Existing law establishes the Domestic Violence Prevention Act for the purpose of preventing acts of domestic violence, abuse, and sexual abuse and providing for a separation of the persons involved in the domestic violence for a period sufficient to enable those persons to seek a resolution of the causes of the violence. Existing law authorizes a court to issue an ex parte protective order enjoining a party from, among other things, disturbing the peace of the other party. Existing law provides that disturbing the peace of the other party refers to conduct that includes coercive control, as defined, which includes unreasonably engaging in specified actions, including isolating the other party from friends, relatives, or other sources of support. Existing law makes an intentional and knowing violation of a protective order punishable as a misdemeanor. This bill would include forced marriage for purposes of the act. The bill would define "forced marriage" as a spousal relationship in which one or both parties do not or cannot consent and one or both parties are compelled, through force, fraud, coercion, duress, abuse of power, or coercive control, to enter, attempt to enter, or maintain, a marriage, regardless of whether the marriage is legally valid. If a protective order is sought to protect against a forced marriage, the bill would authorize all persons engaged in conduct to arrange, officiate, finance, or facilitate a forced marriage or attempted forced marriage to be included in one action as respondents. The bill would provide that coercive control, for purposes of the act, includes interfering with, threatening, or attempting to prevent a party or witness from participating in a court proceeding. The bill would provide that conduct undertaken to compel, attempt to compel, prepare for, or facilitate a forced marriage constitutes disturbing the peace of the other party, as specified. The bill would require the provisions of the act to be liberally construed. The bill would authorize a court to grant relief regardless of whether a marriage has occurred or whether a purported marriage would be legally valid in this state or any other jurisdiction. Because a violation of a protective order is punishable as a crime, by expanding the bases for the issuance of these orders, the bill would expand an existing crime, thereby imposing 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to prescribe and amend rules and regulations for the administration of prisons and requires regulations, which are adopted by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, to recognize and consider the value of incarcerated person visitation as a means of increasing safety in prisons, maintaining family and community connections, and preparing incarcerated persons for successful release and rehabilitation. Existing regulations create the framework for establishing a visitation process in prisons that is conducted in as accommodating a manner as possible, subject to the need to maintain order, the safety of persons, the security of institutions and facilities, and required prison activities and operations. This bill, the Humanizing and Uniting Generations Safely Act of 2026, would additionally require those regulations pertaining to incarcerated person visits to recognize and consider the importance of physical contact in incarcerated person visitation. The bill would prohibit the department from unreasonably restricting the ability of incarcerated persons or their visitors to engage in certain types of nonsexual physical contact throughout the visit, as provided. The bill would prohibit the department from taking disciplinary action based on alleged inappropriate physical contact, without first providing a warning and a reasonable opportunity to immediately correct the conduct.
Existing law makes a person who deprives or violates the personal liberty of another with the intent to obtain forced labor or services, or to effect or maintain a violation of various felony or misdemeanor offenses, including offenses relating to prostitution, child pornography, as specified, or extortion, as defined, guilty of human trafficking. Existing law makes a person who causes, induces, or persuades, or attempts to cause, induce, or persuade, a person who is a minor at the time of commission of the offense to engage in a commercial sex act, with the intent to effect or maintain a violation of various felony or misdemeanor offenses, also guilty of human trafficking. Existing law establishes the requirements for a continuance to be granted in a criminal case, including a showing of good cause. Existing law defines "good cause" for this purpose to include, but not be limited to, cases involving specified crimes, including murder and domestic violence, and to apply when the prosecuting attorney assigned to the case has another trial, preliminary hearing, or motion to suppress in progress in that court or another court. This bill would, in a case involving human trafficking, require the court, in determining if good cause for a continuance exists, to give great weight to the fact that the prosecuting attorney assigned to the case has another trial, preliminary hearing, or motion to suppress in progress in that court or another court. The bill would authorize the court to grant only one continuance for a maximum of 10 additional court days for that reason. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1050 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 2052 to be operative only if this bill and AB 2052 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law authorizes a court to issue an ex parte restraining order to prevent abuse based on reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse. Existing law authorizes the order to be issued solely on the affidavit or testimony of the person requesting the ex parte restraining order. Existing law requires the ex parte order to be issued or denied on the same day the application is submitted to the court, except as specified. Existing law prohibits an ex parte restraining order from being denied solely because the other party was not provided with notice. This bill would instead prohibit a court from requiring that notice be provided to the party to be restrained in advance of accepting a filing for, or deciding, an application for an ex parte restraining order. The bill would also prohibit a court from requiring an explanation or declaration for not providing notice in advance of accepting a filing for, or deciding, an application for an ex parte restraining order. The bill would prohibit a court from adopting or maintaining any rule, form, or practice that is inconsistent with these provisions.
