SB 1056 adds Penal Code section 1054.11 and requires courts in criminal cases that involve sexually explicit material depicting or involving an adult victim to issue protective orders that prevent unnecessary copying, transmission, or dissemination of that material. The bill bars attorneys from giving defendants, family members, or others copies of such material unless the court, after a hearing and a showing of good cause, specifically permits it.
The bill allows counsel to share copies with their employees or court-appointed assistants only under the terms of a court-issued protective order and requires attorneys to warn recipients that further dissemination is prohibited. It preserves the prosecution’s duty to disclose the existence of relevant or exculpatory evidence and states that admissibility rules remain unchanged.
The change extends procedural protections that currently exist for child pornography evidence to sexually explicit material involving adult victims, creating new discovery controls and operational obligations for defense teams, prosecutors, and courts.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires the court, on motion or sua sponte, to enter a protective order in cases with sexually explicit material involving an adult victim and restricts unpermitted copying and distribution of that material. Attorneys may only provide copies to staff or court-appointed helpers under the protective order and must notify recipients that further dissemination is forbidden.
Who It Affects
Defense attorneys and their staff, prosecutors, courts handling discovery disputes, forensic vendors, and adult victims whose sexually explicit images or recordings appear in criminal cases. Defendants' access to copies of such material is limited absent a court finding of good cause.
Why It Matters
The bill tightens discovery controls around intimate images of adults, shifting how courts balance victim privacy against defendants’ access to evidence. It imposes new procedural steps—hearings and protective-order terms—that will affect case preparation, evidence handling, and courtroom logistics.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1056 directs courts to issue protective orders in any criminal prosecution involving sexually explicit material that depicts or involves an adult victim. The statute is mandatory: the judge must issue the order either after a motion from a party or on the court’s own initiative.
The protective order must include conditions sufficient to prevent unnecessary copying, transmission, or dissemination of the material, which pushes judges to articulate specific controls rather than leave custody and handling to routine discovery practice.
Under the bill, attorneys cannot give copies of those materials to defendants, family members, or anyone else unless the court first holds a hearing and finds good cause to permit distribution. At the same time, counsel may provide copies to their own employees or to court-appointed assistants who are involved in preparing the defense—provided those disclosures comply with the terms of the court’s protective order.
The attorney must inform any recipient that further dissemination is prohibited; the statute thus places an affirmative notice duty on counsel in addition to the court’s order.The text preserves two key prosecution obligations: it does not excuse the state from disclosing the existence of relevant or exculpatory evidence, and it says the statute is not intended to affect admissibility of evidence at trial. Practically, that means defense teams should expect access to information that such material exists and to contest admissibility or obtain court-supervised access; however, the bill narrows how and whether counsel may receive and duplicate copies.
The statute leaves implementation decisions—how courts structure supervised viewings, secure storage, redaction, or forensic review—to judicial practice and protective-order terms, which will be where most operational detail is decided.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The court must issue a protective order in any criminal case involving sexually explicit material depicting or involving an adult victim, either on motion or on the court’s own motion.
An attorney may not disclose copies of such material to a defendant, the defendant’s family, or others unless the court permits it after a hearing and a showing of good cause.
Counsel may provide copies to their employees or to court-appointed persons assisting in case preparation only under the protective order’s terms, and must inform recipients that further dissemination is prohibited.
The statute explicitly does not relieve the prosecution of its duty to disclose the existence of any relevant or exculpatory evidence.
The bill states it does not change the admissibility of evidence, leaving judicial rules of evidence and trial practice intact.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Mandatory protective order for cases with adult sexually explicit material
This paragraph requires the court to enter a protective order whenever the case involves sexually explicit material depicting or involving an adult victim. The order must include conditions sufficient to prevent unnecessary copying, transmission, or dissemination. Practically, judges will need to define what controls—secure storage, sealed exhibits, supervised viewings, redaction, or limited electronic access—satisfy that standard.
General prohibition on giving copies to defendants or third parties
This clause bars attorneys from disclosing or permitting copies of the protected material to defendants, their family members, or others unless the court allows it after a hearing and a showing of good cause. The provision shifts the burden onto defense teams to justify why a copy is necessary, creating a formalized discovery hurdle rather than informal inspection practice.
Limited disclosure to counsel staff and court-appointed assistants under the order
Subdivision (b) authorizes disclosure to persons employed by the attorney or to court-appointed assistance—but only in accordance with the protective order. It also requires attorneys to notify recipients that they may not further disseminate the material. This places operational obligations on defense firms and appointed experts to track recipients and enforce non-dissemination, and it gives courts leverage to tailor access by role and task.
Preserves prosecution’s disclosure duty
This clause clarifies that the statute does not excuse the prosecution from disclosing the existence of relevant or exculpatory evidence. The prosecutor must still inform defense counsel that such material exists, which preserves the core discovery obligation but leaves open the question of how much access the defense receives.
Does not alter admissibility rules
The statute states it is not intended to affect the admissibility of evidence in court. That keeps evidentiary standards, hearsay rules, and foundation requirements in place; the provision prevents the protective-order regime from being used as a backdoor to exclude or admit material outside normal evidentiary practice.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal 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
- Adult victims whose sexually explicit images or recordings appear in criminal proceedings — the bill reduces risk of unnecessary copying and wider online dissemination, increasing privacy protections.
- Prosecutors and victim advocates — the protective-order baseline gives the state clearer tools to limit secondary victimization through uncontrolled distribution during discovery.
- Courts — judges gain an explicit statutory hook to craft tailored discovery protections and to manage sensitive exhibits without relying solely on common-law or local rules.
Who Bears the Cost
- Defendants — the restriction on receiving copies can complicate defense investigation, forensic review, and strategy, forcing them to seek court permission and potentially to rely on supervised inspections instead of independent analysis.
- Defense counsel and their employees — firms must implement secure handling procedures, track disclosures, and litigate good-cause hearings, increasing administrative and litigation costs.
- Forensic vendors and service providers — companies that handle digital evidence will face tighter custody, access, and nondissemination requirements, which may require contract changes and additional security measures.
- Trial courts — judges and court staff will carry additional burdens to hold hearings, draft precise protective orders, and supervise compliance, potentially increasing docket time for discovery disputes.
- Media outlets and third parties — the statute narrows their ability to obtain and publish copies during pretrial phases, raising conflicts between transparency and privacy.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between protecting adult victims from further harm caused by unnecessary copying and dissemination of sexually explicit material, and preserving a defendant’s ability to access, copy, and independently analyze evidence necessary for a fair defense; the bill resolves part of that conflict by narrowing physical distribution but leaves courts to decide how to balance privacy and due process in practice.
SB 1056 sets a clear policy preference for protecting adult victims’ intimate materials, but it leaves many implementation details to courts. The statute does not define what constitutes adequate protective-order conditions; judges will need to articulate standards for secure inspection, whether copies can be provided for independent forensic analysis, and how electronic evidence is stored and transmitted.
Absent statutory guidance, disparate local practices are likely until appellate courts develop uniform tests for what prevents “unnecessary” copying or dissemination.
The bill also creates operational friction with defendants’ constitutional rights. Restricting copies can be defensible for privacy, but effective defense often requires independent forensic work, which in turn requires access to duplicable evidence.
The statute preserves the prosecution’s duty to disclose existence of material and leaves admissibility untouched, but those protections do not substitute for the practical need to examine metadata, create forensic images, or test authenticity. Finally, enforcement mechanisms and sanctions for unauthorized dissemination are not specified in the text; remedies will depend on courts’ contempt powers or existing discovery-sanction frameworks, which may produce uneven remedies and uncertain deterrent effects.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.