SB 937 overhauls the statutory framework governing specified crowd‑control tools—flash‑bang grenades, kinetic energy projectiles, and chemical agents—by restricting their use at public assemblies and attaching a suite of operational preconditions where limited deployment is permitted. The text defines the covered devices, narrows lawful use to high‑threshold circumstances, and imposes procedural constraints intended to reduce indiscriminate harm.
This matters for police operations, municipal procurement, and civil liberties. The bill reshapes training expectations, command‑level authorization practices, and tactical choices for law enforcement agencies operating at protests and demonstrations; it will also influence litigation risk and public‑safety planning for jurisdictions that rely on these tools.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 937 bars use of flash‑bangs, kinetic energy projectiles, and chemical agents to disperse assemblies except in narrowly defined situations where an objectively reasonable officer faces a threat to life or serious injury or must control an objectively dangerous unlawful situation. The bill conditions any permitted use on POST‑approved crowd‑control training and a set of procedural requirements—de‑escalation attempts, audible warnings in multiple locations and languages, targeted application, medical assistance, and limits on aiming and proximity to children.
Who It Affects
All California law enforcement agencies (state, local, and explicitly listed federal agencies) that deploy the listed devices, plus the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), which must provide the required training. Vendors and procurement officers who manage stockpiles of less‑lethal munitions, public safety planners for events and demonstrations, and civil‑rights attorneys tracking use‑of‑force policies will also be directly affected.
Why It Matters
The bill elevates procedural hurdles for deploying potentially harmful crowd‑control measures and creates clearer statutory boundaries for when those measures are lawful. That shifts tactical incentives for police, may reduce the use of certain devices in demonstrations, and creates new training and authorization duties that agencies must absorb.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 937 names three categories of crowd‑control tools—kinetic energy projectiles (rubber bullets, beanbag rounds, etc.), flash‑bang or stun explosives, and chemical agents (tear gas, pepper spray, pepper balls)—and makes those categories central to a new set of use rules. The statute generally prohibits using these tools to disperse assemblies, but it permits exceptions when an officer’s use is objectively reasonable to prevent death or serious bodily injury or to safely bring an objectively dangerous, unlawful situation under control.
Before any limited deployment, officers must satisfy multiple operational conditions. POST must provide training on proper crowd‑control use; de‑escalation or alternatives must be attempted when reasonable; repeated audible announcements—delivered from various locations and in appropriate languages—must warn people of the intent to deploy specified devices; and people must be given a reasonable opportunity to disperse.
The bill requires law enforcement to make an effort to distinguish violent actors from nonviolent bystanders and to target devices at those identified as violent, forbids indiscriminate aiming into crowds, and mandates proportionality in frequency and intensity.The text adds specific safety constraints: projectiles must not be aimed at the head, neck, or other vital organs; flash‑bangs should not be used near schools, parks, or where children are visibly present; officers should minimize impact on bystanders, medical personnel, and journalists; personnel should attempt to extract individuals in distress; and medical care must be promptly provided when trained staff are available or it is safe to procure assistance. The statute also bars using flash‑bangs for immigration enforcement and excludes correctional or county detention facilities from the section’s reach.Operationally, SB 937 places command‑level decisionmaking at the center of any tear gas or flash‑bang deployment by requiring authorization from the commanding officer on scene.
It also expressly allows agencies to adopt more restrictive policies than the statute requires, while defining the covered terms and extending the law’s reach to federal agencies operating in California. Several drafting anomalies in the text—duplicate and inconsistently numbered definitions and minor typographical errors—will require clarification to avoid confusion during implementation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill prohibits use of kinetic energy projectiles, flash‑bang grenades, and chemical agents for dispersing an assembly, protest, or demonstration except under narrow, life‑threatening or objectively dangerous circumstances.
Any officer who deploys these tools must have completed crowd‑control training provided by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST).
Before deployment officers must, when reasonable, attempt de‑escalation, make repeated audible warnings (from multiple locations and in multiple languages where appropriate), and give persons a reasonable opportunity to disperse.
Flash‑bangs cannot be used near school grounds, parks, or where children are visibly present and are forbidden for immigration enforcement; kinetic projectiles must not be aimed at the head, neck, or other vital organs.
The statute excludes county detention facilities and Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation correctional facilities, and it explicitly treats federal law enforcement agencies as covered entities for the purposes of the restrictions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Baseline prohibition on dispersal
This subsection creates the core statutory restriction by prohibiting use of the identified categories of devices to disperse assemblies, protests, or demonstrations. Practically, it makes dispersal with those tools the baseline unlawful outcome and flips the operational posture: deployment is permitted only as an exception, not as a presumptive tactic.