(1) Existing law makes it unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage, has 0.08 or 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in their blood, as specified, is addicted to the use of any drug, is under the influence of any drug, or is under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug to drive a vehicle. Existing law prohibits a person from driving a vehicle under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug and concurrently do an act forbidden by law, or neglect a duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, which act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to a person other than the driver. Existing law, until January 1, 2033, requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to immediately suspend or revoke the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle upon the receipt of an abstract of the record of a court showing that the person has been convicted of driving a vehicle under the circumstances above as well as for engaging in a motor vehicle speed contest for specified periods of time, depending on the statute under which the driving violation was punished, and prohibits the reinstatement of the driving privilege until the person gives proof of financial responsibility and proof satisfactory to the department of successful completion of a driving-under-the-influence (DUI) program, as specified. Existing law requires the department to advise the person that they may apply for a restricted driver's license if the person meets certain requirements, including, among others, satisfactorily providing proof of enrollment in a certain DUI program and the installment of a functioning, certified ignition interlock device (IID) . Existing law allows, for certain violations, a person who has had their driver's license suspended to apply to the department for a restricted license, subject to certain requirements. For specified violations, existing law requires the department to issue a restricted driver's license if the person has met certain requirements, including proof satisfactory to the department of enrollment in, or completion of, a DUI program, proof of financial responsibility, and the payment of all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees, among other fees, required by the department. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would reorganize and recast the penalties and sanctions for the alcohol- and drug-related driving offenses described above. The bill would recast violations for driving under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or having 0.08 or 0.04 percent or more, by weight of alcohol in blood (collectively "alcohol-related driving violations") from violations for driving under the influence of any drug or driving while a person is addicted to the use of any drug (collectively "drug-related driving violations") . For convictions of alcohol-related driving violations, the bill would require the department to suspend the privilege to operate a motor vehicle and would allow the suspension to be indefinite. The bill would prohibit the reinstatement of that privilege until the person satisfies certain requirements, including, among others, the person applying for and maintaining a restricted driver's license for certain periods of time depending on the statute under which the driving violation is punished, which includes installing a certified IID on each vehicle operated by the person, providing proof satisfactory to the department of successful completion of a DUI program, as specified, paying all applicable reinstatement and reissue fees required by the department, and providing proof of financial responsibility. For convictions of drug-related driving violations described above, this bill would require the department to suspend the privilege to operate a motor vehicle for specified periods of time, depending on the statute under which the violation was punished. The bill would also prohibit the reinstatement of the privilege until the person satisfies certain requirements described above, but the bill would not require the person to install a certified IID or apply for and maintain a restricted driver's license for a specified period of time. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would authorize a person, whose privilege to operate a motor vehicle is suspended for alcohol-related driving violations, to apply for a restricted license if certain requirements are met, including, among others, installing a certified IID on each vehicle operated by the person, as specified, providing proof of financial responsibility for 3 years, providing satisfactorily proof of enrollment in, or completion of, a DUI program, as specified, and paying a fee that is sufficient to cover the costs of administration of these requirements. The bill would require the department to terminate the restricted driver's license and suspend the privilege to drive if the person fails to comply with the DUI program requirements. The bill would also authorize a person, whose driving privilege was suspended for a conviction of a drug-related driving violation, to apply for a restricted driver's license if similar certain requirements are met, except the person would not be required to install a certified IID but would be required to complete a minimum number of months of a suspension period, as specified. