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 requires the Department of Justice to keep a centralized list of all persons who are licensed firearms dealers and satisfy certain requirements, including having a valid federal firearms license and a regulatory or business license required by local government. Existing law requires the department to remove a person from the list if the person's federal license has expired or been revoked. Existing law, beginning on January 1, 2024, requires the department to conduct inspections of firearms dealers at least every 3 years, except as provided, to ensure compliance with specified requirements. As part of the department's inspections of firearms dealers, existing law requires the department to audit a dealer's records that includes a sampling of at least 25% but no more than 50% of each record type. Existing law requires the department to assess annual fees not to exceed specified amounts to cover the reasonable costs of inspecting and maintaining this list and other similar centralized lists. This bill would require the department to remove from the list a person who fails to comply with the requirements to be on the list and authorize the department to remove a person from the list who fails to remedy specified violations discovered as a result of the above-described inspections. The bill would subject a person removed from the list for failure to remedy specified violations to a fine and would authorize that person to be ineligible to be placed on the list for a period of 2 years. The bill would require the department to conduct a yearly inspection of the 10 firearm dealer locations with the highest percentage of firearms that were recovered by law enforcement and found to be illegally possessed, used in a crime, or suspected to have been used in a crime, as specified, pursuant to a certain yearly report. The bill would, for the fees charged for inspecting and maintaining the above-described lists, instead require the department to assess a reasonable annual fee. The bill would prohibit a fee adjustment from exceeding 15% over the previous year and exceeding the amount necessary to cover the costs described 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.
Existing law establishes the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) pilot program, which is administered by the Board of State and Community Corrections, to improve public safety and reduce recidivism by increasing the availability and use of social service resources while reducing costs to law enforcement agencies and courts stemming from repeated incarceration. Existing law requires the board to award grants, on a competitive basis, to up to 3 jurisdictions to establish LEAD programs and requires the board to establish minimum standards, funding schedules, and procedures for awarding grants. This bill would rename the program as the Alternatives to Arrest (ATA) pilot program. The bill would require the board to additionally award a grant or grants to the agency administering qualifying programs in the City of Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles, as well as in other jurisdictions to be identified by the board. Existing law allows a person to be referred to services through a program by a law enforcement officer as an alternative to arrest and through a social contact referral by a law enforcement officer if they believe the person is at high risk of arrest in the future for specified crimes relating to controlled substances and prostitution. Existing law requires those social contact referrals to meet specified criteria, including, among other things, verification that the individual has had prior involvement with low-level drug or prostitution activity and that the individual does not have a pending case in drug court or mental health court. This bill would remove these requirements for social contact referrals and instead authorize them if, absent probable cause to arrest, the officer believes the person would benefit from case management services and is at high risk of arrest in the future and the person expresses interest in voluntarily participating in the program. The bill would expand the offenses eligible for referral as an alternative to arrest to include, among other things, specified disorderly conduct crimes, shoplifting, or other violations identified by the local jurisdiction with agreement of the police chief or sheriff, the city attorney or district attorney, and the implementing public health or behavioral health agency administering case management services. Existing law requires the Board of State and Community Corrections to contract with a nonprofit research entity, university, or college to evaluate the effectiveness of the program, as specified. Existing law also authorizes the board to contract with experts for the purpose of providing technical assistance to participating jurisdictions. Existing law appropriated $15,000,000 from the General Fund for the program and authorized the board to spend up to $550,000 for the purposes of the evaluation contract and technical assistance. This bill would repeal those provisions and would require, upon appropriation by the Legislature for these programs, that the funds be granted to the entity responsible for LEAD or ATA in the City of Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles and agencies in other jurisdictions to be identified by the board. The bill would authorize the board to spend a portion of those funds on contracts with experts on the implementation of ATA or similar programs in other jurisdictions for the purpose of providing technical assistance to participating jurisdictions, as specified. The bill would require local jurisdictions to commit to using these funds and local resources to support ATA or LEAD planning, implementation, and services and not supplant local resources that had been previously dedicated to ATA or LEAD programs and services. The bill would require the board to report to the Legislature on the effectiveness of the program on or before September 1, 2031.
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.
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.
Existing law, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act (CARE Act) , authorizes specified persons, including a person with whom the respondent resides, family members, and first responders, among others, 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, or bipolar I disorder with psychotic features, and who meet other specified criteria. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to develop a mandatory form for use to file a CARE process petition with the court and any other forms necessary for the CARE process, to be signed under the penalty of perjury, and requires the form to contain certain information, including either a specified affidavit of a licensed behavioral health professional or evidence the respondent was detained for a minimum of two intensive treatments pursuant to specified provisions of law. Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act) , generally provides for the evaluation, treatment, and civil commitment of persons with mental health disorders and other specified persons. Existing law authorizes, under a superior court order, an evaluation of a person alleged, as a result of mental disorder, to be a danger to themselves or others or to be gravely disabled, and provides the forms to use for these evaluations. The CARE Act authorizes a court to terminate a respondent's participation in the CARE process if the court determines that the respondent is not participating in the CARE process or is not adhering to their CARE plan, as specified, and authorizes the court to order the court-ordered evaluation under the LPS Act. If the court finds the petitioner has made a prima facie showing that the respondent is, or may be, a person eligible for the CARE program, the court is required to order the county behavioral health agency, or their designee, as specified, to submit a written report to the court with specified information, including, but not limited to, a determination whether the respondent meets, or is likely to meet, the criteria for the CARE process and conclusions and recommendations about the respondent's ability to voluntarily engage in services. Existing law requires the court to, within 5 days of receiving the report, take one of several actions, including dismissing the petition if the court determines that voluntary engagement with the respondent is effective and the individual has enrolled, or is likely to enroll, in behavioral health treatment. This bill would require the written report to include conclusions about whether the respondent is likely to need a higher level of care than is available under the CARE Act and, if so, recommendations about the appropriate level of care and the necessary steps to obtain that level of care for the respondent and remove the authorization for a court to dismiss the petition if the respondent is only likely to enroll in behavioral health treatment. If the court intends to dismiss a petition because the respondent needs a higher level of services, the bill would authorize the court to order the county to conduct a prepetition screening and hold the CARE petition open until the screening is complete. The bill would also make other technical and conforming changes. By requiring a higher level of service on the county, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires all hearings regarding these provisions to occur in person unless the court, in its discretion, allows a party or witness to appear remotely. This bill would require the court to allow the hearings to be held remotely, unless otherwise ordered by the court or demanded by the respondent. 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.
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 every person who contacts or communicates with a minor, or attempts to contact or communicate with a minor, as specified, with intent to commit certain offenses, including any lewd or lascivious act, involving the minor, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, as provided. This bill would make any adult person who recruits, induces, coerces, or persuades a minor to commit an illegal act against another minor, or to solicit physical harm, sexual conduct, or images of an intimate body part, from another minor, or who utilizes a minor as a conduit of communication to facilitate any such acts guilty of a crime punishable either as a misdemeanor or a felony. By creating a new 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.
