Existing law prohibits the prosecuting attorney, attorney for the defendant, or investigator for either the prosecution or the defendant from interviewing, questioning, or speaking to a victim or witness whose name has been disclosed pursuant to existing law without first clearly identifying themselves and identifying the full name of the agency by whom they are employed, and identifying whether they represent, or have been retained by, the prosecution or the defendant. Under existing law, if an interview takes place in person, the party is also required to show the victim or witness a business card, official badge, or other form of official identification before commencing the interview or questioning. This bill would require a peace officer, as defined, or a prosecuting attorney, before any initial formal interview of an immediate family member of a person who has been killed or seriously injured by a peace officer, to clearly identify themselves and if the interview takes place in person, to show identification, to inform the person of the status of their family member, to inform the person that they are conducting a formal interview for the purposes of an investigation, as specified, and to inform the person that they have a choice to come to the station for the formal interview if they are asked to go and can have a trusted support person with them. The bill would provide that its provisions do not apply if the immediate family member is under custodial interrogation, as specified, or if the delay would result in the loss or destruction of evidence or pose an imminent threat to public safety. By increasing duties on local law enforcement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law, the Sexual Assault Victims' DNA Bill of Rights, requires law enforcement agencies, for sexual assault forensic evidence received on or after January 1, 2016, to either submit the evidence to a crime lab within 20 days after it is booked into evidence or ensure that a rapid turnaround deoxyribonucleic acid program is in place, as specified. However, existing law authorizes a sexual assault victim to request that a kit collected from them not be tested and prohibits a kit for which this request had been made from being tested. This bill would instead authorize a sexual assault survivor who is 18 years of age or older and who is undecided whether to report to law enforcement at the time of an examination to request that all medical evidence collected from them not be tested. If the request is made at the time of the examination, the bill would prohibit the medical facility from submitting the kit to a crime laboratory and would require the investigating agency to retain the kit until the sexual assault survivor requests testing. If the request is made after the examination, the bill would either require the investigating agency to retain the kit or would require the crime laboratory to return the kit to the investigating agency to be retained. The bill would also authorize a sexual assault survivor who has requested that their kit not be tested to later request that it be tested. By creating a new duty for local investigating agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law, the Medical Practice Act, generally prohibits the practice of medicine without a physician's and surgeon's certificate issued by the Medical Board of California. The Medical Practice Act authorizes a person who meets certain eligibility requirements to apply to the board for a special faculty permit, which authorizes the holder to practice medicine without a physician's and surgeon's certificate only within a medical school itself, in any affiliated institution of the medical school, or in an academic medical center and any affiliated institution in which the permitholder is providing instruction as part of the medical school's or academic medical center's educational program and for which the medical school or academic medical center has assumed direct responsibility. Existing law defines "academic medical center" for these purposes as a facility that meets certain requirements. Among those requirements, existing law requires the facility to train a minimum of 250 resident physicians annually and to be accredited by both the Western Association of Schools and Colleges and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. This bill would modify the requirements for a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center to qualify as an academic medical center by, instead, requiring the facility to train 25 resident or fellow physicians annually and exempting the facility from the Western Association of Schools and Colleges accreditation requirement. Existing law requires the board to establish a review committee to review and make recommendations to the board regarding applicants applying for special faculty permits and requires the review committee to include one representative to represent academic medical centers in California. Existing law authorizes the board to approve up to 5 applications for special faculty permits submitted by academic medical centers in any calendar year. This bill would require the individual representing academic medical centers to be from a facility that trains a minimum of 250 resident physicians in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education accredited residencies on an annual basis. The bill would authorize the board to approve up to 5 applications for special faculty permits submitted by each academic medical center in any calendar year.
Existing law generally regulates classes of insurance, including automobile liability insurance. Existing law prohibits a motor vehicle, insured pursuant to a policy of automobile liability insurance, from being classified as a common carrier, livery, or for-hire vehicle solely for the reason that the named insured is performing volunteer services for a nonprofit charitable organization or governmental agency consisting of providing social service transportation, as defined. This bill, for purposes of insurance, would prohibit a motor vehicle, insured pursuant to a policy of automobile liability insurance, from being classified as a common carrier, commercial vehicle, for-hire vehicle, permissive use vehicle, or livery solely for the reason that the named insured is operating or using the insured motor vehicle to provide public social services, as defined, or social service transportation, as defined.
Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges as one segment of public postsecondary education in the state. Under existing law, the board of governors appoints a chief executive officer, who is known as the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges. This bill would authorize the chancellor to implement a data request fee policy for researchers applying for access to individually identifiable data, student data, or both. If a data request fee policy is implemented, the bill would require the policy to be reviewed and approved by the board of governors, revised periodically, made publicly available and posted in a prominent location on the chancellor's internet website, and comply with applicable federal and state privacy laws, as provided. The bill would prohibit fees or charges from being imposed on a state entity, except as provided, on an undergraduate or graduate student seeking data for the student's individual studies, or on a community college faculty member seeking data for the faculty member's individual research.
Existing law authorizes a local authority, by ordinance or resolution, to regulate the occupancy of a room or rooms, or other living space, in a hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, or other lodging for a period of less than 30 days. This bill would authorize a local agency, defined to mean a city, county, or city and county, to enact an ordinance to require a short-term rental facilitator, as defined, to report, in the form and manner prescribed by the local agency, the physical address, including 9-digit ZIP Code, of each short-term rental, as defined, during the reporting period. The bill would also authorize a local agency to request additional information, as provided, when the physical address is not sufficient for the local agency to identify a specific short-term rental. The bill would authorize the local agency to impose an administrative fine or penalty for failure to file the report, and would authorize the local agency to initiate an audit of a short-term rental facilitator, as described. The bill would require a short-term rental facilitator, in a jurisdiction that has adopted an ordinance, to include in the listing of a short-term rental any applicable local license number associated with the short-term rental and any transient occupancy tax certification issued by a local agency. The bill would state these provisions do not preempt a local agency from adopting an ordinance that regulates short-term rentals, short-term rental facilitators, or the payment and collection of transient occupancy taxes in a manner that differs from those described in the bill.
Existing law establishes procedures for the formation of regional park districts and prescribes the powers, functions, and duties of those districts. The East Bay Regional Park District is one such regional park district. This bill would authorize the East Bay Regional Park District to establish and administer the East Bay Hills Conservation Program to address resource and recreational goals of the East Bay Hills, as defined. The bill would authorize the Park District to collaborate with California Native American tribes and state, regional, and local partners to help achieve specified goals of the program. The bill would require the East Bay Hills to be acknowledged as an area of statewide significance in local land use policy documents developed or updated on or after January 1, 2026, affecting land use within the East Bay Hills. To the extent that this bill would impose new duties on local entities, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the East Bay Regional Park District. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law, the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) , an initiative measure enacted by the voters as Proposition 63 at the November 2, 2004, statewide general election, funds a system of county mental health plans for the provision of mental health services, as specified. The MHSA establishes the Mental Health Services Fund, a continuously appropriated fund, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services (department) , to fund specified county mental health programs. Existing law, the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA) , a legislative act amending the MHSA that was approved by the voters as Proposition 1 at the March 5, 2024, statewide primary election, recast the MHSA by, among other things, renaming the fund to the Behavioral Health Services Fund and reallocating how moneys from that fund may be spent. The BHSA requires each county to establish and administer a full-service partnership program that includes, among other things, outpatient behavioral health services, as specified, and housing interventions. This bill would establish criteria for an individual with a serious mental illness to be presumptively eligible for a full-service partnership, including, among other things, the person is transitioning to the community after 6 months or more in the state prison or county jail. The bill would specify that a county is not required to enroll an individual who meets that presumptive eligibility criteria if doing so would conflict with contractual Medi-Cal obligations or court orders, or exceed full-service partnership capacity or funding, as specified. The bill would make enrollment of a presumptively eligible individual contingent upon the individual meeting specified criteria and receiving a recommendation for enrollment by a licensed behavioral health clinician, as specified. The bill would prohibit deeming an individual with a serious mental illness ineligible for enrollment in a full-service partnership solely because their primary diagnosis is a substance use disorder. The bill would make these provisions operative on January 1, 2027.