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would require the department to monitor the installation and maintenance of an IID that is installed pursuant to specified provisions. The bill would require the installer of the IID to notify the department if the device is removed or indicates that a person has attempted to remove, bypass, or tamper with the device, or the person fails 3 or more times to comply with these requirements. The bill would require the department to immediately suspend or revoke the privilege to operate a motor vehicle and any restricted driver's license if the person attempts to remove, bypass, or tamper with an IID, has the IID removed prior to the termination date of the restriction, or fails 3 or more times to comply with any requirement for the maintenance or calibration of the IID. The bill would require the department, and manufacturers, installers, and repairers of IIDs, to post information regarding filing complaints against manufacturers, installers, and repairers, as specified. (2) Existing law requires an order of suspension of a person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle for any of specified reasons, including the person was driving a motor vehicle when the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in their blood. Existing law requires the notice to be served on the person by a peace officer under specified conditions where test results show that the person has specified percentages of alcohol in the person's blood or where a person under 21 years of age refuses to take, or fails to complete, a specified test for alcohol in the blood. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would include a person driving a motor vehicle when a passenger for hire was a passenger in the vehicle and the person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in their blood as a reason to immediately suspend the privilege to operate a motor vehicle. The bill would authorize a person, whose driving privilege has been suspended pursuant to the provision above but not suspended or revoked based on the person's refusal to submit to, or failure to complete, a chemical test or tests, to apply for a restricted driver's license if certain requirements are met, including completing 30 days of the suspension period, providing proof of enrollment in a DUI program, installing a functioning, certified IID on any vehicle that they operate, being 21 years of age or older at the time of the offense, giving proof of financial responsibility, and paying all reissue and restriction fees. The bill would require the department to terminate the restricted driver's license and suspend the privilege to operate if the person has failed to comply with the DUI program requirements, or if the person attempts to remove, bypass, or tamper with the IID, removes the IID prior to the termination date of the restriction, or fails 3 or more times to comply with any requirement for the maintenance or calibration of the IID. (3) Existing law requires the department to suspend or revoke a person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle based on a peace officer's sworn statement or report, as specified. Existing law requires the department to review the record to determine whether the suspension or revocation is supported by the record, as specified. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would require the department to review these determinations and consider the sworn report and any other information and evidence, as specified. If, by a preponderance of the evidence, the department determines in the review of a determination certain facts are proven, including, among other facts, that the peace officer had reasonable cause to believe that the person had been driving a motor vehicle in violation of an alcohol- or drug-related driving provision, the bill would require the department to sustain the order of suspension or revocation. If the department determines that any of these certain facts are not proven by a preponderance of the evidence, the bill would require the department to rescind the order of suspension or revocation, as specified. (4) Existing law allows, for certain violations, a person who has had their driver's license suspended to apply to the department for a restricted license, subject to certain requirements as provided above. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would authorize a court to disallow the issuance of the restricted driver's license if the court determines that the person would present a traffic safety or public safety risk if the person were authorized to operate a motor vehicle during the period of suspension. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would make conforming changes to include the provisions above, as applicable, in statutes that generally pertain to the suspension, revocation, or restriction of the privilege to operate a motor vehicle. (5) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to report an emergency to specified government entities knowing that report to be false. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to initiate communication with the 911 emergency system with the intent to annoy or harass another person. This bill would make a 2nd or subsequent violation of these provisions punishable as a misdemeanor or felony for a person who was 18 years of age or older at the time the person committed the prior offense or offenses. By increasing the penalty for existing crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law makes an individual convicted of the crimes described above liable to a public agency for the reasonable costs of an emergency response by the public agency. The bill would extend those liability provisions to property damage incurred as a result of the emergency response. 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law provides for the civil commitment of a person who is determined to be a sexually violent predator. Existing law establishes a procedure by which a person committed as a sexually violent predator may petition for conditional release and requires the court, if it makes a specified determination, to place the person on conditional release. This bill would require a court presiding over any proceeding held pursuant to the above-described provisions that is open to the public to provide the public with a remote access option that allows members of the public to remotely observe the proceeding. The bill would require a court to make the audio of a proceeding accessible to the public if a court is unable to provide a remote access option that includes video due to technological limitations, as defined, that are not reasonably within the control of the court. On and after January 1, 2028, the bill would require a court to provide a remote access option with a visual feed.
