Existing law requires that the terms of probation granted to a person who has been convicted of domestic violence include, among other things, successful completion of a batterer's program or, if a batterer's program is not available, another appropriate counseling program, as specified. Existing law requires the probation department to design and implement an approval and renewal process for batterer's programs and prescribes the requirements of a batterer's program. Existing law, until July 1, 2026, authorizes the Counties of Napa, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Yolo to offer an alternative program for individuals convicted of domestic violence if the program meets specified conditions. This bill would additionally authorize the County of Sacramento to offer an alternative program for individuals convicted of domestic violence. The bill would extend the repeal date of these provisions to July 1, 2030. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law authorizes a court to grant pretrial diversion to a defendant suffering from a mental disorder, on an accusatory pleading alleging the commission of a misdemeanor or felony offense, in order to allow the defendant to undergo mental health treatment. Existing law provides that a defendant is eligible for diversion if they have been diagnosed with certain mental disorders and the court finds that the mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense, unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the disorder was not a motivating, causal, or contributing factor to the defendant's involvement in the alleged offense. Existing law prohibits defendants charged with specified offenses, including murder, from being placed in this diversion program. This bill would require that the diagnosis or rediagnosis with a mental disorder be within 5 years before the alleged offense. Existing law makes a defendant suitable for this diversion program if, among other criteria, a qualified mental health expert opines that the defendant's symptoms of the mental disorder that caused, contributed to, or motivated the criminal behavior, would respond to mental health treatment and the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community, as specified. The bill would revise that standard and instead require the court to find that the defendant will not pose a substantial and undue risk to the physical safety of another person if treated in the community. The bill would require the mental health expert's opinion to include that the proposed mental health diversion plan is clinically appropriate to address the symptoms of the defendant's mental disorder, as specified. The bill would require the court to state the reasons for denial on the record.
Under existing law, a person who willfully inflicts corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon specified persons, including, among others, the offender's spouse or former spouse, is guilty of a crime, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 2, 3, or 4 years, or in a county jail for not more than 1 year, or by a fine of up to $6,000. Existing law also provides conditions for probation for a violation of these provisions if the person has a previous conviction of certain assault and battery offenses, as specified. This bill would make this crime punishable by imprisonment in state prison for 2, 4, or 5 years, or by imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000 if a person is convicted for violating these provisions within 7 years of a previous felony conviction under these provisions. The bill would also, if a person has one prior felony conviction under these provisions, require that the defendant be imprisoned in a county jail for not less than 60 days as a condition of probation. By increasing the penalty for existing crimes, the 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law, the Sex Offender Registration Act, requires a person convicted of one of certain crimes, as specified, to register with law enforcement as a sex offender while residing in California or while attending school or working in California, as specified. Existing law, on and after July 1, 2021, authorizes a person to file a petition in the superior court in the county in which they are registered for termination from the sex offender registry on or after their next birthday following the expiration of the mandated minimum registration period. If the district attorney requests a hearing regarding the above-described petition, under existing law, the district attorney is entitled to present evidence regarding whether community safety would be significantly enhanced by requiring continued registration. Existing law requires the court, in determining whether to order continued registration pursuant to the hearing, to consider specified information, including the person's current risk of reoffense as indicated on the State-Authorized Risk Assessment Tool for Sex Offenders (SARATSO) , as specified. This bill would authorize the court to order the petitioner to be present at the hearing described above, as specified. The bill would require the hearing to be heard in the county in which the person is registered. The bill would additionally require the court to consider whether the offender was in a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim and proof of participation in or successful completion of sex offender-specific treatment by the offender in the above-described determination. The bill would require the court to verify, as specified, participation in or completion of treatment. The bill would make other clarifying changes.
Existing law establishes various privacy protections relating to the collection, use, sale, or distribution of personal information, images, or video recordings, including restrictions relating to the retention, access, use, sale, or sharing of images or video recordings collected through the operation of an in-vehicle camera. This bill would prohibit a security surveillance company, as defined, from distributing, selling, or otherwise authorizing a third party to access, use, or distribute content obtained from a consumer's security surveillance system without first obtaining the express consent of the consumer and the adult residents of a residential rental property or upon receipt of an order of a court or arbitrator.
This bill designates the week of April 19 to April 25, 2026, as Crime Victims' Rights Week. The primary purpose is to formally recognize and highlight the rights and needs of individuals who have been affected by crime. It does not create new laws or alter existing legal procedures but serves as a commemorative resolution to raise awareness during a specific time period.
Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, except as specified, makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer with 5 or more employees to include on any application for employment, before the employer makes a conditional offer of employment to the applicant, any question that seeks the disclosure of an applicant's conviction history, to consider the conviction history of the applicant until after the employer has made a conditional offer of employment to the applicant, or to distribute information about an arrest not followed by conviction, referral to or participation in a pretrial or posttrial diversion program, or convictions that have been sealed, dismissed, expunged, or statutorily eradicated or any conviction for which the convicted person has received a full pardon or has been issued a certificate of rehabilitation while conducting a conviction history background check in connection with an application for employment, as specified. This bill would define the term "conviction or arrest record," for these purposes. The bill would include among those things that it is unlawful for an employer with 5 or more employees to do while conducting a conviction history background check in connection with an application for employment, asking any question that directly or indirectly seeks consent for a conviction history background check or requesting consent for or beginning a conviction history background check before providing the applicant with a list of all essential job duties, requiring a job applicant to cover the cost of a conviction history background check, or requiring any time before or after the conditional job offer, that an applicant self-disclose conviction history or provide the employer with any documentary evidence related to conviction history or rehabilitation, as specified. Existing law requires an employer that intends to deny an applicant a position of employment solely or in part because of the applicant's conviction history to make an individualized assessment of whether the applicant's conviction history has a direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of the job that justify denying the applicant the position considering specified factors. This bill, instead, would prohibit an employer from denying an applicant a position of employment or taking any other adverse action solely or in part because of the applicant's conviction history unless the employer first, reasonably and in good faith, demonstrates via an individualized assessment, that the applicant's conviction history has a direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of the job that justifies denying the applicant the position and it complies with a specified process. The bill would require the employer to commit the results of the individualized assessment to writing if it makes a decision to deny a position of employment or takes any adverse action. The bill would specify that it is not an adverse action for an employer to temporarily suspend an employee, with pay and for a reasonable amount of time, while the employer complies with the requirements of these provisions. Existing law makes these provisions inapplicable to a position as a farm labor contractor, as specified or to a position where an employer or agent thereof is required by any state, federal, or local law to conduct criminal background checks for employment purposes or to restrict employment based on criminal history. This bill would remove the exemption for farm labor contractors.
Existing law prohibits the state from seeking or obtaining a criminal conviction or sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin, as specified. Existing law allows a defendant to establish a violation of these provisions under specified circumstances, including when a longer or more severe sentence was imposed on the defendant than was imposed on other similarly situated individuals convicted of the same offense and other specified conditions are met. This bill would instead compare the defendant to similarly situated individuals who have engaged in similar conduct, as specified. The bill would make these provisions apply to disparities in plea negotiating and diversion, among other things. Existing law authorizes a defendant in these cases to file a motion requesting disclosure to the defense of all evidence relevant to a potential violation of these provisions, as specified. This bill would additionally authorize a defendant to request any data that has been previously disclosed pursuant to those provisions in another criminal case, and require the court to grant that request, unless the data has no relevance to the current charges. The bill would also revise and recast definitions for these provisions.
Existing law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to immediately revoke the driving privilege of a person upon receipt of a duly certified abstract of the record of a court showing that the person has been convicted of, among other things, certain types of manslaughter. Existing law prohibits the department from reinstating that driving privilege until 3 years after the date of revocation. This bill would additionally prohibit the department from reinstating the driving privilege of a person convicted of those specified crimes and sentenced to incarceration in the state prison or county jail until 3 years after the date of release.
Existing law, the Trial Jury Selection and Management Act, governs the selection of jurors and formation of trial juries for civil and criminal cases in all trial courts of the state. Existing law requires the judge in a criminal action or proceeding alleging a violent felony, prior to discharging the jury, to provide specified information to trial jurors regarding mental health awareness, including information about stress relief and symptoms that may be experienced following exposure to trauma. This bill would authorize the County of Santa Cruz and two other counties, selected by the Judicial Council, to conduct a pilot program for the provision of no-cost mental health services to jurors and alternate jurors following the receipt of a verdict in a criminal action or proceeding alleging a violent felony, as defined. The bill would require the Judicial Council to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the behavioral health directors of the participating counties for the purposes of providing the above-described mental health services, and would require the memorandum of understanding to include, among other things, the number of no-cost mental health sessions available to jurors. The bill would require the participating counties to terminate the pilot program no later than January 1, 2034, and would require the counties to report specified information regarding the pilot program to the Judicial Council. The bill would require the Judicial Council to provide a report to the Legislature no later than July 1, 2035, regarding the pilot program, and would require the report to include the number of jurors who were offered mental health resources pursuant to this program and recommendations for improving outreach and access to mental health services for jurors. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2036.
