California Assembly Bill 742 was a proposed state law that would have sharply restricted police K-9 deployments, treating any bite that caused death or serious injury as deadly force and banning police dogs at protests. It never became law. AB 742 died on the inactive file on February 1, 2024, so none of its restrictions took effect, and California still has no statute written specifically for police canine use.
What the Bill Would Have Banned
AB 742 proposed adding Section 13653 to the California Penal Code with two core prohibitions. First, a peace officer could not use an unleashed police canine to arrest or apprehend anyone.1California Legislative Information. California AB 742 – Law Enforcement: Police Canines Second, a canine could not be used to bite any person, leashed or not, unless the officer faced an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.
The bill also reclassified the harm itself. A canine-inflicted death or serious bodily injury would count as deadly force under Penal Code Section 835a, attributed to the dog’s handler.1California Legislative Information. California AB 742 – Law Enforcement: Police Canines That matters because California allows deadly force only when an officer reasonably believes it is necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, or to apprehend a fleeing person who committed a felony involving death or serious injury and who poses an ongoing threat.2California Legislative Information. California Penal Code 835a Every canine deployment that ended in physical contact would have been measured against that bar.
The Felony Pursuit Exception
A May 2023 amendment added a narrow carve-out to the ban on unleashing a K-9 for apprehension. An officer could deploy an unleashed dog against a person being pursued for a felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, but only if that person also posed an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or someone else.3California Legislative Information. California AB 742 – Compare Versions Both conditions had to be met at once. A property crime suspect fleeing on foot would not have qualified, no matter how fast they were running.
The Crowd Control Ban
The bill flatly prohibited using a police canine for crowd control at any assembly, protest, or demonstration.1California Legislative Information. California AB 742 – Law Enforcement: Police Canines Unlike the apprehension restriction, which turned on whether the dog was on a leash, the crowd control ban applied either way. If the setting was a protest or demonstration, canines were off the table.
The Data Behind the Bill
AB 742’s findings cited research showing that police dog bites result in hospital visits about 67.5 percent of the time, while batons, tasers, and other common force tools send people to the hospital 22 percent of the time or less.1California Legislative Information. California AB 742 – Law Enforcement: Police Canines Those figures came from a Police Assessment Resource Center study and drove the bill’s central argument: bites cause injuries severe enough to warrant regulation at the level of other high-risk force options. The findings also pointed to evidence that canine deployments have disproportionately affected communities of color.
How the Bill Died
AB 742 was introduced during the 2023–2024 legislative session and amended at least twice, in March and May 2023. It cleared committee stages but was placed on the inactive file, where it remained until it died on February 1, 2024. Nothing in the bill was enacted.
What Governs Police K-9 Use in California Now
With AB 742 dead, no California statute specifically regulates when or how police canines can be deployed. K-9 use falls under the general use-of-force framework in Penal Code Section 835a, which requires that any force be objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, and which limits deadly force to imminent threats of death or serious bodily injury and to apprehending certain fleeing felons.2California Legislative Information. California Penal Code 835a
Section 835a does not say whether a canine bite is itself deadly force. That question is left to individual department policies and to courts evaluating the facts of specific cases. Agencies across the state set different thresholds for when handlers may release a dog. AB 742 would have replaced that patchwork with a single statewide rule.
The Follow-Up: AB 400
The 2025–2026 legislative session brought a narrower attempt. Assembly Bill 400 would require every California law enforcement agency with a canine unit to maintain a written policy governing K-9 use, with a compliance deadline of January 1, 2027. AB 400 focuses on policy requirements rather than outright bans on unleashing or biting, so it does not carry the deadly force reclassification or the protest prohibition that defined AB 742. As of early 2026, the bill was still moving through the legislative process.