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.
Existing law provides for various employment programs to assist formerly incarcerated individuals in finding and retaining employment, including the Pre-Release Construction Trades Certificate Program administered by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Prison to Employment Program administered by the California Workforce Development Board. Existing law establishes the California Workforce Development Board as the body responsible for assisting the Governor in the development, oversight, and continuous improvement of California's workforce investment system and the alignment of the education and workforce investment systems to the needs of the 21st century economy and workforce. This bill would, by January 1, 2028, require the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, in partnership with the Department of Industrial Relations, to establish the Preapprenticeship Pathways to Employment Pilot Program. The bill would, until January 1, 2032, provide incarcerated individuals access to preapprenticeship training in the skilled construction and building trades. The bill would require the program to provide, among other things, instruction based on the Multi-Craft Core Curriculum and content coordinated with joint apprenticeship training committees. The bill would require the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to implement the program at one men's facility and one women's facility. The bill would require the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, beginning January 1, 2029, to annually report certain data regarding participation in the program to the Legislature.
Existing law allows the court to issue a protective order restraining a defendant from any contact with the victim if the defendant has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence, human trafficking, a crime in furtherance of a criminal street gang, or a registerable sex offense. Under existing law, the protective order may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. This bill would additionally allow the court to issue a permanent protective order restraining a defendant from any contact with the victim if the defendant has been convicted of any serious or violent felony, as defined, or any felony requiring registration as a sex offender. The bill would also authorize the court to permanently extend certain previously issued orders under certain circumstances. The bill would require the Judicial Council to develop forms, instructions, and rules relating to these orders. The bill would make other conforming changes. By authorizing the issuance of protective orders in certain circumstances and the extension of certain protective orders, a violation of which is punishable as 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law establishes the Second Chance Program to support mental health treatment, substance use treatment, and diversion programs for persons in the criminal justice system with an emphasis on programs that reduce recidivism of persons convicted of less serious crimes and persons who have substance use and mental health problems. Existing law requires the Board of State and Community Corrections to administer a grant program to carry out the purposes of the Second Chance Program. Existing law requires the grant program to, among other things, restrict eligibility to proposals that offer mental health services, substance use disorder treatment services, misdemeanor diversion programs, or a combination thereof. Existing law also establishes the Second Chance Fund, a continuously appropriated fund, which is administered by the board. Existing law, the Treatment-Mandated Felony Act, makes it a crime for a person, who has 2 or more prior convictions for a felony or misdemeanor violation of specified controlled substances crimes, to possess a hard drug, as defined, unless it has been prescribed by a doctor, among others. Under existing law, a defendant who has been charged with this crime can elect treatment, in lieu of a jail or prison sentence or probation, by pleading guilty or no contest and admitting the alleged prior convictions, waiving time for sentencing and the pronouncement of judgment, and agreeing to participate in, and complete, a detailed treatment program developed by a drug addiction expert and approved by the court. This bill would require the Second Chance grant program to authorize eligibility for proposals that offer mental health or behavioral health services and drug court or collaborative court programs, including the treatment program under the Treatment-Mandated Felony Act. By expanding the purpose of a continuously appropriated fund, this bill would make an appropriation.
Existing law establishes the Elderly Parole Program for the purpose of reviewing the parole suitability of inmates who are 50 years of age or older and who have served a minimum of 20 years of continuous incarceration on their sentence. Existing law requires the Board of Parole Hearings, when considering the release of qualifying inmates, to give special consideration to whether certain criteria have reduced the elderly inmate's risk for future violence. Existing law excludes various persons from these provisions, including, among others, persons convicted of serious felonies, persons convicted of first-degree murder of a peace officer, or persons sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. This bill would additionally exclude, among others, persons receiving an enhancement to their sentence for committing certain sexual offenses including, among others, rape, sodomy, or lewd and lascivious acts, and habitual sex offenders. The bill would specify that these exclusions apply to all persons incarcerated as of January 1, 2026, regardless of the person's previous eligibility for parole or the status of any parole petition filed prior to that date.
