Existing law prohibits law enforcement officers from employing threats, physical harm, deception, or psychologically manipulative interrogation tactics, as specified, during a custodial interrogation of a person 17 years of age or younger. This bill would prohibit a law enforcement officer from seeking statements or information while working undercover, or by individuals working in collaboration with, or acting as agents of, law enforcement, from a person who was 17 years of age or younger during the commission of crime and who is under 26 years of age while in custody. The bill would direct a court to consider any willful failure of a law enforcement officer in violation of these provisions in determining the credibility of that law enforcement officer. The bill would specify that these provisions do not apply to the admissibility of statements or information provided to an officer or individuals working in collaboration with law enforcement that were sought to protect against an imminent threat to life.
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.
Existing law requires the Board of Parole Hearings to conduct a youth offender parole hearing for offenders sentenced to state prison who committed specified crimes when they were under 25 years of age. Existing law makes a person who was convicted of a controlling offense that was committed when the person was under 18 years of age and for which the sentence is life without the possibility of parole eligible for release on parole at a youth offender hearing by the board during the person's 25th year of incarceration. Existing law specifies that these provisions do not alter the rights of a victim at a parole hearing. Under existing law, a murder perpetrated by specified means or under certain circumstances is defined as murder of the first degree. Existing law, as added by Proposition 7, an initiative measure approved by the voters at the November 7, 1978, statewide general election, requires that a person convicted of first-degree murder be subject to death or confinement in prison for a term of life without the possibility of parole in any case in which specified special circumstances are charged and found to be true. Proposition 7 does not provide for amendment by the Legislature. This bill, the Youth Rehabilitation and Opportunity Act, would instead make a person who was convicted of a controlling offense that was committed when the person was 25 years of age or younger and for which they were sentenced to life without the possibility of parole eligible for parole after their 25th year of incarceration, except as specified. The bill would require the board to complete, by January 1, 2028, all hearings for individuals who are or will be entitled to have their parole suitability considered at a youth offender parole hearing by these provisions, as specified.
Existing law prohibits a public agency, which includes the state, a city, a county, a city and county, or any agency or political subdivision of the state, a city, a county, or a city and county, including, but not limited to, a law enforcement agency, from selling, sharing, or transferring automated license plate recognition (ALPR) information, except to another public agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law. Existing law defines ALPR information as information or data collected through the use of an ALPR system. This bill would provide that "public agency" does not include a transportation agency, a public transit operator, or a local department of transportation or public works department, as specified. The bill would, beginning January 1, 2026, require new, updated, expansions of, or addendums of contractual agreements with ALPR vendors, manufacturers, or suppliers to mandate that no default access is provided to any national ALPR database and that an agency's collected scans are by default not accessible to any other agency, and would impose new requirements on sharing between California state law enforcement agencies. The bill would authorize a law enforcement agency to use ALPR information only for purposes of locating vehicles or persons when either are reasonably suspected of being involved in the commission of a public offense. The bill would prohibit a public agency from retaining ALPR information for more than 60 days after the date of collection if it does not match information on an authorized hot list, as defined, and as of January 1, 2026, would require a public agency to delete all ALPR information that has been held for more than 60 days and does not match information on an authorized hot list within 14 days. By imposing new requirements on public agencies, which include local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law defines an ALPR operator as a person that operates an ALPR system, which does not include a transportation agency. Existing law defines an ALPR end-user a person that accesses or uses an ALPR system, which does not include, among other things, a transportation agency. This bill would additionally exclude from the definitions of "ALPR operator" and "ALPR end-user" a public transit operator, a local department of transportation or public works department, or an airport or airport operator, as provided. Existing law requires an ALPR operator and ALPR end-user to maintain reasonable security procedures and practices, including operational, administrative, technical, and physical safeguards, to protect ALPR information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure. This bill would require those security procedures and practices to include safeguards for managing which employees can see the data from their systems, as specified, and requiring data security training and data privacy training for all employees that access ALPR information. Existing law requires an ALPR operator and ALPR end-user to implement a usage and privacy policy that includes, among other things, a description of the job title or other designation of the employees and independent contractors who are authorized to access and use ALPR information. This bill would require the usage and privacy policy to identify what purpose employees and independent contractors access and use ALPR information for. The bill would also require the Department of Justice to, contingent upon an appropriation of sufficient funds, conduct annual random audits on a public agency that is an ALPR operator or ALPR end-user to determine whether they have implemented and are adhering to that usage and privacy policy. Existing law requires an ALPR operator that accesses or provides access to ALPR information to require that ALPR information only be used for the authorized purposes described in the usage and privacy policy and to maintain a record of that access that includes, among other things, the purpose for accessing the information. This bill would instead require that record of access maintained by the ALPR operator to include the case file number or task force name, as applicable, that justifies the search query, and would provide that no queries shall be allowed without a log entry with a valid and current case file number or task force name from the agency conducting the query. 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. 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.
