This bill conditions any cooperation by California law enforcement with federal immigration authorities on two things: (1) that the cooperation would not violate state or federal law or policy, and (2) that the individual meets narrow, enumerated criminal‑history thresholds. It ties the permitted activities under Section 7284.6 of the California Values Act to a list of qualifying convictions and circumstances (serious or violent felonies, certain recent misdemeanors and older felonies for specific offenses, sex/arson registry status, federal aggravated felonies, and outstanding federal felony arrest warrants).
Why it matters: the measure replaces broad discretion or routine data‑sharing with bright‑line eligibility rules and timing conditions (including a magistrate probable‑cause trigger). That reshapes how sheriffs and city police handle detainers, intake screening, and information requests from ICE, and creates administrative and legal questions about verification of convictions, lookback windows, and interplay with prior reclassifications under the 2014 Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill permits cooperation with federal immigration officials only where such cooperation is lawful and where the person meets specified criminal‑history criteria set out in the statute (including categories of felonies, certain misdemeanors within five years, and felonies within 15 years for enumerated offenses). It also requires cooperation when a magistrate finds probable cause on qualifying felony charges.
Who It Affects
County sheriffs, municipal police departments, jail intake staff, state and local prosecutors, ICE field offices, defense counsel, and community legal services that represent noncitizen detainees will face changed triggers and documentation requirements for immigration referrals.
Why It Matters
The bill narrows operational triggers for detainers and information sharing, shifting emphasis from discretionary cooperation to a checklist of qualifying offenses and timing rules; that alters custody decisions, resource priorities, and legal exposure for local agencies.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The statute creates a gatekeeping rule: local law enforcement may cooperate with federal immigration authorities only if doing so would not run afoul of state or federal law and is consistent with the California Values Act. It then pins the permitted forms of cooperation — the specific actions listed in Section 7284.6 — to explicit criminal‑history criteria.
In practice, a request from ICE will no longer be treated as generally actionable; instead, an agency must determine whether the subject meets one of the statutory gates before proceeding.
Those gates are a mix of categorical and time‑limited rules. Immediate eligibility includes convictions for serious or violent felonies as defined in Penal Code sections governing sentencing enhancements, and any felony punishable by state prison.
For a broader set of offenses (assault, battery, sexual offenses, theft/fraud, weapons offenses, gang crimes, trafficking, and many others spelled out in the statute), the bill imposes lookback windows: a misdemeanor that can be charged as a felony triggers cooperation only if the conviction is within the past five years, while convictions that are felonies trigger cooperation only if they occurred within the prior 15 years. The bill also lists standalone categories that trigger cooperation, such as current registration on the California Sex and Arson Registry and federal aggravated felonies or outstanding federal felony arrest warrants identified by DHS/ICE.The bill carves out a categorical prohibition tied to the 2014 Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act: it bars cooperation where the person’s misdemeanor was previously a felony, or the person’s felony‑to‑misdemeanor reclassification occurred before that 2014 law amended the Penal Code.
Finally, the statute creates a procedural trigger: when an individual is arrested on a qualifying felony charge and a magistrate finds probable cause at the initial appearance, the local agency must cooperate with ICE under the specified subsection of Section 7284.6. Those procedural mechanics change how and when detainers and immigration notifications can be honored at intake or after an arrest.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill restricts cooperation to persons convicted of serious or violent felonies, or any felony punishable by state prison — plain categorical triggers for ICE assistance.
For a long list of specified offenses (assaults, sexual crimes, theft/fraud, weapons offenses, gang crimes, trafficking, etc.), the bill uses lookback windows: misdemeanors that are also felony‑wobblers qualify if within 5 years; felonies qualify if within 15 years.
Current registrants on the California Sex and Arson Registry, persons with federal aggravated‑felony convictions under INA §101(a)(43), and individuals identified by ICE as subject to an outstanding federal felony arrest warrant are all eligible for cooperation.
The statute bars cooperation for individuals whose offenses were reduced from felonies to misdemeanors before the 2014 Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act amendments — preserving those earlier reclassifications from triggering ICE assistance.
If a person is arrested on a qualifying felony and a magistrate makes a probable‑cause finding pursuant to Penal Code §872 at the initial appearance, the bill requires local law enforcement to cooperate with ICE under the relevant subsection of Section 7284.6.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Conditional cooperation tied to law and the California Values Act
This opening subsection sets the basic rule: cooperation with federal immigration authorities is permitted only where it does not conflict with federal or state law or policy and where it falls within the confines of the California Values Act. Practically, that means local agencies must perform a legal check before any contact with ICE — they cannot rely on routine or blanket agreements to assist.
