’s main change is to create a specific warrant procedure for stolen or embezzled property currency, including fiat currency and cryptocurrency, allowing a warrant to authorize that currency to be returned to a lawful owner identified in the warrant. Before the currency is returned, the person from whom it was taken, or their representative, must receive notice and may petition for a hearing within 30 days to challenge whether the currency was actually stolen or embezzled.
If a hearing is requested, the seizing agency must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the currency was stolen or embezzled. If no hearing is requested, the bill allows return of the currency after 31 days from service of notice. The bill also requires the seizing agency to notify the relevant prosecuting authority at least 10 days before returning the currency, and it specifies that this new procedure does not limit a court’s existing authority to suppress or return evidence under Section 1538.5. The bill is set to become operative on January 1, 2026.
Impact
The bill would amend California’s criminal procedure law governing search warrants by adding a new, currency-specific recovery mechanism to Penal Code Section 1524. It would affect law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, courts, and people from whom allegedly stolen or embezzled currency is seized, including cases involving digital assets such as cryptocurrency. The measure creates new notice, hearing, and burden-of-proof requirements before seized currency can be transferred to a lawful owner, while preserving existing suppression and return-of-property remedies under Section 1538.5.
Sentiment
The available legislative record shows little direct debate or recorded vote detail, so overall sentiment is best characterized as procedurally neutral and likely supportive at the committee level. The bill was amended in Assembly and then filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56, indicating it advanced through the process without documented controversy in the materials provided. The digest also labels it a majority vote bill, suggesting it had enough support to move forward.
Contention
The main policy tension in AB 1118 is between faster restoration of stolen funds to victims and procedural protections for the person from whom the currency was seized. Supporters would likely view the bill as a practical tool for returning stolen money or cryptocurrency more efficiently, while critics may focus on the risk of premature transfer of property before criminal liability is resolved. The bill addresses that concern by requiring notice, allowing a hearing, and placing the burden on the seizing agency, but those safeguards may still be a point of debate for due process and property-rights advocates.