An act to add Section 833.6 to the Penal Code, relating to criminal procedure.
Summary
SB 277 would add Penal Code Section 833.6 to codify when a peace officer may search a person during or after a lawful stop. The bill allows a search without consent when the officer has a warrant, statutory authority, or probable cause to believe the person is about to commit, is committing, or has just committed a crime. In all other situations, the bill requires the officer to seek and obtain consent before searching the person.
The bill also sets out a detailed consent-search procedure. Before conducting a consensual search, an officer must tell the person that consent is voluntary, explain the scope of the search, and record the consent. The officer may not exceed the stated scope and must stop if consent is withdrawn. The bill separately addresses unsolicited consent and requires similar advisements, scope confirmation, and documentation. It also states that officers may request consent only when investigating a crime and when they have reasonable suspicion that the person possesses evidence of criminal activity, and it allows local jurisdictions to adopt more protective rules.
Impact
SB 277 would create a new statutory framework governing searches of individuals by peace officers, supplementing existing constitutional and case-law standards in the Penal Code. It would impose new procedural duties on local law enforcement agencies, including advisement, scope limitation, consent recording, and documentation requirements, and it expressly preserves the ability of local governments to adopt stricter protections. Because these requirements would apply to local agencies, the bill is identified as creating a state-mandated local program and provides for reimbursement if the Commission on State Mandates so determines.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill received some committee support but also faced scrutiny, as it advanced on a 4-1 vote before being placed on the suspense file by a 6-0 vote. With no committee transcript available, the overall sentiment can be described as cautious and procedural rather than strongly polarized in the record provided. The bill’s framing as a codification of existing case law and a consent-procedure measure may have made it more acceptable to some members, while its operational impact on law enforcement likely contributed to fiscal and policy review.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s restrictions on officer discretion and the added administrative burden on law enforcement. Supporters would view the measure as clarifying when searches are lawful and strengthening informed, voluntary consent, while critics may argue that the required warnings, recording duties, and reasonable-suspicion threshold could slow investigations or complicate policing. The fiscal issue is also notable because the bill creates a reimbursable state-mandated local program, which likely contributed to its placement on the suspense file.
An act to amend Section 6383 of the Family Code, and to amend Sections 136.2, 1203.4, 1203.4a, 1203.4b, 1203.41, and 1203.425 of the Penal Code, relating to criminal procedure.