Primary eligibility gates: serious felonies, prison‑eligible felonies, and lookback windows
The statute creates three principal pathways that make a person eligible for cooperation: (1) convictions for serious or violent felonies as defined by two Penal Code sections used for sentence enhancements; (2) any conviction that is punishable by state prison; and (3) a large, enumerated group of offenses that qualify only if the defendant was convicted within specific time frames — misdemeanors that are wobblers qualify if within five years, and felonies qualify if within 15 years. Agencies will need reliable access to conviction dates and classification information to apply these timing rules.
Enumerated offense list and breadth of included crimes
The bill itemizes a wide spectrum of criminal statutes — from violent crimes and sexual offenses to property crimes, fraud, gang offenses, weapon offenses, DUI felonies, human trafficking, and public‑safety threats — any of which can trigger cooperation under the lookback rules. The list frequently uses “but not limited to” language, meaning courts and agencies may need to interpret whether analogous statutes fall inside the statutory net; that creates compliance and litigation considerations.
Registry status and federal felony predicates
Beyond state convictions, the bill authorizes cooperation when the person is a current registrant on the California Sex and Arson Registry, or when the person has a qualifying federal conviction (an aggravated felony under INA §101(a)(43)) or is identified by DHS/ICE as the subject of an outstanding federal felony arrest warrant. This provision explicitly bridges state and federal enforcement by permitting cooperation based on federal classifications and ICE’s own warrant identifications.
Pre‑2014 reclassification bar and magistrate probable‑cause trigger
Subdivision (a)(6) prevents cooperation for individuals whose misdemeanors were formerly felonies or whose crimes were reclassified before the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act of 2014 changed Penal Code classifications. Separately, subdivision (b) imposes a procedural duty: where someone is arrested for a qualifying felony and a magistrate finds probable cause at the initial appearance, local law enforcement must cooperate with ICE under the specified subsection of Section 7284.6. That ties cooperation to both conviction history and an in‑court evidentiary finding.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Immigration across all five countries.
Explore Immigration 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
- Noncitizen community members seeking police services — the statute narrows routine cooperation and should reduce arrests or checks based solely on immigration inquiries, potentially improving willingness to report crimes and cooperate with investigations.
- Local jurisdictions and police departments that prioritize community policing — they receive a clearer statutory ceiling on when ICE assistance is permissible, which can protect local discretion and reduce political pressure to honor broad detainers.
- Defense attorneys and immigrant‑rights organizations — the bill creates concrete legal thresholds that can be litigated and relied upon to contest improper cooperation or detainer‑based transfers.
Who Bears the Cost
- Sheriffs, jail intake staff, and municipal police — they must verify whether an individual meets complex eligibility criteria (conviction types, lookback periods, registry status, and federal classifications), adding administrative workload and potential legal liability for mistakes.
- County prosecutors and magistrates — the magistrate probable‑cause requirement increases the role of early judicial findings in immigration cooperation and may require expedited hearings or additional docketing resources.
- ICE and federal immigration enforcement — the statute narrows the pool of cases in which local agencies can assist, limiting access to state custody and local data for nonqualifying persons.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between protecting community trust and civil‑rights goals by strictly limiting local help to federal immigration, and the public‑safety imperative of allowing cooperation for individuals with serious or dangerous criminal histories; the bill attempts a middle path with bright‑line lists, but those lists shift burdens onto verification, judicial timing, and intergovernmental coordination, with no clean way to fully satisfy both goals.
The bill trades broad discretion for a complex eligibility checklist. That reduces uncertainty about when cooperation is allowed, but it pushes the difficulty into verification: how will local agencies reliably and quickly confirm conviction classifications, conviction dates, or federal aggravated‑felony status at intake?
Many counties lack interoperable records or legal staff to make these determinations, so the practical effect may be inconsistent application across jurisdictions.
Another implementation tension is statutory ambiguity. The offense list repeatedly uses “but not limited to” citations to Penal Code sections, which invites dispute over analogous or hybrid crimes.
The interplay with federal determinations (aggravated felonies under the INA) and ICE’s own warrant identifications raises questions about evidentiary standards and notice. Finally, tying cooperation to a magistrate’s probable‑cause finding creates pressure on court calendars and could incentivize tactical charging or plea timing — actors may seek to manipulate the procedural pathway that triggers ICE cooperation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.