Existing law, the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) , among other things, consolidates the licensure and regulation of commercial medicinal and adult-use cannabis activities. Existing law gives the Department of Cannabis Control the power, duty, purpose, responsibility, and jurisdiction to regulate commercial cannabis activity in the state. Existing law authorizes the department to take disciplinary actions against a licensee, as provided. Existing law requires the department to prepare and disseminate, as specified, an annual report relating to the department's activities, including, among other things, the amount of funds allocated and spent by the department for cannabis licensing, enforcement, and administration, and the number of state licenses issued, renewed, denied, suspended, and revoked. This bill, the Cannabis Enforcement Accountability and Public Health Prioritization Act of 2026, would require the department, beginning January 1, 2028, to prioritize its enforcement of MAUCRSA in a manner consistent with an enforcement prioritization policy, as defined, based on specified categories, that are listed from highest to lowest priority, based on conduct or conditions, as specified, that create a risk of harm, as described. The bill would define "risk of harm" as the likelihood of, among other things, interference with enforcement of state law. Beginning January 1, 2028, the bill would require the department to adopt and publish an enforcement prioritization policy, as specified, and would require the department to include in the above-described annual report the number, geographic distribution, and, as applicable, dollar amount of specified enforcement activities in relation to the risk-based enforcement framework, as provided.
Existing law, as amended by Proposition 9, the Victim's Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy's Law, at the November 4, 2008, statewide general election, requires the Board of Parole Hearings, following a decision denying parole, to schedule the next hearing 3, 5, 7, 10, or 15 years from the date of the last hearing, as specified. Existing law also authorizes the board, in its discretion and after considering the views and interests of the victim, to advance a hearing to an earlier date, when a change in circumstances or new information establishes a reasonable likelihood that consideration of the public and victim's safety does not require additional incarceration. Existing law authorizes an inmate to request that the board exercise its discretion to advance a hearing and provides the procedure for an inmate to make that request. This bill would require the board, in coordination with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, to collect and publish annual data regarding requests to advance parole consideration hearing dates and the board's review of those requests, as specified. The bill would require the board to submit the report to the Legislature by March 1, 2027, and annually thereafter. Following submission of the report to the Legislature, the bill would also require the board to make the report publicly available on its internet website on that date and annually thereafter. This bill, for each request to advance a parole consideration hearing date, would require the board to maintain a written summary of the decision, including the basis for approval or denial and the primary factors considered. The bill would require the summaries to be made available to certain entities, including the incarcerated person or their counsel. This bill would repeal these provisions as of January 1, 2032.
The California Uniform Controlled Substances Act (act) , among other things, requires a retail distributor to comply with specific requirements for the sale of certain types of controlled substances, including, among other requirements, not selling in a single transaction more than 3 packages of a product that is known to contain ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, norpseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine. A violation of these requirements by a retail distributor is a crime. The act defines a "retail distributor," for its purposes, as a grocery store, general merchandise store, drugstore, or other related entity, the activities of which, as a distributor of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, norpseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine products, are limited exclusively to the sale of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, norpseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine products for personal use both in number of sales and volume of sales, either directly to walk-in customers or in face-to-face transactions by direct sales. This bill would include an online retailer, as specified, within the definition of a retail distributor. By expanding the types of entities that are subject to the requirements imposed on retail distributors under the act, the violation of which is a crime, this bill would expand the scope of a 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 requires law enforcement and state and local governments to interact with and report on federal action against individuals based on their perceived or actual immigration status in various specified manners. Under existing law, for example, a local governing body of any county, city, or city and county in which a local law enforcement agency has provided access to an individual during the last year by the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is required to hold at least one community forum, as specified, to provide public information about ICE's access to individuals and to receive and consider public comment. This bill would establish within the Department of Justice on July 1, 2027, the Working Group on Civil Rights Accountability, consisting of 12 appointed members, to develop and maintain a statewide reporting dashboard with specific data fields to document and categorize alleged constitutional or civil rights violations arising from federal immigration enforcement activities within the state. The bill would require a nonprofit organization, if eligible as specified, to be authorized to submit reports to the dashboard. The bill would require the department to establish specific standards, protocols, and procedures for a nonprofit organization to submit reports to the dashboard, including establishing data verification procedures. The bill would require the working group, beginning January 1, 2028, and on each January 1 thereafter, to submit a report of specific information and policy recommendations to the Legislature and make that annual report publicly available. This bill would also exempt the reports required pursuant to the above-described provisions from the disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The bill would make legislative findings and declarations in support of its provisions. 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.
