California Assembly Bill AB1612

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/21/26
• Refer: 3/2/26
• Report Pass: 4/7/26
• Refer: 4/8/26
• Refer: 4/9/26
• Report Pass: 4/15/26
• Refer: 4/15/26
• Report Pass: 4/22/26
• Refer: 4/22/26
• Refer: 5/6/26
• Report Pass: 5/14/26
• Engrossed: 5/27/26
• Refer: 5/28/26

Caption

An act to add Section 11451 to the Health and Safety Code, relating to controlled substances.

Summary

AB 1612 would add a new section to the Health and Safety Code to create a process for law enforcement agencies to dispose of controlled substances that are no longer needed for an active investigation or related proceedings and that have already been held past the applicable retention period. Under the bill, local police departments, sheriffs’ offices, and other state law enforcement agencies could transport those substances to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for disposal, rather than handling destruction themselves, so long as they are otherwise authorized by law to destroy the substances. The bill also authorizes the DOJ, if the Legislature appropriates funds, to contract with a third party to dispose of controlled substances received under this process. In addition, the DOJ would be required, again subject to appropriation, to work with the Department of Toxic Substances Control and other relevant state and local agencies to develop and publish guidance on proper management and disposal practices for controlled substances in law enforcement possession. The DOJ would also be directed to adopt regulations needed to implement the new section.

Impact

AB 1612 would expand state law by creating a centralized disposal pathway for controlled substances held by law enforcement after the retention period has expired, and by directing the DOJ to issue guidance and regulations on handling and disposal. It would not change the underlying authority to seize or destroy controlled substances, but it would add a new statutory mechanism for transferring those substances to DOJ for disposal and, potentially, to a third-party contractor. The bill affects local police departments, sheriffs’ offices, state law enforcement agencies, the DOJ, and the Department of Toxic Substances Control, while making implementation dependent in part on legislative appropriation.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests broad support and little opposition. The bill passed committee votes unanimously, including a 7-0 vote and a 9-0 vote, and was recommended to the consent calendar. The lack of recorded committee testimony or opposition in the provided materials indicates the measure was generally viewed as a practical administrative cleanup or public-safety measure rather than a controversial policy change.

Contention

No major points of contention are reflected in the provided record. The main practical issue is that several of the bill’s new DOJ responsibilities—contracting with a third party and publishing disposal guidance—are conditioned on an appropriation, so implementation would depend on funding. Any policy questions would likely center on whether centralized disposal is preferable to existing agency-by-agency destruction procedures, and on the logistics and costs of transporting and disposing of controlled substances safely.