Existing law requires prisoners sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison to serve time on parole or community supervision after their release from prison. Existing law authorizes courts to suspend the imposition or execution of punishments in specified criminal cases and instead enforce terms of probation or mandatory supervision. This bill would prohibit a supervision authority, as defined, from imposing a condition of supervision that prohibits a person on supervision from being in contact with any family member. The bill would authorize the supervision authority to prohibit contact if the family member is a victim of the crime for which the person on supervision was convicted, and it is deemed necessary for public safety. The bill would require the supervision authority prohibiting contact to provide a written explanation of why the public safety and rehabilitative benefits of prohibiting contact outweigh the rights to familial association, any rehabilitative benefits from contact, and any harms to either person from prohibiting contact. By increasing duties on local governments, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would exclude courts from the definition of a supervision authority. 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 Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, authorizes specified adult persons to petition a civil court to create a voluntary CARE agreement or a court-ordered CARE plan and implement services, to be provided by county behavioral health agencies, to provide behavioral health care, including stabilization medication, housing, and other enumerated services, to adults who are currently experiencing a severe mental illness and have a diagnosis identified in the disorder class schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, and who meet other specified criteria. This bill would include bipolar I disorder in the criteria for a person to receive services under the CARE Act. By increasing the duties on the county behavioral health 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.
Under existing law, a minor who is 12 to 17 years of age when they violate any criminal law in this state, except an ordinance establishing a curfew based solely on age, or a minor under 12 years of age if they commit certain serious offenses, is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge the person a ward of the court. Existing law requires, after finding that the minor is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, the court to hear evidence on the question of the proper disposition to be made of the minor and requires the court to receive in evidence a social study of the minor made by the probation officer. Existing law requires, when the probation officer recommends the minor to be placed in foster care, or if the minor is already in foster care placement or pending placement pursuant to an earlier order, the social study to include a case plan with specified components. This bill would also require a case plan, with specified components, to be developed and included in the social study in cases in which the probation officer recommends wardship and either does not recommend removal of the minor from their parent or guardian, or recommends commitment of the minor to a juvenile home, ranch, camp, forestry camp, or juvenile hall. The bill would also require the court to order a minor to comply with any case plan that is developed and to review the ward's progress toward meeting the goals in a case plan at a hearing no less than once every 6 months. By increasing the duties of county probation officers, 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, as added by the Victims' Bill of Rights, approved as Proposition 8 at the June 8, 1982, statewide primary election, and as amended by the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act of 1998, approved as Proposition 21 at the March 7, 2000, statewide primary election, among other things, defines a serious felony. 2 3 vote, or by a statute that becomes effective only when approved by the voters."?> Existing law prohibits plea bargaining in a case in which a serious felony is charged and imposes a 5-year enhancement for conviction of a serious felony if the person has previously been convicted of a serious felony. This bill would include knowingly furnishing fentanyl to a minor within the definition of a serious felony. By expanding the scope of an enhancement, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law sets the period of parole for a person sentenced to prison for first- or 2nd-degree murder pursuant to specified provisions to be the remainder of the person's life. Existing law requires a person subject to those provisions who is on parole and who violates the law or the conditions of their parole to be remanded to the custody of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the jurisdiction of the Board of Parole Hearings for the purpose of future parole consideration. Existing law also sets the parole period for a person released on parole from state prison on or after July 1, 2020, and who was sentenced to life, to no more than 3 years. This bill would authorize the court to remand a person sentenced to prison for first- or 2nd-degree murder pursuant to specified provisions and released on parole on or after July 1, 2020, and who the court determines has committed a violation of law or the conditions of their parole, to the custody of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the jurisdiction of the Board of Parole Hearings for the purpose of future parole consideration, if the court finds that this is in the furtherance of justice. The bill would, if the court does not remand the person to the custody of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, instead subject the person to a period of confinement in the county jail, as specified.