Existing law requires specified businesses and other establishments, including, among others, airports, intercity passenger rail or light rail stations, bus stations, and truck stops, to post a notice, as developed by the Department of Justice, that contains information relating to slavery and human trafficking, including information regarding specified nonprofit organizations that a person can call for services or support in the elimination of slavery and human trafficking. This bill would additionally require a privately operated entity that operates in a designated disaster site or designated mitigation site, as those terms are defined, that is involved in the response, recovery, rebuilding, or cleanup of a disaster site, permitting related to recovery, rebuilding, or cleanup of a disaster site, or efforts to mitigate or prevent the occurrence of a disaster, to post the above-described notice, except for telecommunications companies or internet service providers. Existing law requires a business or other establishment that operates intercity passenger rail or light rail stations or bus stations to provide at least 20 minutes of training to specified employees in recognizing the signs of human trafficking and how to report those signs to the appropriate law enforcement agency. Existing law requires that training to include, among other things, the definition of human trafficking, including sex trafficking and labor trafficking, and guidance on how to identify individuals who are most at risk for human trafficking. This bill would, starting June 1, 2027, require a privately operated entity that operates in a designated disaster site or designated mitigation site to provide at least 20 minutes of training to all employees involved in specified disaster recovery or mitigation tasks. The bill would authorize the training to be developed or administered by a nonprofit or private entity with professional experience related to human trafficking and would require the training to be delivered in the language that is the most widely spoken language among the employees that will receive the training. The bill would require the training to include the same elements as the training described in the above-paragraph and examples and case scenarios relevant to how trafficking occurs at designated disaster sites and designated mitigation sites.
Existing law, until January 1, 2031, authorizes a city or county prosecuting attorney or county probation department to create a diversion or deferred entry of judgment program for persons who commit a theft offense or repeat theft offenses. Existing law requires the prosecuting attorney in a participating county to either refer the case to the county probation department to conduct a prefiling investigation report and determine the appropriateness of program placement or, if the prosecuting attorney's office operates the program, determine if the case is appropriate for referral. Existing law requires the county probation department or prosecuting attorney's office to consider certain factors for referral, including, among others, whether the person has a violent or serious prior criminal record or has previously been referred to a diversion program and failed that program. This bill would require the prosecutor or county probation department, for certain theft offenses, including shoplifting and vandalism, to determine whether, based on certain criteria, specified defendants are eligible for a theft diversion program. The bill would require the prosecuting attorney to review their file for certain factors, including whether the offense charged involved a crime of violence or threatened violence and, if the defendant is eligible, would require the attorney to file a declaration or state for the record the grounds for the determination of the defendant's eligibility. The bill would require the court to dismiss the action against the defendant at the end of the period of diversion if the defendant has complied with the imposed terms and conditions of diversion. By 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 requires that, as a condition of parole, a prisoner who has a severe mental health disorder, as specified, be treated by the State Department of State Hospitals, if the prisoner meets certain requirements, including, among others, that the person in charge of treating the prisoner and a practicing psychiatrist or psychologist from the State Department of State Hospitals have evaluated the prisoner and that a chief psychiatrist of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation certify to the Board of Parole Hearings that by reason of the prisoner's severe mental health disorder, the prisoner represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others. This bill would require that certain factors be considered in determining whether an offender poses a substantial danger of physical harm to others, including, but not limited to, a history of violent behavior and prior history of state hospital commitment. Existing law allows a prisoner to request a hearing before the Board of Parole Hearings for the purpose of proving that the prisoner meets the criteria to be treated by the State Department of State Hospitals. Existing law allows a prisoner who disagrees with the determination of the Board of Parole Hearings to file a petition in court for a hearing on whether they met the criteria and, if the court reverses the determination of the Board of Parole Hearings, existing law authorizes the court to require the parties to return to court to ensure that the entities involved in the release of the prisoner have coordinated an exit plan for the prisoner. This bill would require that an exit plan include the submission of an application for Medi-Cal benefits and a recommendation, as appropriate, to the supervising county's behavioral health department by a licensed behavioral health professional, as specified, supervising the treatment of, or treating, the prisoner for a mental health disorder for certain resources and programs, including substance use disorder treatment, assisted outpatient treatment, and early psychosis intervention services. 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. Existing law establishes 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. This bill would add to the criteria for presumptively eligibility for a full-service partnership an individual transitioning to the community after 6 months or more in a state hospital. Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services and under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. Existing law, the California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal (CalAIM) Act, supports the stated goals of identifying and managing the risk and needs of Medi-Cal beneficiaries, transitioning and transforming the Medi-Cal program to a more consistent and seamless system, and improving quality outcomes. Existing law makes a qualifying inmate of a public institution eligible, commencing no sooner than January 1, 2023, to receive targeted Medi-Cal services, limited to those services approved in the CalAIM Terms and Conditions for 90 days, as specified. This bill would also make a qualifying inmate of a state hospital eligible to receive targeted Medi-Cal services, as described. By expanding the population receiving benefits under the BHSA and to the extent that the bill would create new duties for counties relating to Medi-Cal eligibility determinations, 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, 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.
