California
California has no forensic science commission or analyst license, and its lab accreditation rules reach only DNA work. Since 2023 the State has widened habeas relief when forensic science changes, expanded postconviction discovery, ordered a new audit of untested sexual assault kits, and required disclosure when police reports are drafted with AI.
At a glance
- Oversight body
- None. No statute creates a standing forensic science commission or independent crime lab oversight body. The Department of Justice runs the state DNA databank and designates which public crime labs may upload crime scene profiles (Penal Code 297(a)). Penal Code 11062 created a one-time Crime Laboratory Review Task Force, chaired by the Department, which had to report on the crime lab system by July 1, 2009; it had no enforcement power.
- Lab accreditation
- Required for DNA databank work only. Only Department labs and designated public crime labs that meet the FBI Quality Assurance Standards and are accredited by a body approved by the National DNA Index System may analyze and upload profiles to the state and national databanks (Penal Code 297, last amended in 2006). Profiles from private labs may be uploaded only through a qualifying public lab after a quality review. Post-conviction DNA testing must use a lab that meets the FBI standards; accreditation by A2LA, ASCLD/LAB, or ANSI-ASQ FQS is deemed to satisfy that rule (Penal Code 1405(h)(2)). No statutory accreditation rule was found for latent prints, firearms, toxicology, or digital evidence.
- Analyst licensing
- None
- Admissibility standard
- Evidence Code 801 and 802, unchanged since they were enacted in 1965 (Evid. Code 801). No bill enacted in 2023 to 2026 amends them, so California has not adopted the 2023 change to Federal Rule 702. Courts apply the Kelly general acceptance test to new scientific techniques and act as gatekeepers under Sargon. The opinions, People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24 and Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747, could not be checked from official sources on October 19, 2026.
- Post-conviction forensic relief
- Yes. A habeas petition may rest on false evidence, which by statute includes expert opinion that the expert has repudiated or that the state of scientific knowledge or later research has undermined (Penal Code 1473(b)(2)). It may also rest on new evidence (1473(b)(1)(C)) or on a significant dispute in the petitioner’s favor about expert medical, scientific, or forensic testimony that more likely than not affected the outcome (1473(b)(1)(D)). Other routes are the motion for forensic DNA testing (1405), the motion to vacate for people no longer in custody (1473.7), the compensation finding after relief (1485.55), and postconviction discovery (1054.9).
- DNA database scope
- Under Proposition 69 (2004): every adult arrested for or charged with any felony; anyone convicted of or found not guilty by reason of insanity of any felony; juveniles adjudicated for any felony; and people required to register under Penal Code 290 or 457.1 (Penal Code 296). Only Department labs may upload arrestee and offender profiles.
Changes, 2023 to 2026
Survivors may defer testing of a sexual assault kit
Penal Code 680, the Sexual Assault Victims’ DNA Bill of Rights, already let a victim ask that a kit not be tested. SB 733 restructures that right. A survivor aged 18 or older who has not decided whether to report may ask that the evidence not be tested. The investigating agency then holds the kit, or the lab returns it, until the survivor asks for testing.
For practitioners: Agencies holding deferred kits should track them and submit them for testing when the survivor asks.
Police reports drafted with AI must say so
New Penal Code 13663 requires each agency to have a policy that any official report written fully or partly with AI carries a disclosure statement and the officer’s signature. The first AI draft must be kept as long as the official report. A draft other than the official report is not an officer’s statement. Agencies must keep an audit trail, and vendors may not share or sell agency data except as the section allows.
For practitioners: Ask for the first AI draft and the audit trail when a report carries the disclosure.
Postconviction discovery reaches more cases
Discovery under Penal Code 1054.9 in habeas and motion-to-vacate cases now covers any felony that led to state prison. Before, it covered only serious or violent felonies with sentences of 15 years or more. Discovery materials now include materials held by the prosecution and law enforcement that tend to negate guilt, mitigate the offense or sentence, or are otherwise favorable, and anything the person would get if tried today. For felony convictions on or after July 1, 2026 that lead to state prison, trial counsel must keep the client’s file for the term of imprisonment; an electronic copy counts only if every item is copied digitally in color.
For practitioners: In any felony case that led to state prison, use 1054.9 to get lab reports and bench notes after good-faith efforts to get them from trial counsel fail.
Facial recognition barred in new traffic camera programs
Each act added a camera enforcement program to the Vehicle Code: sections 22425 (2024), 22435 (2025), and 22445 and 21455.9 (2026). Each section says the use of facial recognition technology with the system “shall be prohibited.” Sections 22425, 22435, and 22445 are repealed January 1, 2032.
For practitioners: The ban covers only these camera programs. No California statute regulates police facial recognition in general.
