Statewide — Assembly Bill (AB) 284, introduced earlier this year by Assemblymember Juan Alanis, would overhaul key elements ofthe Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA) and tighten the rules around how law enforcement reports and analyzes “stops” of civilians.
The bill has drawn both strong backing from law-enforcement groups and sharp criticism from civil rights and policing reform advocates, placing it squarely in the lineup of debates over oversight in the post-2025 RIPA report era.
Under current law, agencies that employ peace officers must send the Attorney General annual data on all the “stops” they make, defined broadly as any detention or officer interaction involving a search.
RIPA uses that data to publish annual reports analyzing racial and identity profiling, disparities in stops and policy recommendations.
AB 284 seeks to narrow that definition of “stop” by carving out certain interactions.
For example, officer contact arising from a call for service or instances where detention is necessary to prevent serious bodily harm or death would be excluded.
The bill would also reconstitute RIPA’s membership.
It adds as mandatory seats the president — or designee — of the California District Attorneys Association and a Commission onPeace Officer Standards and Training (POST) member who is an active peace officer, if not already on the board.
Simultaneously, it reduces the number of seats for civil rights, community and religious clergy representation and eliminates the prior authorization for the Governor, Senate pro tem and Assembly Speaker to each appoint additional RIPA members.
Supporters argue the changes will make reporting more efficient, the data more actionable and the board more balanced.
Law enforcement voices have rallied around the measure.
The Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) describes AB 284 as a promising step in refining data collectionand strengthening the usefulness of bias analyses.
California’s leading police and sheriff organizations likewise announced joint support for the bill, citing the need to ensure data collection yields real improvements.
Opponents contend AB 284 would weaken transparency and mask significant encounters that currently fall under the stop classification.
The Policing Project at NYU argues the bill undercuts the original vision of the 2015 Racial & Identity Profiling Act by narrowing actionable oversight.
Critics also warn that excluding interactions initiated from calls for service or life-threatening emergencies may conceal key episodes in which profiling or misuse of force could occur.
Another flashpoint is the shifting composition of RIPA.
Reducing civil rights seats and adding prosecutorial and police influence raises questions about whose interests will guide policy in future reports.
The bill’s trajectory is also subject to political tension.
According to PORAC, AB 284 is currently held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, reportedly at the request of the California Legislative Black Caucus, which has expressed concerns about the bill’s reform reach and representational balance.
In January 2025, the RIPA annual report — covering 4.7 million stops in 2023 — revealed sharp racial disparities in policing: Black Californians were stopped 126% more often than their share of the population, Latinos 44% more often.
That report prompted scrutiny from civil rights organizations and internal debates among law enforcement agencies over data quality and departmental accountability.
If enacted, AB 284 would represent a turning point in how California balances transparency and accountability in policing against concerns about administrative burden and internal control.
For Inland Valley and the Inland Empire, home to communities long under scrutiny for enforcement disparities, the stakes are high.