Under existing law, a court is authorized to suspend the driving privilege of a licensed driver convicted of a violation relating to the speed of vehicles or reckless driving for a period not to exceed 30 days for a first conviction, for a period not to exceed 60 days upon a 2nd conviction, and for a period not to exceed 6 months upon a 3rd or any subsequent conviction. This bill would, commencing on January 1, 2028, authorize a court, for a conviction of reckless driving, to suspend the driving privilege for a period not to exceed 60 days, and for a period of not less than 30 days and not to exceed 6 months when the offense occurred within 10 years of a separate reckless driving violation. The bill would require a court to suspend the driving privilege for a period of not less than 90 days and not to exceed one year if the offense occurred within 10 years of 2 or more separate reckless driving violations. Existing law authorizes a peace officer to arrest a person and seize the motor vehicle of the person if a peace officer determines that the person was engaged in a motor vehicle speed contest, reckless driving, or an exhibition of speed on a highway or in an offstreet parking facility. Existing law allows a vehicle seized under this provision to be impounded for up to 30 days. Existing law requires an impounding agency to release a motor vehicle to the registered owner or their agent prior to the conclusion of the impoundment period if, among other reasons, the person alleged to have been engaged in the motor vehicle speed contest was not authorized by the registered owner to operate the motor vehicle at the time of the commission of the offense, or if the registered owner was neither the driver nor a passenger of the motor vehicle or was unaware that the driver was using the motor vehicle to engage in the prohibited activities. If an impounding agency releases a motor vehicle to the registered owner or agent prior to the conclusion of the impoundment period, this bill would require the registered owner to provide evidence that the driver did not have authorization from the registered owner to operate the motor vehicle, as specified, or require the registered owner to submit a written, signed statement attesting that the registered owner was unaware that the driver was using the vehicle to engage in reckless driving. The bill would allow a registered owner or their agent to obtain their vehicle prior to the conclusion of the impoundment period based on the reason that the registered owner was not the driver or passenger of the motor vehicle or was unaware that the driver was engaging in reckless driving 3 times. The bill would prohibit a registered owner from using this reason to obtain the motor vehicle prior to the conclusion of the impoundment period for a 4th or any subsequent arrest that involves the same driver and vehicle. Existing law requires an impounding agency to release an impounded vehicle before the conclusion of the impound period if the charges against the driver are dismissed. This bill would prohibit the registered owner or driver of the vehicle from being charged any towing or storage fees if the vehicle is released for this reason.
Existing law makes it a crime to operate a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and sets forth the penalties for a violation of these provisions. Under existing law, if a person is convicted of a driving under the influence violation and the offense occurs within 10 years of one or more separate driving under the influence violations that resulted in convictions, the offense is subject to escalating fines, suspensions, and other sanctions. This bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles, upon an appropriation from the Legislature, to provide, as appropriate, a summary of the penalties for specified violations involving alcohol or drugs on specified vehicle registration materials and with each driver's license, and license renewal, as specified. The bill would require the department's summary to include, among other things, the financial consequences of driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol or drugs, and annual updates to DUI-related statutes.
Existing law establishes various benefit programs, including grant programs and loan programs. Existing law, the California Values Act, generally prohibits California law enforcement agencies from using their moneys or personnel for immigration enforcement purposes, except as specified. This bill would prohibit an administrator of a covered program, as those terms are defined, from awarding a grant or issuing a loan from a covered program to a private entity that contracts with United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, except as specified. The bill would require each private entity applying to a covered program to agree to identify to the administrator of that covered program any subcontractors to be used under the contract and to certify to the administrator that the subcontractors do not contract with United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The bill would require an administrator to include in their eligibility requirements for their covered programs that an eligible private entity and its subcontractors for each covered program, if any, shall not contract with United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The bill would make related findings and declarations. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. By imposing additional duties on local agencies and expanding the scope of a crime, 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 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.