(1) Existing federal law, the Stephen Beck, Jr., Achieving a Better Life Experience Act of 2014 (ABLE Act) , encourages and assists individuals and families to save private funds for the purpose of supporting eligible individuals with disabilities to maintain their health, independence, and quality of life by excluding from gross income distributions used for qualified disability expenses by a beneficiary of a Qualified ABLE Program established and maintained by a state, as specified. Existing law establishes the Qualified ABLE Program for purposes of implementing the federal ABLE Act in this state, and creates the California ABLE Program Trust with the purposes, powers, and duties of the trust to be vested in and exercised by the California ABLE Act Board. Existing law requires the board to segregate the moneys coming into the ABLE program trust into 2 funds: the program fund, which is continuously appropriated, for specified purposes of the act, and the administrative fund, which is available upon appropriation by the Legislature for administration of the act. Existing law requires all moneys paid by designated beneficiaries or eligible individuals in connection with ABLE accounts to be deposited, as received, into the program fund, promptly invested, and accounted for separately. Existing law grants the board the power to accept grants, gifts, appropriations, and other moneys from any unit of federal, state, or local government, among other specified entities, for deposit to specified funds. This bill would authorize the California ABLE Act Board to additionally accept grants, gifts, legislative appropriations, and other moneys from a philanthropic entity, and would specify that the program can receive legislative appropriations. The bill would authorize the board to target specific subgroups of eligible individuals, as specified, and would authorize the board to use those moneys received to encourage eligible individuals to create an ABLE account or maximize account participation by engaging public awareness about the program. By authorizing new uses of moneys in a continuously appropriated fund, the bill would make an appropriation. (2) Existing law requires the Franchise Tax Board to include, on a taxpayer's form instructions for filing a return, information about the ability of a taxpayer to directly deposit a portion of their refund into the Golden State Scholarshare College Savings Trust, as specified. This bill would additionally require the Franchise Tax Board to include, on a taxpayer's form instructions for filing a return, information about the ability of a taxpayer to directly deposit a portion of their refund into the California ABLE Program Trust.
The California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) requires a public retirement system, as defined, to modify its plan or plans to comply with the act and, among other provisions, establishes new retirement formulas that may not be exceeded by a public employer offering a defined benefit pension plan for employees first hired on or after January 1, 2013. Existing law, the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, generally authorizes 2 or more public agencies, by agreement, to jointly exercise any common power, which may include hiring employees and establishing retirement systems. Existing law authorizes a joint powers authority formed by the Cities of Brea and Fullerton, and a joint powers authority formed by the Belmont Fire Protection District, the Estero Municipal Improvement District, and the City of San Mateo, on or after January 1, 2013, to provide their employees the defined benefit plan or formula that those employees received from their respective employers prior to the exercise of a common power, to which the employee is associated, by the joint powers authority to any employee of specified cities and districts who is not a new member and subsequently is employed by the joint powers authority within 180 days of the city or agency providing for the exercise of a common power, to which the employee was associated, by the joint powers authority. This bill would authorize the Pajaro Regional Flood Management Agency, a joint powers authority, to provide a defined benefit plan or formula to an employee of a member agency of the joint powers authority or of another public agency, as defined, who is not a new member and who is subsequently employed by the joint powers authority within 180 days of the effective date of the retirement plan contract amendment. The bill would authorize the Pajaro Regional Flood Management Agency, on or before April 1, 2026, to select a defined benefit plan or formula offered by one of its member agencies prior to the exercise of a common power which the member agency offered to its employees on December 31, 2012, and designate that formula for its employees, as described above. The bill would provide that it would not exempt a new employee or a new member from the requirements of PEPRA. Existing law also authorizes a joint powers authority to offer defined benefit plans or formulas that are not PEPRA plans or formulas, provided that the plans or formulas were those the employees received prior to the creation of the authority, the employees are not new members under PEPRA, and they are employed by the authority within 180 days, as specified. This bill would authorize a joint powers authority, after obtaining approval from a retirement system, to offer those defined benefit plans or formulas to a member agency that is a nonfounding member of the joint powers authority, for employees who are not new members under PEPRA and are employed by the joint powers authority within 180 days of the agency becoming a member agency. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Pajaro Regional Flood Management Agency. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 7522.02 of the Government Code proposed by SB 853 to be operative only if this bill and SB 853 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law requires the Department of Insurance to regulate health insurers. Existing law requires an individual or small group health insurance policy issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2017, to include, at a minimum, coverage for essential health benefits pursuant to the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Existing law requires a health insurance policy to cover the same health benefits that the benchmark plan, the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Small Group HMO 30 plan, offered during the first quarter of 2014, as specified. This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to review California's essential health benefits benchmark plan and establish a new benchmark plan for the 2027 plan year for health insurers. The bill would require, commencing January 1, 2027, if the United States Department of Health and Human Services approves a new essential health benefits benchmark plan for the state, as specified, the benchmark plan for health insurers to include certain additional benefits, including coverage for specified fertility services and specified durable medical equipment.
