SB 1105 bars California law enforcement agencies from participating in joint federal or out‑of‑state law enforcement collaborations that facilitate racial or identity profiling or that investigate, arrest, use force against, or otherwise penalize people for constitutionally protected expressive conduct. The bill also limits agencies from acquiring, deploying, or using military equipment that state law has not authorized.
The measure moves oversight of cross‑jurisdictional policing into state hands by requiring written interagency agreements with explicit limitations and by empowering the California Attorney General to review existing and new agreements for compliance with state law. The statute includes a narrow exception preserving federally required immigration‑status information sharing under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and 1644.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill prohibits California agencies from entering or assisting in joint task forces or interagency agreements that involve racial or identity profiling, target First Amendment‑protected expressive conduct, or use unapproved military equipment. It requires that any interagency agreement be memorialized in writing, include the statutory limitations, and be no longer than two years.
Who It Affects
All California police departments (including transit, campus, and school district police), sheriff's departments, district attorney offices, county probation departments, and other state or local entities that employ peace officers under Penal Code Chapter 4.5. It also affects federal and out‑of‑state task forces that rely on California participation and vendors supplying military‑style gear or crowd‑control munitions.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts gatekeeping for federal‑state law‑enforcement collaboration to the Attorney General, creating an approval process that could sever or reshape long‑standing task force partnerships. Agencies will need to revisit written MOUs, procurement of tactical gear, and standard operating procedures for protests and cross‑agency operations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1105 redraws the lines of cooperation between California law enforcement and federal or out‑of‑state partners. At its core the bill says: if a joint task force or interagency agreement would enable racial or identity profiling, or would facilitate investigation or punishment of people for activities protected by the First Amendment, California agencies must not participate — unless state or federal law otherwise requires cooperation.
The bill lists example triggers, including participation in investigations tied to specific federal directives and the deployment of kinetic projectiles or chemical agents against assemblies that do not meet state standards for force.
Operationally, the statute insists that interagency arrangements be written and time‑limited. The Attorney General becomes the gatekeeper: agencies must get the AG's written authorization before creating or renewing an agreement, and must obtain authorization for agreements already in place when the law takes effect.
The AG's review is a legal compliance check; if an agreement is found out of step with state law, the AG is empowered to amend or terminate it. Separately, the bill bars agencies from using their personnel or other resources to assist federal operations that engage in the prohibited activities.The bill also supplies working definitions that determine scope: it enumerates which state and local bodies count as 'California law enforcement agency,' defines 'joint law enforcement task force' with examples of recent federal initiatives, clarifies what 'interagency agreement' covers (including mutual aid), and explains that 'assist' reaches common forms of operational support such as perimeter or backup roles.
Finally, the text preserves a narrow, explicit carve‑out for sharing immigration status information as required by federal statutes, so the restrictions do not alter obligations under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and 1644.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Attorney General must give prior written authorization before a California agency may enter into or renew any interagency agreement with a federal or out‑of‑state law enforcement partner, and must also authorize agreements already in effect when the law takes effect.
Interagency agreements must be in writing, include the statutory limitations on prohibited conduct, and cannot exceed two years in duration.
The bill expressly bars California agencies from assisting operations that deploy kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents against assemblies that fail to meet the standards set in Section 13652.
The statute defines 'assist' to include providing personnel for backup or perimeter control, making routine operational support subject to the law's prohibitions.
SB 1105 does not restrict sending, receiving, maintaining, or requesting immigration‑status information when federal law (8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and 1644) requires or permits that exchange.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Prohibitions on participating in or assisting certain joint task forces
Subdivision (a) is the heart of the bill: it prohibits California agencies from taking part in joint law enforcement task forces or interagency agreements that either enable racial or identity profiling or target constitutionally protected expressive conduct. The subdivision gives concrete examples that trigger the prohibition, including cooperation in investigations tied to a named National Security Presidential Memorandum and the use of kinetic projectiles or chemical agents against assemblies that do not meet state standards. It also bans use, deployment, or acquisition of military equipment not authorized under the state Government Code.
Written agreements and two‑year cap
Subdivision (b) requires that any interagency agreement be memorialized in writing and explicitly include the prohibitions from subdivision (a). It also imposes a maximum duration of two years for such agreements, forcing regular renegotiation and review of cross‑jurisdictional collaborations rather than open‑ended commitments.
