AB 1489 adds Penal Code Section 13667 and requires any law enforcement agency that issues a firearm to an employed peace officer to adopt a policy forbidding that officer from carrying the agency‑issued firearm when the officer’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is greater than 0.00 percent. The bill defines “carry” to include physical control of a firearm in a holster attached to the person and creates a narrow exception for on‑duty undercover assignments.
The measure matters because it converts a zero‑tolerance standard into a statutory obligation for agencies, extends the rule to off‑duty hours, and imposes new administrative duties on local law enforcement—training, policy drafting, monitoring, and potential testing—while leaving key enforcement mechanics unspecified. The bill also triggers the state’s mandated‑costs process if the Commission on State Mandates finds the measure imposes reimbursable local costs.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires agencies that issue firearms to employed peace officers to adopt a policy that prohibits those officers from carrying the agency‑issued firearm if their BAC exceeds 0.00%. It defines “carry” to include a holstered weapon affixed to the person and exempts officers engaged in on‑duty undercover assignments.
Who It Affects
Municipal police departments, county sheriffs’ offices, and other agencies that issue service weapons; the peace officers who receive agency firearms; agency HR, training, and internal affairs units responsible for drafting and enforcing the policy; and local budgets if the policy creates additional costs.
Why It Matters
By statutoryizing a zero‑BAC rule and applying it off duty, the bill changes agencies’ compliance and liability calculus and creates practical implementation questions—how to detect and prove off‑duty intoxication, how to discipline or remove an issued weapon, and how the policy interacts with collective bargaining and privacy protections.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1489 inserts a new Penal Code section that does three things: (1) defines “carry” to mean having direct physical control of or being physically connected to a firearm, with explicit mention that a holstered weapon affixed to the person counts; (2) requires any law enforcement agency that issues a firearm to an employed peace officer to have a policy prohibiting that officer from carrying the agency‑issued firearm when the officer’s blood alcohol concentration is greater than 0.00 percent; and (3) carves out a single exception for officers who are on duty and performing undercover assignments.
The statute’s reach extends beyond an officer’s shift: the prohibition applies whether the officer is on duty or off duty. The bill therefore moves an operational standard—when an officer may carry the agency weapon—into statute, rather than leaving it solely to department policy.
Because the bill requires agencies to “have a policy,” implementation will fall to department leadership, legal counsel, training units, and bargaining representatives to translate the statutory rule into written procedures, testing protocols, and enforcement steps.The text does not supply enforcement mechanics: it does not prescribe how to determine BAC for an off‑duty officer, what evidence will support a finding of a violation, what immediate actions supervisors must take if they suspect an officer is over the limit, or what disciplinary or criminal penalties attach. The bill similarly does not address whether agencies must provide alternatives (secure storage of the issued gun, temporary surrender procedures) or how to handle situations where an officer is sober at roll call but later becomes intoxicated while still carrying the weapon.Finally, the bill acknowledges fiscal impact: it instructs that if the Commission on State Mandates finds the act imposes state‑mandated local costs, reimbursement will proceed under the usual Government Code process.
That clause preserves the procedural route for local governments to seek reimbursement but does not itself provide budget authority or specify what categories of cost are eligible.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute sets the BAC threshold at 0.00 percent—any detectable blood alcohol prohibits carrying the agency‑issued firearm.
“Carry” is defined to include a holster affixed to the officer’s person, making holstered service weapons explicitly covered.
The prohibition applies both on duty and off duty; the only statutory exception is for officers on duty and engaged in undercover assignments.
The bill requires agencies that issue firearms to adopt a written policy implementing the prohibition, but the text does not prescribe testing methods, timelines, or penalties for violations.
Section 2 invokes the Commission on State Mandates process: if the commission finds the bill imposes costs on local agencies, reimbursement will be handled under state law.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definition of “carry”
Subsection (a) creates a statutory definition of “carry” as having direct physical control of or being physically connected to a firearm, and it expressly includes a holstered firearm affixed to an individual. That choice narrows any debate over whether a holstered, duty‑belt weapon counts as carrying under this section and means agencies must treat holstered issued weapons as covered conduct for policy and enforcement purposes.
