CA SB 524: Law enforcement agencies: artificial intelligence

Operative sections

• Penal Code §13663(a): AI-generated police reports must disclose AI use on each page or in the body.
• Penal Code §13663(a)(2): the officer or agency member must sign verifying review and factual accuracy.
• Penal Code §13663(b): agencies must retain initial AI-generated drafts when official reports use AI.

Text

13663. (a) Each law enforcement agency shall maintain a policy to require an official report ... that is generated using artificial intelligence either fully or partially to contain ... identify every specific artificial intelligence program used ... and prominently state the following: “This report was written either fully or in part using artificial intelligence.” (2) The signature ... verifying that they reviewed the contents of that report and that the facts contained in the official report are true and correct.

Verbatim operative text; legislative text is a government edict and public domain. Full text · History

What already applies in California

The bill sits alongside rules courts and regulators have already issued, and decisions courts have already handed down, in the same jurisdiction — from the regulation tracker and the court-decisions corpus.

Rules and guidance in force

• California SB 574 (Chapter 858, Statutes of 2026): generative AI duties for attorneys and arbitratorsCalifornia Legislature · 2027-01-01

  California statute approved 30 September 2026 that bars attorneys from delegating the practice of law to generative AI. Attorneys must keep nonpublic information out of unrestricted AI systems, verify outputs including every citation, and disclose AI use to the court. Arbitrators may not delegate decision-making to AI. It takes effect 1 January 2027.

• California Rule of Court 10.430 and Standard 10.80: Generative AI use by courtsJudicial Council of California · 2025-09-01

  Rule 10.430, effective 1 September 2025, requires California courts permitting generative AI to adopt use policies by 15 December 2025. Policies cover court staff and judicial officers' non-adjudicative tasks, addressing confidentiality, bias, verification and disclosure of entirely AI-generated public-facing content. Standard 10.80 separately provides advisory guidelines for judicial officers' adjudicative tasks; it is not a model policy.

• Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of LawState Bar of California

  California's State Bar 2026 Practical Guidance replaces its November 2023 generative-AI guidance and adds agentic-AI risks. California lawyers remain responsible for professional judgment, must understand the tool and its autonomy, protect confidential information, review, verify and correct output, supervise staff and vendors, consider client disclosure, and bill only reasonable AI-related time and costs.

• Proposed amendments to Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.4, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1 and 5.3 related to artificial intelligenceState Bar of California

  Proposed amendments to the California Rules of Professional Conduct that would write AI duties directly into the rules: verification of cited authorities, firm-level AI governance policies under Rule 5.1, and instruction of nonlawyer assistants under Rule 5.3. Public comment closed 4 May 2026 and the Board of Trustees considered them in mid May 2026. Adoption requires the California Supreme Court.

Decisions on the record

• Perez v. SchaalSuperior Court of California, County of Sacramento · 2026-08-21

  The Sacramento Superior Court rules on a demurrer and addresses Joseph Perez’s unsupported quotation from Adorh Farms. The court says the quotation does not appear in that opinion or any reported case, flags possible generative AI use, declines sanctions, and warns future fabricated authority may be sanctioned.

• Lohbeck v. Amazon.com Services, LLCUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of California · 2026-08-21

  The Eastern District of California recommends dismissal of Stephen Lohbeck’s claims and considers Amazon’s Rule 11 argument. The magistrate judge finds two quotations in Lohbeck’s sanctions motion do not appear in the cited cases, declines sanctions because he is self-represented, and warns that future false authority may be sanctionable.

• Full Standard Properties, LLC v. SJ 6070, LLCUnited States District Court for the Northern District of California · 2026-08-20

  The Northern District of California grants in part a renewed fee motion and discharges a sanctions order. The order records that plaintiff’s counsel reimbursed SJ 6070 $14,500 for expenses incurred addressing nonexistent cases cited in opposition to an earlier attorneys’ fees motion.

• Kasengela v. Kaiser Foundation HospitalsUnited States District Court for the Central District of California · 2026-08-20

  The Central District of California grants Cecile Kasengela’s remand motion while addressing non-existent quotations in her self-represented briefing. The court reiterates its standing order on AI-generated hallucinated caselaw, rejects her accusation against Kaiser, and says a lawyer would face significant sanctions.

• Dotson v. Bob Evans Farms, LLCUnited States District Court for the Central District of California · 2026-08-20

  The Central District of California denies Michael Dotson’s reconsideration application and identifies three quotations misattributed to Mission Power. The court says the language appears in Horne instead, describes the errors as AI-hallucination hallmarks, and orders counsel to show cause about sanctions and bar referral.