California Senate Bill SB385

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/14/25
• Refer: 2/26/25
• Report Pass: 3/25/25
• Refer: 3/25/25
• Refer: 4/10/25
• Engrossed: 5/29/25
• Refer: 6/5/25
• Report Pass: 6/17/25
• Refer: 6/17/25
• Report Pass: 7/9/25
• Enrolled: 9/12/25
• Chaptered: 10/1/25
• Passed: 10/1/25

Caption

An act to amend Section 13511.1 of the Penal Code, relating to peace officers, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.

Summary

SB 385 amends Penal Code Section 13511.1, which governs the development of a modern policing degree program and related education standards for peace officers. The bill keeps in place the existing framework directing the California Community Colleges Chancellor, in consultation with law enforcement, CSU, and community stakeholders, to develop a modern policing degree program and report recommendations to the Legislature. Those recommendations are to include law-enforcement-related coursework such as psychology, communications, history, ethnic studies, and law; recognize prior law enforcement, work, postsecondary, or military experience toward eligibility; and consider financial assistance for students from historically underserved and disadvantaged communities. The main substantive change made by SB 385 is to repeal the requirement that the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, within two years of the report, approve and adopt education criteria for peace officers based on the report’s recommendations. In effect, the bill removes that specific statutory mandate for POST to convert the report’s recommendations into binding education criteria. The bill is enacted as an urgency statute, meaning it takes effect immediately upon enactment. The bill’s practical impact is on the state’s peace officer education policy and the authority of POST. It narrows the existing statutory pathway that would have required POST to adopt education criteria tied to the modern policing degree report, while leaving the report-and-recommendations process itself intact. The measure affects the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s office, law enforcement agencies and applicants, and any future implementation of minimum education requirements for peace officers. The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history is strongly supportive and noncontroversial. The bill advanced with unanimous or near-unanimous votes at every recorded stage, including 6-0 in committee, 38-0 on Senate third reading, 9-0 and 15-0 in later committee actions, and 77-0 on Assembly third reading. The urgency clause also passed without recorded opposition, suggesting broad agreement that the bill should move quickly. The main point of contention implied by the bill text is not reflected in the votes, but in the policy choice itself: whether POST should be required to adopt education criteria based on the report, or whether that mandate should be removed to avoid uncertainty and pressure on recruitment. The urgency statement says immediate action is needed to clarify degree requirements and alleviate recruitment pressure, indicating the bill was framed as a technical or administrative fix rather than a major policy dispute.

Impact

SB 385 amends Penal Code Section 13511.1 by deleting the statutory requirement that the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training approve and adopt peace officer education criteria based on the modern policing degree report. It leaves intact the Chancellor-led advisory and reporting process for developing the degree program and recommendations, but removes the follow-on mandate that would have compelled POST to adopt criteria within a specified time. The bill therefore changes how future peace officer education standards may be implemented, while not itself establishing new minimum qualifications or funding requirements.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have had broadly favorable and largely procedural support. Every recorded vote was unanimous, and the measure moved through committee and floor votes without recorded opposition. The urgency clause also passed overwhelmingly, reflecting a general view that the bill was needed promptly to clarify education requirements and reduce recruitment uncertainty for law enforcement.

Contention

No major contention is visible in the available committee or floor vote record, since all votes were unanimous. The only discernible policy tension is between maintaining a mandatory POST adoption timeline for education criteria versus repealing that requirement to provide flexibility and avoid recruitment disruption. Supporters appear to have favored immediate clarification of degree requirements, while any opposition would likely have centered on the broader question of how prescriptive the state should be in setting peace officer education standards, but that disagreement is not reflected in the recorded votes.