AB 1118 rewrites how California courts authorize and execute many search warrants. It creates a mandatory special‑master procedure when documentary evidence is held by lawyers, physicians, psychotherapists, or clergy who are not suspected of related crimes; enumerates new and clarified grounds for warrants (including tracking devices, vehicle recording data, blood draws in specific offenses, and multiple firearm/ammunition scenarios tied to restraining orders); and adds a procedure allowing warrants to require the return of seized currency (including cryptocurrency) to an identified lawful owner subject to a post‑seizure hearing.
The bill matters because it imposes an operational layer—courts must appoint special masters drawn from a State Bar list and law enforcement must adapt execution practices—while granting investigators clearer authority to access certain digital and biological evidence. It also changes post‑seizure rights for owners of currency and crypto, and reallocates legal and liability responsibilities by treating special masters as public employees.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires courts to appoint an attorney special master from a State Bar list to conduct or oversee searches of documentary evidence held by specified professionals, with sealed handling and expedited hearings when privilege is claimed. It expands enumerated grounds for search warrants to cover tracking devices, vehicle manufacturer recording devices (limited to data directly related to serious crash offenses), targeted blood draws for specified offenses, and multiple firearm‑ and ammunition‑seizure scenarios tied to protective orders. It also permits a warrant to direct return of seized currency or cryptocurrency to a named lawful owner, subject to notice and a 30‑day petition process.
Who It Affects
The bill directly affects law enforcement agencies and magistrates who issue and execute warrants; attorneys, physicians, psychotherapists, and clergy whose documentary materials may be searched; prosecutors and defense counsel engaged in rapid post‑seizure hearings; vehicle manufacturers or service providers that hold recording data; and owners of seized currency or cryptocurrency.
Why It Matters
AB 1118 formalizes a middle path between preserving privilege and enabling searches: an independent lawyer (the special master) vets contested materials before investigators see them. It also brings explicitly enumerated modern evidence types—vehicle 'black box' data, tracking devices, and crypto—into warrant practice and creates a statutory path to return seized currency, shifting burdens and timelines in seizure disputes.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1118 restructures which kinds of property and evidence may justify a search warrant and how certain sensitive searches must be carried out. It keeps the traditional list of grounds for warrants but extends and clarifies them to explicitly include a range of modern evidence types: location tracking device data, data from vehicle‑installed recording devices when the offense involved death or serious injury, blood samples when statutory refusals occur in specified vehicular and maritime offenses, and firearms or ammunition tied to various protective or restraining orders.
By listing these explicitly, the bill reduces ambiguity about whether those categories fall within existing warrant authority.
The centerpiece of the bill is a mandatory, court‑supervised special‑master process when documentary evidence is in the hands of a lawyer, physician, psychotherapist, or member of the clergy who is not reasonably suspected of crimes connected to those documents. When a warrant targets such documentary evidence, the court appoints an independent attorney from a State Bar list to review and conduct the search.
The special master informs the holder of the specific items sought, gives them a chance to produce materials voluntarily, seals disputed items, and brings sealed items to a superior court hearing where privilege and Fourth Amendment challenges can be raised. The hearing is expedited—scheduled within three days unless impracticable—and seizure timelines toll while challenges proceed.The bill adds several procedural and definitional mechanics.
Special masters serve without compensation but are treated as public employees; the State Bar must maintain a qualified list and courts must try to avoid conflicts in selection. The special master’s work is confidential except to the court, and law enforcement personnel may accompany but not participate in the special master’s search absent consent.
For seized currency and cryptocurrency, the bill permits a warrant to direct return to an identified lawful owner but requires service of notice on the person from whom currency was seized, a 30‑day window to request a hearing, and places the burden on the seizing agency at that hearing to prove the funds were stolen or embezzled by a preponderance of the evidence; absent a hearing the funds may be returned after 31 days, but prosecutors must be notified at least 10 days before return.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The court must appoint a State Bar‑listed attorney as a special master to conduct searches of documentary evidence held by attorneys, physicians, psychotherapists, or clergy who are not suspected of related crimes, and the special master reviews disputed items and conducts expedited hearings.
Special masters serve without compensation, are treated as public employees (the issuing governmental entity is their employer for liability claims), and must be selected to avoid conflicts; their findings and information are confidential except to the court.
A warrant may authorize return of seized currency or cryptocurrency to a named lawful owner only after service and notice; the person from whom currency was seized has 30 days to petition for a hearing, and the seizing agency must prove theft or embezzlement by a preponderance of the evidence.
Warrants can expressly reach vehicle manufacturer recording‑device data in crashes causing death or serious bodily injury, but the data accessed is limited to information ‘‘directly related’’ to the offense and to the Vehicle Code’s enumerated categories.
Several new and clarified warrant grounds are added or restated: tracking device information (with execution standards per existing law), targeted blood draws after statutorily required refusals, and multiple firearm/ammunition seizure scenarios tied to restraining and protective orders.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Expanded, explicit grounds for warrants (tracking devices, vehicle data, blood draws, firearms)
Subdivision (a) updates the classic list of warrant grounds and makes several categories explicit. It authorizes warrants based on tracking‑device information (with execution conforming to Section 1534(b)), vehicle recording‑device data limited to items directly related to serious crash offenses, and blood samples where statutory refusal has occurred in specified Vehicle and Harbors and Navigation Code offenses. It also enumerates multiple firearm and ammunition seizure scenarios tied to domestic violence orders, gun‑violence restraining orders, Welfare & Institutions Code prohibitions, and family‑code protective orders. Practically, this section reduces uncertainty about whether modern digital, biometric, and firearm contexts fit within traditional probable‑cause warrants, and it imposes limits designed to narrow scope (for example, vehicle data limited by reference to Vehicle Code 9951(b)).