Attorney General authorization for new or renewed agreements
Subdivision (c) requires agencies to obtain prior written authorization from the Attorney General before establishing or renewing an interagency agreement. The AG's authorization is framed as a legal compliance determination: the AG must determine the agreement complies with state law before granting written approval. Practically, this creates a pre‑deployment compliance step that agencies must factor into negotiation timelines.
Attorney General review and remedial authority for existing agreements
Subdivision (d) applies to agreements already in effect when the statute becomes operative: agencies must seek AG authorization, and the Attorney General may amend or terminate agreements found noncompliant. This gives the AG not only review but active remedial authority to bring preexisting cooperative arrangements into conformity with California law.
Ban on using state resources to assist prohibited federal operations
Subdivision (e) bars California agencies from using departmental resources or personnel to assist federal or out‑of‑state operations that engage in the prohibited conduct, except where federal or state law requires assistance. The provision is written broadly enough to capture operational support that might previously have been considered routine, such as loaning deputies or providing perimeter control during joint actions.
Definitions that determine scope and reach
Subdivision (f) lists definitions that matter for implementation: it specifies which entities count as 'California law enforcement agency' (covering police departments, transit and campus police, sheriffs, district attorneys, county probation, and other entities employing peace officers), defines 'joint law enforcement task force' with named federal examples, explains what qualifies as an 'interagency agreement,' and defines 'constitutionally protected expressive conduct' with an explicit list. The definition of 'assist' clarifies that typical operational roles such as backup or perimeter control are caught by the prohibition.
Immigration‑status information sharing exception
Subdivision (g) preserves the ability of governmental entities to send, receive, request, maintain, and exchange immigration‑status information where that exchange is authorized by or required under federal law—specifically 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and 1644—so the bill does not attempt to override or obstruct those federal statutory obligations.
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
- Participants in lawful public assemblies and protesters — the bill reduces the risk that state agencies will join federal operations that investigate or penalize protected expressive conduct, and it curbs deployment of certain crowd‑control tactics against assemblies that fall short of state standards.
- Communities subject to discriminatory policing — by prohibiting participation in operations that enable racial or identity profiling, the measure aims to limit state involvement in profiling practices and the downstream harms they cause.
- Civil rights and privacy organizations — the statute gives these groups a clearer statutory standard to challenge cross‑jurisdictional operations and to press for AG enforcement or review when questionable task forces form.
Who Bears the Cost
- California law enforcement agencies (local and state) — agencies face new procedural hurdles (written MOUs, AG approvals), potential operational limits on mutual‑aid and task‑force cooperation, and compliance costs tied to reviewing partnerships and procurement.
- The California Attorney General's Office — the AG must absorb legal review, authorization decisions, and remedial actions (amendment or termination), imposing administrative and litigation risk costs without an appropriation in the text.
- Federal and out‑of‑state task forces and their mission planners — loss of California participation or conditional participation could complicate multijurisdictional investigations, intelligence sharing, and homeland security operations that have relied on local partners.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between two legitimate priorities: protecting civil liberties and preventing discriminatory policing on one hand, and preserving rapid, cooperative responses to crime and national security threats on the other. Tightening state control over cross‑jurisdictional collaboration reduces the risk of abusive federal tactics but also creates friction that can impair multijurisdictional investigations and emergency responses.
The bill creates real implementation and legal tension. First, the statute's effectiveness depends on the Attorney General's review capacity and the clarity of the AG's standards for 'compliance with state law.' The text does not spell out evidentiary or procedural rules for AG review, nor does it set timelines for authorization decisions; that gap risks uneven implementation and potential litigation over delays or denials.
Second, the bill references specific federal directives and tactics (for example, an identified presidential memorandum and named federal task forces). Those references give practical bite but also create ambiguity about how broadly the prohibitions apply when federal guidance evolves.
Agencies will need operational guidance to determine whether a particular request or collaboration 'furthers the objectives' of a listed memorandum, which is a fact‑intensive inquiry that could invite disputes. Finally, while the bill bars assistance for certain protest control tactics and unapproved military equipment, it leaves enforcement to administrative action by the AG rather than creating express criminal penalties or specifying remedies for aggrieved individuals — a design that prioritizes administrative gatekeeping but may limit immediate remedies or deterrence.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.