Does AB 1656 change the legal definition of human trafficking or increase the penalties for the crime?
Short answer
No. California Assembly Bill 1656 (AB 1656) does not alter the legal definition of human trafficking, nor does it increase the criminal penalties associated with the offense. The legislation is strictly procedural, focusing on how courts manage scheduling conflicts rather than changing substantive criminal law.
What the bill or law says
The primary function of AB 1656 is to amend Section 1050 of the California Penal Code. This section governs the priority of criminal cases and the granting of continuances, which are delays in court proceedings. The bill adds human trafficking violations, specifically those under Penal Code Section 236.1, to a list of serious offenses where a prosecutor’s conflicting schedule is considered "good cause" for a delay. Source: Bill Text
The text explicitly states that the core change is procedural. It does not modify the elements required to prove human trafficking, nor does it adjust sentencing guidelines, fines, or prison terms for convicted individuals. Instead, it requires judges to give "great weight" to a prosecutor’s need to attend another trial, preliminary hearing, or motion to suppress when deciding whether to delay a human trafficking case. Source: Official Bill Status Page
How it works in practice
In practical terms, this bill affects the timeline of a case, not the outcome or the charges. If a prosecutor handling a human trafficking case is simultaneously engaged in another serious trial, they can request a continuance of up to 10 additional court days. The judge must consider this scheduling conflict as a significant factor when ruling on the request.
However, this provision is limited. The prosecution may only use this specific justification for a continuance once per case. Furthermore, the delay cannot exceed 10 court days. This ensures that while prosecutors have some flexibility to manage heavy caseloads, the delay remains short and controlled. The bill also includes contingent language to merge with other pending legislation, such as AB 2052, to prevent conflicting laws from being enacted simultaneously. Source: Selected Bill Text (Amended)
What the source does not answer
The available legislative text and analysis do not provide data on how frequently prosecutors currently face scheduling conflicts in human trafficking cases. Additionally, the sources do not quantify the potential impact of these short delays on jail costs or the emotional toll on victims waiting for trial resolution. While the bill passed the Assembly unanimously, the sources do not detail specific public opinion polls or community feedback regarding the procedural change.