Agency policy requiring zero‑BAC prohibition
Subsection (b) places a duty on any law enforcement agency that issues a firearm to an employed peace officer to have a policy prohibiting that officer from carrying the agency‑issued firearm when the officer’s BAC exceeds 0.00 percent. The provision shifts the basic rule into statute while leaving the content of the implementing policy—testing, notice, temporary surrender, disciplinary steps—to the agency to define, subject to other legal constraints (e.g., bargaining agreements, privacy laws).
Undercover assignment exception
Subsection (c) creates a narrow carve‑out: the prohibition does not apply to officers who are on duty and engaged in an undercover assignment. That exception recognizes operational realities of certain covert assignments but is narrowly framed; it does not extend to other on‑duty functions (mutual aid, critical incident response), which agencies will need to address in policy drafting.
State mandated costs and reimbursement procedure
Section 2 instructs that if the Commission on State Mandates determines the act imposes state‑mandated costs on local agencies or school districts, reimbursement shall be made under the Government Code procedure for mandated costs. This is a procedural clause—it does not itself define eligible costs or appropriate funding levels, but it preserves the administrative pathway for local entities to seek compensation for new expenses arising from the statute.
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
- Members of the public and communities—by statute, the bill aims to reduce the risk of firearms being carried by officers who have consumed alcohol, which could lower incidents of alcohol‑related misconduct or accidents involving service weapons.
- Law enforcement agencies seeking a clear, statutory standard—departments that already enforce zero‑tolerance policies gain statutory backing that can support liability defenses and clarify leadership expectations.
- Insurance carriers and municipal risk managers—if implemented effectively, the rule could reduce certain liability exposures tied to officer intoxication while armed, potentially affecting claims and premiums.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local law enforcement agencies—responsible for drafting compliant policies, conducting training, developing testing and surrender procedures, and absorbing the administrative and operational costs unless reimbursed.
- Peace officers—face a new statutory limitation on carrying agency‑issued weapons off duty (and on duty outside the undercover exception), which may restrict routines and create disciplinary exposure if enforcement practices are instituted.
- Labor unions and bargaining units—will likely need to negotiate implementation details (testing protocols, discipline, medical or privacy safeguards), consuming bargaining resources and potentially generating grievances or litigation.
- Local governments and taxpayers—if the Commission on State Mandates does not find full reimbursement, agencies bear unfunded costs for implementation and oversight.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between maximizing public safety by imposing a bright‑line, zero‑BAC rule for agency firearms and the practical, legal, and privacy burdens that result from enforcing that rule—especially off duty. A strict statutory standard reduces ambiguity but forces agencies to design intrusive and costly detection and discipline systems, while a permissive approach preserves officer privacy and bargaining flexibility but leaves the public safety objective under‑enforced.
The bill locks a zero‑tolerance BAC standard into statute but leaves critical operational questions open. It does not define who may test an officer or under what circumstances testing is authorized, how to document or challenge a BAC finding, what immediate supervisory actions are required, or what penalties apply.
Those gaps will force agencies to develop protocols that balance investigatory needs, medical privacy, and employment due process—tasks that are legally and technically complex.
The statute also focuses on agency‑issued firearms; it does not address privately owned weapons an officer might carry (where state or local law permits). That narrow scope risks a loophole: an objective of reducing intoxicated officers with guns could be undermined if officers are able to carry non‑issued firearms while over the BAC threshold.
Finally, the 0.00% threshold raises practical detection issues—trace levels of alcohol can be present for legitimate reasons—and may generate disputes about testing accuracy and timing. Agencies will need to decide whether to rely on breath, blood, or other testing methods and how to integrate those methods with collective bargaining and constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.