(1) Existing law specifies procedures and requirements for a levying officer to serve documents, including a writ of execution issued by a court, on a judgment debtor. If the judgment upon which the writ is issued is for personal debt, the judgment creditor must provide the levying officer with a declaration stating that they have verified the judgment debtor's address and specifying the method of verification. Existing law requires a judgment creditor to file with the court the declaration within 5 business days after delivering it to the levying officer. Existing law also requires a judgment creditor executing a levy on the earnings of an employee to serve the earnings withholding order on both the judgment debtor employee and their employer. This bill would specify that transmittal of a legal pleading by first-class mail, certified mail, or other method of transmission through the United States Postal Service providing a return receipt, as specified, is a permissible method of verification. The bill would instead require the judgment creditor to file with the court the declaration described above within 10 business days after delivering it to the levying officer. The bill would also permit the declaration to be signed by an individual with adequate knowledge of the verification process, including a custodian of records or an attorney for the judgment creditor. The bill would delete the requirement that a judgment creditor executing a levy on the earnings of an employee serve the earnings withholding order on the employee. (2) Existing law authorizes a judgment creditor to levy upon the property of a judgment debtor to satisfy a judgment, and authorizes the judgment debtor to claim that certain property is exempt from the levy by following a specified procedure. Existing law authorizes a claimant to file a claim of exemption with the levying officer either in person or by mail. The period for filing a claim of exemption is 15 days if the judgment debtor is personally served with a notice of levy on the property claimed to be exempt, and 20 days if the claimant is served with notice by mail. Existing law deems the filing by mail complete on the date the claim is postmarked if the mailing is assigned a tracking number. If the mailing is not assigned a tracking number, the filing by mail is deemed complete on the date the claim is received by the levying officer. Existing law authorizes a judgment creditor who opposes a claim of exemption to file a notice of opposition to the claim and a notice of motion for an order determining the claim within 15 days after service of the notice of claim of exemption. This bill would authorize, for a personal debt as specified by law, a claimant to file a claim of exemption more than 20 days after the date the notice of levy is served on the judgment debtor. The bill would permit a levying officer to release the funds to the judgment creditor at any time after the expiration of the 20-day period. (3) Existing law specifies various procedures and requirements for a judgment debtor to claim exemptions to property that has been levied upon to satisfy a judgment. Existing law places the burden of proof on the claimant at a hearing to determine the claim of exemption. If the judgment upon which a writ of execution is issued is for personal debt, a court must order the return of any property that was exempt without the need for a claim or that would have been exempt by a claim of exemption, and that was levied upon within specified periods. Existing law specifies procedures and requirements for a money judgment to be satisfied and for the court to enter a satisfaction of judgment. This bill would clarify that the filing of an ex parte application in lieu of a motion for purposes of the procedures described above does not constitute a general appearance for purposes of a court exercising its jurisdiction over a party. (4) Existing law, the Wage Garnishment Law, authorizes a levy of execution on an employee's earnings by service of an earnings withholding order by the levying officer or the employer and requires the employer to provide the judgment debtor a copy of the earnings withholding order and notice of the earnings withholding order, as specified. Existing law requires the employer to complete an employer's return and return it to the levying officer. Under existing law, the employer's return and the form for its return are required to set forth specified information, including the name, address, and, if known, the judgment debtor's social security number. This bill would require the employer's return to include information setting forth the date on which the employer provided the judgment debtor with the earnings withholding order and the notice of earnings withholding order, the name and title of the person who provided the order and notice, and a short description of the manner in which the order and notice were provided. (5) Existing law authorizes a judgment creditor to enforce a money judgment by creating a judgment lien on the real or personal property of a judgment debtor. These judgment liens continue in existence for a specified time or until the money judgment is satisfied or the judgment creditor releases the lien. Existing law also authorizes a judgment creditor to enforce a money judgment by a writ of execution, pursuant to which a levying officer takes possession of the judgment debtor's property to satisfy the judgment. Existing law authorizes a judgment debtor to exempt certain property, and, if the judgment is for personal debt, as defined, requires a court to order the judgment creditor to return to the judgment debtor any exempt property of the judgment creditor that was levied upon, as specified. This bill would authorize a judgment creditor to apply to the court for reinstatement of a released lien and its priority at the time of cancellation, as specified. The bill would require a court to enter in the court's records that the judgment is no longer satisfied to the extent of the returned funds or property, and to issue to the judgment creditor a certificate and notice of reinstatement of judgment lien as specified. The bill would require the application for reinstatement of a lien to be filed with a declaration by the judgment creditor that certifies specified information, including, among other things, that the judgment creditor released a lien with the reasonable belief that the money judgment was satisfied and the date and amount of the original judgment and any renewals thereof. The bill would impose a civil penalty of not more than $1,500 for knowingly certifying false information in the judgment creditor's declaration. The bill would give the judgment debtor an opportunity to object and, if an objection is filed, require the judgment creditor to proceed with a noticed motion for reinstatement of the lien. These provisions of the bill would become operative on July 1, 2026.