Narrow exception tied to objective reasonableness and procedural mandates
Subdivision (b) sets the exception: a trained peace officer may deploy the listed devices only when use is objectively reasonable to defend against a threat to life or serious bodily injury or to control an objectively dangerous unlawful situation. It then enumerates operational preconditions—de‑escalation attempts, multilingual audible warnings from multiple locations, opportunity to disperse, efforts to identify and target violent actors, proportionality, minimization of bystander harm, extraction of individuals in distress, and prompt medical aid when safe. These numbered requirements operate as compliance checkpoints that agencies will need to operationalize into policy, training, and after‑action reviews.
Aiming prohibitions, limits on uses, and command authorization
The bill forbids aiming kinetic projectiles at the head, neck, or other vital organs and disallows use of the devices solely for curfew violations, verbal threats, or noncompliance. It contains a command‑level authorization rule—phrased specifically for tear gas (and ambiguously for flash‑bangs in the text)—that requires a commanding officer on scene to approve deployment, placing a clear chain‑of‑command constraint on tactical decisions.
Ban on immigration‑purpose use and room for stricter local policies
One subsection expressly prohibits use of flash‑bang grenades for immigration enforcement. Another subsection clarifies that local agencies may adopt more stringent policies than the statute requires, preserving municipal authority to limit or ban particular devices beyond the state floor.
Definitions and scope—device categories, chemical agents, and covered agencies
This portion supplies statutory definitions for 'chemical agents,' 'flash‑bang grenades,' and 'kinetic energy projectiles,' and it defines 'law enforcement agency' to include state, local, and federal agencies. The definitions are operationally important because they list specific examples (CN/CS tear gas, pepper balls, rubber/plastic bullets, blast balls, concussion grenades) that guide what equipment the restrictions apply to. The text, however, shows duplicated and inconsistent numbering of these definitions that will need editorial correction.
Correctional facility exemption
The statute expressly excludes its application within county detention facilities and Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation correctional institutions. That carves out the custodial environment from the crowd‑control rules applicable in public, non‑custodial assemblies.
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 at protests and public assemblies: Gains from higher legal thresholds and procedural safeguards (warnings, targeted application, medical aid) that reduce the risk of indiscriminate or unnecessary use of painful, disorienting, or injurious devices.
- Journalists, medical personnel, and bystanders: Explicit statutory language requires minimizing incidental impacts on these groups and bans use near schools and places with visible children, which increases legal protection for nonparticipant observers and first responders.
- Local communities and event planners: Clearer statutory limits create predictable rules for policing demonstrations, which can lower the chance of mass injury events and the liability exposure that follows.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local and state law enforcement agencies: Will need to fund and schedule POST crowd‑control training, update use‑of‑force policies, train supervisors on authorization protocols, and potentially change procurement if agencies can no longer rely on certain devices for crowd management.
- Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST): Faces an administrative burden to develop, deliver, and maintain crowd‑control curricula at scale, which may require new resources or reallocation of existing training capacity.
- Vendors and procurement divisions: Suppliers of kinetic rounds, flash‑bangs, and certain chemical agents may lose market demand for these products from California agencies and must adjust contracting and inventory practices.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing a strong statutory restriction on harmful crowd‑control tools—which advances public safety and civil‑liberties concerns—against the need to preserve officers’ ability to respond to sudden, life‑threatening violence; the bill tightens the leash on dangerous tactics but forces agencies to shoulder operational burdens, interpretive uncertainty, and potential constraints on rapid tactical responses.
SB 937 advances restrictive, operationally focused limits on potentially harmful crowd‑control measures, but the statute raises implementation and drafting issues that could frustrate consistent application. 'Objectively reasonable' and 'objectively dangerous' are legal standards that courts will interpret case by case; in practice, they require agencies to translate broad legal language into discrete policy triggers and documentation practices to defend deployments. Operational demands—targeting violent individuals, issuing multilingual, multi‑location announcements, and extracting individuals in distress—are resource‑intensive and may be impractical in rapidly evolving incidents without additional staffing or new equipment.
The bill also contains drafting inconsistencies: duplicated definition blocks, misnumbered subsections, and a somewhat unclear sentence about commanding‑officer authorization that appears to conflate tear gas and flash‑bang approval. Those textual ambiguities will complicate training and could invite judicial or administrative challenges seeking interpretive clarity.
Finally, extending the statute to federal agencies operating in California raises preemption and enforcement questions that the text does not address, and the lack of an express reporting, audit, or oversight mechanism leaves it to agencies and courts to police compliance.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.