Who picks the lab for post-conviction DNA testing
The lab for testing under Penal Code 1405 is now agreed between the movant and “the Attorney General or district attorney” in any case. Before, the district attorney agreed in noncapital cases and the Attorney General in capital cases. The rest of 1405 changed only to gender-neutral pronouns. The act also lets the prosecuting agency, not only the Attorney General, see confidential defense funding records on appeal or collateral review (Penal Code 987.9).
For practitioners: The testing standards and the lab quality rule did not change.
County DNA Identification Fund deposits extended to January 1, 2028
Government Code 76104.6 funds county DNA Identification Funds through a Proposition 69 penalty assessment. Deposits could run through the 20th year after first collection. AB 3042 extends them to January 1, 2028, or longer if needed for lease or leaseback payments.
For practitioners: This county DNA funding ends January 1, 2028 unless it is extended again.
Easier habeas standards for new evidence and expert disputes
New evidence under Penal Code 1473(b)(1)(C) no longer must have been undiscoverable with due diligence. It must be new, presented without substantial delay, admissible, and material and credible enough that it more likely than not would have changed the outcome. The expert testimony ground in 1473(b)(1)(D) now reaches testimony “at trial or a hearing” that “more likely than not affected the outcome of the case.” Before, the testimony had to have been introduced at trial and contributed to the conviction. The act also allows remote appearance and presumes relief should be granted when the district attorney or Attorney General concedes.
For practitioners: A changed-science claim can now attack expert testimony from a hearing, not only from trial.
Compensation finding after habeas relief
When specified habeas writs are granted and the charges are dismissed or the person is acquitted on retrial, the person may move for a finding that they are entitled to compensation (Penal Code 1485.55). The court must grant it unless the district attorney proves by clear and convincing evidence that the person committed the acts. The California Victim Compensation Board must approve payment if funds are available and appropriated. A district attorney must give the Attorney General at least 7 days’ notice before stipulating.
For practitioners: After a forensic-based vacatur and dismissal, file for the 1485.55 finding.
New statewide audit of untested sexual assault kits
Law enforcement agencies, medical facilities, public crime labs, and other kit holders must audit untested sexual assault kits. By July 1, 2026, each agency and public crime lab had to create a record in the state’s SAFE-T database for every victim kit without completed DNA testing, and other holders had to report to the Department of Justice. The Department reports to the Legislature by July 1, 2027. Suspect kits are audited but kept out of SAFE-T. The act also let a victim ask that their kit not be tested, a right SB 733 later restructured.
For practitioners: SAFE-T records can show how long a kit sat untested.
Habeas ground for a significant dispute over expert testimony
Adds a habeas ground where a significant dispute has emerged or developed in the petitioner’s favor about expert medical, scientific, or forensic testimony. It also adds expert opinion undermined by “the state of scientific knowledge” to the definition of false evidence. Opinions repudiated by the expert or undermined by later research were already false evidence under earlier law.
For practitioners: The petitioner need not prove the original testimony was false, only that the dispute meets the statute.
Enacted, not yet in force
The 2025–2026 session has adjourned, and no bills are pending. These enacted laws had not taken effect as of October 19, 2026.
- AB 2018 (Stats. 2026, ch. 93): approved July 16, 2026; effective January 1, 2027. The Department’s missing and unidentified persons DNA database would cover all unidentified persons, living or dead. The Department could keep DNA extracted from a living person’s sample when recovered remains are incomplete and more remains are expected. AB 2018
- SB 1279 (Stats. 2026, ch. 689): approved September 27, 2026; effective January 1, 2027. Speed safety systems under Vehicle Code 22425 must blur images of drivers, vehicles, and pedestrians who are not the subject of a notice; for cameras installed before January 1, 2027, only to the extent feasible. SB 1279
- AB 1595, which would have expanded habeas corpus and motions to vacate, was vetoed September 20, 2026; the veto message was entered October 1, 2026. AB 1595
Checked and unchanged
- Evidence Code 801 and 802 are unchanged since 1965. Penal Code 296 is unchanged since Proposition 69 (2004), and 297 since 2006.
- The testing standards in Penal Code 1405 are unchanged; only the lab agreement wording and pronouns changed in 2024. SB 734 and AB 1071 (2025) amended 1473 for Racial Justice Act claims; the false-evidence definition has been at 1473(b)(2) since SB 97 (2023) and was not changed.
- The body camera biometric surveillance ban (Penal Code 832.19) was repealed January 1, 2023 by its own terms, and no extension was enacted.
- No statute on genetic genealogy, familial searching, rapid DNA, or analyst licensing was enacted from 2023 to 2026.
Last updated October 19, 2026Source: United States Council for Law & InvestigationCite as: United States Council for Law & Investigation, “California forensic science oversight: Forensic Science Tracker,” uscli.org/forensic-science-tracker/california (last updated October 19, 2026). Text licensed CC BY 4.0.