Special‑master procedure for documentary evidence
Subdivision (c) requires a special‑master process whenever documentary evidence is in the hands of a lawyer, physician, psychotherapist, or clergy person who is not reasonably suspected of a crime related to the evidence. The special master accompanies and conducts the search, informs the holder of the items sought, and seals items the holder claims are privileged. Those sealed items are brought to court for an expedited hearing (within three days unless impracticable) where privilege and other suppression issues may be litigated. Service is to occur during normal business hours when practicable, and time limits for related proceedings are tolled while the seized items are under judicial review. This creates an administrative and scheduling obligation for courts and law enforcement and gives privilege holders a fast, statutorily guaranteed forum to contest seizures.
Who serves as special master and liability consequences
Subdivision (d) defines ‘‘special master’’ as an attorney in good standing selected from a State Bar‑maintained list and requires courts to try to avoid appointing anyone with relationships to the parties. Special masters serve without compensation, are considered public employees, and the governmental entity that requested the search is treated as their employer for purposes of claims under the Government Code. The provision makes information obtained confidential except in response to court inquiry. The mechanics shift liability and administrative expectations: the State Bar must maintain the list and courts must manage availability and conflict checks; governmental employers take on legal exposure for actions of the special master.
Warrant can require return of seized currency to identified lawful owner with notice and hearing
Subdivision (m) allows a warrant that authorizes seizure of stolen or embezzled currency (explicitly including fiat and cryptocurrency) to also authorize that currency’s return to a lawful owner named in the warrant, but only after a set procedure. The person from whom currency is taken (or their rep) must be served with the warrant and notice that they have 30 days to petition the issuing court for a hearing. If a hearing is requested, the seizing agency bears the burden (preponderance) to prove the currency was stolen or embezzled. If no hearing is requested, the currency may be returned after 31 days; additionally, the agency must notify the prosecuting authority at least 10 days before returning funds. This inserts a post‑seizure administrative track to accelerate restoration to identified owners while preserving due‑process and prosecutorial notice.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Privileged‑document holders (attorneys, physicians, psychotherapists, clergy): The special‑master process provides an independent attorney reviewer, sealing procedures, and an expedited court hearing to protect privilege and work‑product from broad law‑enforcement exposure.
- Named lawful owners of seized currency or cryptocurrency: The new return mechanism and 30‑day petition window create a statutory path to reclaim funds more quickly than traditional forfeiture processes, with the agency bearing the burden to prove theft or embezzlement.
- Crash victims and investigators: Clear statutory authority to access vehicle manufacturer recording‑device data (limited to information directly related to a fatal/serious crash) gives investigators a defined tool to seek crucial forensic data in high‑harm cases.
- Courts and defense counsel: The tolling of related civil timelines and expedited hearing requirement provides a swift judicial venue to adjudicate privilege and suppression claims, reducing protracted litigation over seized documentary evidence.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local and state law enforcement agencies: Agencies must identify and coordinate with special masters, adjust execution practices (serve during business hours where practicable), manage sealed items, provide notice in currency‑return cases, and shoulder the evidentiary burden at return hearings—creating staff, training, and scheduling costs.
- The State Bar and courts: The State Bar must maintain a qualified list of special masters and courts must conduct conflict checks and arrange expedited hearings; both institutions will face administrative load without explicit funding.
- Prosecutors: Agencies must notify prosecuting authorities 10 days before returning seized currency, and prosecutors may have cases shortened or property returned before they complete charging decisions, complicating evidence preservation and prosecution strategy.
- Vehicle manufacturers and data custodians: Providers that hold recording device data face additional legal demands and must respond to narrower but high‑priority warrants for crash‑related data, raising compliance and technical extraction costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill tries to reconcile two legitimate objectives: protecting privileged documentary materials and preventing law‑enforcement blind spots for modern forms of evidence. The special‑master mechanism protects privilege by inserting an independent lawyer between investigators and sensitive files, but it increases delay, administrative burden, and costs that can blunt urgent investigations; conversely, the expanded warrant categories (vehicle black‑box data, tracking info, targeted blood draws, and expedited currency returns) give police clearer tools but risk eroding privacy or privilege protections if courts apply the new authorities too broadly.
The bill resolves several gaps but creates real implementation friction. First, the special‑master requirement protects privilege but depends on a reliable, conflict‑free supply of qualified attorneys willing to serve without compensation; jurisdictions with heavy caseloads or remote counties may struggle to find special masters promptly, producing either delays or frequent use of the magistrate’s backup authority to have parties conduct searches.
Second, treating special masters as public employees shifts liability to government entities and may discourage participation despite the no‑compensation mandate; courts and governments will need to digest insurance and indemnity questions that the statute does not fund or resolve. Third, the documentary‑evidence definition is broad and explicitly includes digital files and prints; judges will face new gatekeeping decisions about what counts as privileged or work product when files are encrypted, password‑protected, or stored in cloud architectures.
On the evidence side, limits—like the ‘‘directly related’’ constraint on vehicle recording data—leave open what data subsets courts will permit and how forensic vendors will extract and produce those subsets without overreach. The currency/cryptocurrency return track gives owners faster relief but raises chain‑of‑custody and valuation issues for crypto, and creates conflicts when prosecutions proceed in different jurisdictions; the 10‑day prosecutorial notice requirement is helpful but may be insufficient where cross‑border investigations or preservation injunctions exist.
Finally, the bill narrows the protection of attorney work product where there is probable cause that the lawyer aided criminal activity, but it leaves the difficult factual task to courts of quickly determining intent in fast‑moving seizures, which could increase emergency litigation and inconsistent outcomes across counties.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.