SCR 23 is a California concurrent resolution that proclaims Monday, May 5, 2025, as California Peace Officers’ Memorial Day and urges Californians to remember officers who died in the line of duty. The measure lists several individual peace officers by name and date of death and calls for public recognition and ceremonies.
The resolution is purely ceremonial: it records legislative recognition, directs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit copies for distribution, and carries no appropriation or regulatory mandate. For agencies, memorial organizations, and families, the text matters because it creates an official legislative record of who the Legislature chose to honor and signals state-level attention to certain inclusions — including one officer specifically noted as "not yet enrolled" and another designated as a "distant past honored officer."
At a Glance
What It Does
As a concurrent resolution, SCR 23 records legislative recognition of named peace officers who died in the line of duty and urges public observance. It lists specific individuals across different categories (recent deaths, a prior-year un-enrolled officer, and a distant past honoree) and instructs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit copies for distribution.
Who It Affects
Families of the named officers, the law enforcement agencies that employed them, organizations that manage memorial enrollments and ceremonies (local and state), and legislative staff who maintain official records. It also touches local governments and police departments that plan memorial events.
Why It Matters
The resolution creates an official, public legislative record of recognition that can be used by memorial organizers and agencies for ceremonies and enrollment decisions. Although symbolic and nonbinding, its selective naming — including retroactive recognition — establishes a precedent about how the Legislature documents and expands memorial honors.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SCR 23 uses the vehicle of a concurrent resolution — a nonbinding legislative instrument — to place the Legislature on record recognizing fallen California peace officers and to set aside a day for public remembrance. The body of the resolution opens with several customary "whereas" clauses that frame policing as vital and dangerous work; those prefatory statements provide the rhetorical basis for the roll call of names that follows.
The operative text does three concrete things: it names specific officers killed in 2024 and records their end-of-watch dates; it explicitly acknowledges one officer from a prior year as "not yet enrolled" in whatever official channels record fallen officers; and it names a fourth individual as a "distant past honored officer" whose death occurred in 2004. By distinguishing categories the resolution signals legislative awareness of memorial enrollment processes without changing those processes in law.Because the measure is a concurrent resolution, it creates no new statutory duties, appropriations, or benefits.
Agencies and memorial organizations receive a written, public acknowledgment they can cite; families receive a formal legislative recognition. The resolution also instructs the Secretary of the Senate to distribute copies, a small administrative step that helps ensure the recognition is available to local governments and memorial groups planning events or updates to databases.Practically speaking, expect this text to be used as a reference document: memorial coordinators and police department public affairs units will cite it when updating honor rolls or planning ceremonies, and families may use it as part of outreach or to support enrollment in state or national memorials.
Because the resolution does not change eligibility standards or allocate funding, any operational follow-up (events, plaques, travel assistance, ceremony logistics) depends on separate agency actions or nonprofit support.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution names three officers killed in 2024: Officer Matthew Bowen (Vacaville PD; End of Watch July 11, 2024), Deputy Alfredo M. Flores (Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department; End of Watch April 20, 2024), and Officer Austin Christopher Machitar (San Diego PD; End of Watch August 26, 2024).
It recognizes one officer as 'not yet enrolled' — Officer Chad E. Swanson (Manhattan Beach PD; End of Watch October 4, 2023) — calling legislative attention to a prior-year case that has not been formally enrolled in related honors.
The resolution explicitly lists a 'distant past honored officer,' Officer Terry D. Long (El Monte PD; End of Watch August 22, 2004), demonstrating that the Legislature can selectively include historically earlier deaths in modern memorial observances.
SCR 23 directs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit copies of the resolution to the author for distribution; the document is filed with the Secretary of State and is recorded as Chapter 76.
Legislative counsel flagged no fiscal committee and the resolution contains no appropriation language, indicating the Legislature treated this as a ceremonial, non‑fiscal action.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Framing the memorial and rationale
The preamble lays out the Legislature’s reasoning: it emphasizes the public-service role of peace officers and establishes the moral case for an annual memorial day. Those clauses serve only rhetorical and justificatory purposes — they do not create obligations — but they set the tone for including particular names and for urging public observance.
Lists recent line-of-duty deaths by name and department
A core provision formally records three officers who died in 2024, providing names, employing agency, and exact dates of death. That text creates a public legislative citation that family members and agencies can reference in memorial materials; it also establishes which individuals the Legislature selected for recognition in this round.
Flags one 'not yet enrolled' and one historical honoree
The resolution separately acknowledges an officer from 2023 as not yet enrolled and includes an officer from 2004 as a distant past honoree. Those distinctions are meaningful because they draw legislative attention to enrollment status and historical inclusions without amending memorial enrollment rules or creating retroactive benefits.
Designates a memorial day and urges community remembrance
The operative language designates a specific day as California Peace Officers’ Memorial Day and urges Californians to remember the fallen and appreciate active officers. This is hortatory: it signals public expectation for ceremonies and acknowledgement but imposes no legal duty on citizens, agencies, or employers.
Directs transmission and documents filing status
The resolution directs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit copies of the resolution to the author for distribution and is filed with the Secretary of State as Chapter 76. That administrative direction ensures the text is distributed to interested parties and preserved in the public legislative record.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government 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
- Families of the named officers — they receive formal legislative recognition that can be cited in commemorations and may assist in establishing a record of sacrifice for public or private memorials.
- The listed law enforcement agencies (Vacaville PD, LASD, San Diego PD, Manhattan Beach PD, El Monte PD) — departments gain a public acknowledgment that supports internal morale, recruitment messaging, and local ceremonies.
- Memorial organizations and local governments that run observances — they receive a citation they can use to justify ceremonies, updates to honor rolls, and fundraising or program planning.
- Community groups and victims’ advocates — they gain an official focal point for civic remembrance that can be integrated into public events and educational programming.
Who Bears the Cost
- Secretary of the Senate and legislative staff — minor administrative work to copy and transmit the resolution and to file the document with the Secretary of State.
- Law enforcement agencies and local governments tasked with organizing memorial events — staff time and limited local resources for ceremonies, outreach, and potential updates to physical or digital memorials.
- Nonprofit memorial organizations that may be expected to respond to legislative recognition by altering plaques or enrollment lists — they may face volunteer or budgetary burdens to accommodate additions.
- State agencies or programs that receive informal public inquiries after the resolution — although the resolution creates no funding mandate, affected agencies may need to field questions or provide records.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is symbolic recognition versus substantive obligation: the Legislature can—and often should—honor fallen officers publicly, but doing so through nonbinding resolutions raises expectations without creating resources or clear administrative pathways for enrollment, commemoration, or family support. That trade-off forces a choice between limited ceremonial acts and a more durable, resource‑backed approach to memorial recognition.
SCR 23 is straightforward as a ceremonial instrument, but its practical effects raise implementation questions. By naming individuals and calling out one officer as "not yet enrolled," the Legislature signals concern about enrollment processes without specifying who is authorized to correct or update memorial rolls, or what evidentiary standard governs enrollment.
That creates an expectation that legislative recognition can influence administrative lists even though the resolution does not alter agency rules or budgets.
A second tension concerns precedent and scope. Including a distant past death alongside recent fatalities invites questions about selection criteria: why this historical case but not others; what review process generated the list; and whether future resolutions will expand enrollments.
Because the resolution imposes no fiscal or procedural requirements, families or local actors seeking tangible support (travel assistance, burial honors, state-funded ceremonies) may reasonably expect more than the text authorizes, producing friction between symbolic recognition and practical needs.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.