California Codes

Cal. Penal Code § 1318.1 (2026)

Procedure Relating to Release on Own Recognizance

✓ leginfo export of Sept. 26, 2026 (applied Oct. 1, 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)A court, with the concurrence of the board of supervisors, may employ an investigative staff for the purpose of recommending whether a defendant should be released on his or her own recognizance.

(b)Whenever a court has employed an investigative staff pursuant to subdivision (a), an investigative report shall be prepared in all cases involving a violent felony, as described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5, or a felony in violation of subdivision (a) of Section 23153 of the Vehicle Code, recommending whether the defendant should be released on his or her own recognizance. The report shall include all of the following:

(1)Written verification of any outstanding warrants against the defendant.

(2)Written verification of any prior incidents where the defendant has failed to make a court appearance.

(3)Written verification of the criminal record of the defendant.

(4)Written verification of the residence of the defendant during the past year.

After the report is certified pursuant to this subdivision, it shall be submitted to the court for review, prior to a hearing held pursuant to Section 1319.

(c)The salaries of the staff are a proper charge against the county.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: Simon v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 135 F.4th 784 (9th Cir. 2025).
Simon v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 135 F.4th 784 (9th Cir. 2025). “See Cal. Penal Code § 1318.1 . The court SIMON V.”
Williams v. Cnty. of San Joaquin, 225 Cal. App. 3d 1326 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990). “1 Penal Code section 1318.1 provides: “A court may, with the concurrence of the board of supervisors, employ an investigative staff for the purpose of recommending whether a defendant should be released on his or her own recognizance.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.