This measure would strongly condemn and denounce mass immigration raids that target immigrant workers and families in California and the engagement of the military in immigration enforcement operations and in response to community protests. This measure would affirm support for safeguarding the rights and safety of all Californians, regardless of immigration status, and support, among other things, the expansion of legal services and emergency response resources to protect workers, children, and families affected by immigration enforcement.
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 Pharmacy Law, provides for the licensure and regulation of pharmacists and pharmacies by the California State Board of Pharmacy. Existing law, until January 1, 2026, authorizes a physician or pharmacist to, without a prescription or permit, furnish hypodermic needles and syringes for human use to a person 18 years of age or older, and authorizes a person 18 years of age or older to, without a prescription or license, obtain hypodermic needles and syringes solely for personal use from a physician or pharmacist, as a public health measure, as specified. Existing law, until January 1, 2026, requires a pharmacy that furnishes nonprescription syringes to provide written information or verbal counseling to consumers, as specified, at the time of furnishing or sale of nonprescription hypodermic needles or syringes. Existing law, when no other penalty is provided, makes a knowing violation of the Pharmacy Law a misdemeanor and, in all other instances, makes a violation punishable as an infraction. This bill would delete the January 1, 2026, repeal date, thereby extending those provisions indefinitely, and would make other conforming changes. By indefinitely extending an existing requirement under the Pharmacy Law, the violation of which is a crime, 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 authorizes a court, on its own motion within 120 days of the date of the defendant's commitment, or at any time if the applicable sentencing laws have changed or upon a recommendation from the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Board of Parole Hearings, or the district attorney, to recall a defendant's sentence and resentence that defendant to a lesser sentence. Existing law establishes the California Conservation Camps for the purpose of having incarcerated persons work on projects supervised by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Existing law requires the department to utilize incarcerated persons assigned to conservation camps in performing fire prevention, fire control, and other work at the department. This bill would require the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, no later than July 1, 2027, to promulgate regulations, as specified, regarding the referral of participants in the California Conservation Camp program and incarcerated persons working at institutional firehouses for resentencing.
Existing law revives certain claims seeking to recover damages suffered as a result of a sexual assault that occurred on or after the plaintiff's 18th birthday when one or more entities are legally responsible for damages and the entity or their agents engaged in a cover up, as defined, that would otherwise be barred prior to January 1, 2023, solely because the applicable statute of limitations has or had expired. Existing law authorizes a cause of action for any such claim to proceed if already pending in court on January 1, 2023, or, if not filed by that date, to be commenced between January 1, 2023, and December 31, 2023. Existing law revives such claims brought by a plaintiff who alleges all of the following: (1) the plaintiff was sexually assaulted, (2) one or more entities are legally responsible for damages arising out of the assault, and (3) the entity or entities engaged in a cover up or attempted cover up, as defined, of a previous instance or allegations of sexual assault. This bill would extend the eligibility period for revival of claims of the type described above to include claims that would otherwise be barred prior to January 1, 2026, because the applicable statute of limitations has or had expired. The bill would instead require a revived claim against an entity, as defined, to allege that the plaintiff was sexually assaulted and that (1) one or more entities or persons are legally responsible for damages arising out of sexual assault by an alleged perpetrator against the plaintiff, and (2) an entity or entities, including their specified representatives, engaged in a cover up or attempted a cover up of a previous instance or allegations of sexual assault by an alleged perpetrator. The bill would additionally revive a claim against the person who committed the sexual assault brought by a plaintiff who alleges, among other things, that one or more entities or persons are legally responsible for damages arising out of the sexual assault. The bill would specify that failure to allege a cover up as to one entity does not affect revival of a claim or claims against any other entity or person, including the perpetrator. The bill would permit a cause of action for any such claim to proceed if already pending in court on the effective date of the bill or, if not filed by that date, to be commenced between January 1, 2026, and December 31, 2027. The bill would exempt public entities from these provisions and would provide that public entities are not required to indemnify perpetrators of sexual assault, as specified. The bill would make conforming changes.
Existing law prohibits the state from seeking, obtaining, or imposing a criminal conviction or sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. Under existing law, a defendant may pursue relief for a violation of this prohibition by filing a motion pursuant to the provisions that prohibit this conduct, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, or a motion to vacate a conviction or sentence. This bill would authorize the defendant in these proceedings to file a motion for disclosure of all relevant evidence related to a potential violation of the prohibition on the state seeking, obtaining, or imposing a criminal conviction or sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin, as specified. The bill would also authorize the court to remedy a violation of these provisions with any other remedy not prohibited by another law. The bill would make other technical changes. This bill makes legislative findings and declarations in support of its provisions. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 745, 1473, and 1473.7 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 734 to be operative only if this bill and SB 734 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