Existing law generally authorizes the court to suspend a criminal sentence and make and enforce terms of probation for a period not to exceed 2 years, and in misdemeanor cases, for a period not to exceed one year. Existing law imposes various penalties for theft- or fraud-related crimes, including, among others, the abuse or neglect of an elder or dependent adult, mortgage fraud, or identity theft. This bill would authorize the court, upon a conviction of certain felony offenses related to, among other things, the purchase or sale of real property or the recording or attempted recording of a real estate instrument, if the court grants the defendant probation, to impose up to a one-year extension to the probationary term. The bill would create a process for the court to impose the one-year extension if the defendant is on formal probation by requiring the probation department to file a petition to the court to extend the probationary period and requiring the court to make a finding that additional time is necessary for programming. By increasing the period of probation, and increasing the duties on local officials, 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 establishes specified rights for victims and witnesses of crimes, including to be notified or informed regarding specified court proceedings and inmate placement or parole eligibility. This bill would require the district attorney's office or other prosecuting agency to ensure that the contact information of the victim and the victim's next of kin is provided to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at the time of sentencing in cases that result in a sentence to state prison, to the extent that contact information is reasonably available. By increasing the burdens on local prosecuting 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 California Public Records Act, requires state and local agencies to make their records available for public inspection, unless an exemption from disclosure applies. Existing law authorizes a person who faces violence, harassment, or threats of violence from the public because of their work for a public entity to apply to the Secretary of State for the purposes of enabling state and local agencies to respond to requests for public records without disclosing a program participant's residence address contained in any public record and otherwise provide for confidentiality of identity for that person, subject to specified conditions. Under existing law, any person who makes a false statement in an application is guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill would require the Attorney General to establish the Judicial Home Security Program under which a judicial officer, including an imminent, current, or former superior court judge or district court judge, or an adult household member of a judicial officer who is domiciled in California may request their home address in public records to be shielded or substituted with an alternate mailing address, as specified. The bill would establish the Judicial Home Security Program Fund in the General Fund and would authorize moneys in the fund to be made available for the administration of the program upon appropriation by the Legislature. The bill would require the Attorney General to approve an application to the program if it is filed in the manner and on the form prescribed by the Attorney General and contains prescribed information, including documentation showing the household contains an individual who is a judicial officer and a signed statement that the applicant fears for their safety or the safety of a household member of the applicant due to the employment of the judicial officer. The bill would require the application to be dated and signed, and would make knowingly providing false or incorrect information in the application a misdemeanor. The bill would require the Attorney General to commence accepting applications under the program on April 1, 2027. The bill would require the Attorney General to create, maintain, and update monthly a publicly available list that includes the name, county of residence, and designated alternate mailing address of each current program participant. The bill would also require the Attorney General to create, maintain, and update monthly a publicly available list that includes former participants who are no longer in the program. The bill would require, when disclosing or releasing records or information that would otherwise contain the home address of a program participant in any format or medium, a state or local agency to substitute the participant's alternate mailing address for any reference to the participant's home address. The bill would require, when disclosing or releasing records or information that would otherwise contain the situs of the home address of a program participant in any format or medium, a county assessor's office to substitute the program participant's alternate mailing address for the situs of the home address on assessment rolls, maps, property ownership statements and records, and any other records containing the home address of a program participant. The bill would require, when disclosing or releasing, in any format or medium, records or information that would otherwise contain the situs of the home address of a program participant who requests shielding, a county assessor's office and a county recorder's office to shield the participant's public record, including real property deeds, real estate records, and any other records containing the home address of a program participant. In this regard, the bill would require a program participant to submit a request containing a list of documents to be shielded, a sworn statement attesting to the accuracy of the information provided, and payment of a fee, as specified. The bill would authorize a program participant to submit a request to update the list of documents to be shielded, a specified. The bill would require the county assessor's office and county recorder's office to validate and shield any requested records within 5 business days of receipt of a request for shielding. The bill would authorize making any original documents available only to specified persons or in specified circumstances. The bill would prohibit the disclosure of a participant's home address by the Attorney General and state and local agencies, except in specified circumstances. The bill would prohibit a person or organization from publicly posting or displaying the home address of a program participant who has made a written demand of that person or organization, including on the internet, and would prohibit a third-party data broker or aggregator from selling, licensing, trading, purchasing, transferring, releasing, or otherwise sharing in any format or medium, the home address of a program participant, including on the internet, except as specified. The bill would authorize the Attorney General to adopt guidance to facilitate the administration of the act by state and local agencies. The bill would define terms for its purposes. By imposing new duties on local agencies, expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, and creating a crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
