Existing law provides for the prosecution of crimes by the district attorney of each county. Existing law establishes procedures for litigating claims of factual innocence based on newly discovered evidence, including a motion for a new trial or a writ of habeas corpus. This bill would, if the district attorney accepts a case for postconviction review, as defined, authorize the district attorney to file a notice with the court notifying the court of the intent to investigate a claim of factual innocence. The bill would, upon the filing of the above-described notice, deem the case to be treated as if it were an open case for the purposes of investigating a claim of factual innocence. The bill would provide the district attorney with the power to issue subpoenas, compel the production of document and testimony, and file necessary motions to investigate claims, as specified. The bill would also require all materials obtained by the district attorney to be subject to a protective order, as specified, and to be disclosed to the petitioner or the petitioner's counsel within 60 days of the termination of the investigation.
This measure would affirm the fundamental importance of indigent defense to due process, equal justice, and democratic governance, recognize public defenders as essential protectors of constitutional rights and the rule of law, and encourage the development of statewide approaches to indigent defense.
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. Beginning July 1, 2027, this bill would additionally allow the court to issue a protective order, valid for up to the later of 10 years or until the minor victim reaches 18 years of age, restraining a defendant from any contact with a victim if the defendant has been convicted of a registerable sex offense involving a minor victim, as specified. The bill would require the Judicial Council, no later than July 1, 2027, 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.
(1) Existing law establishes the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (department) and sets forth its powers and duties regarding the administration of correctional facilities and the care and custody of inmates. Existing law requires law enforcement agencies to consider specified best practices when establishing policies and procedures for downloading and storing data from body-worn cameras, including, among other things, prohibiting the unauthorized use, duplication, or distribution of the data, and establishing storage periods for evidentiary and nonevidentiary data, as defined. This bill would require the department, by July 1, 2027, to establish policies and procedures that include circumstances under which a body-worn camera may be deactivated and would require the department to ensure that those policies and procedures reflect a minimum amount of time per shift that a body-worn camera be activated, and that the camera is activated when interacting with incarcerated persons. The bill would require the department to develop audit protocols to ensure compliance. The bill would require the department's policies and procedures to authorize deactivation of a body-worn camera during specified confidential interactions and would require staff to inform the subject the reason for the deactivation and to document the time of the deactivation, the reason for the deactivation, and the time of reactivation. This bill would require the department to adopt, and update regularly, a Prison Sexual Violence Elimination policy that would outline specified principles, including, among others, that the department maintains zero tolerance for sexual violence, staff sexual misconduct, and sexual harassment in its institutions, community correctional facilities, and conservation camps, and for all offenders under its jurisdiction. (2) Under existing law, a person sentenced to imprisonment in a state prison for a felony offense, as specified, may, during that period of confinement, be deprived only of those rights as is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Existing law enumerates certain civil rights of these prisoners. This bill would, by January 1, 2028, require the department to develop and implement protocols for when an incarcerated person is subject to a nonroutine search or scan, including, among other things, obtaining approval from a supervising officer of rank sergeant or above before the search or scan, documenting specified information about the search or scan, and providing the incarcerated person with a written receipt or other documentation with this information. The bill would require the department, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to establish a pilot program at 3 institutions to evaluate the effectiveness of replacing unclothed body searches with scanning technology, as specified. (3) Existing law requires members of the department's Office of Internal Affairs to possess certification from the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training for investigators, except as specified. Existing law requires the department to conduct a complete and thorough background check prior to training a peace officer who is selected to conduct internal affairs investigations and requires each person to satisfactorily pass the background check. Existing law states that any person who has been the subject of a sustained, serious disciplinary action, as specified, shall not pass the background check. This bill would require an investigator to disclose an actual or potential conflict of interest they may have in an investigation in which they are participating. The bill would require the department to take appropriate action to remedy that conflict. The bill would require an investigator to recuse themselves from participating in an investigation or a decision related to an investigation if they have a conflict of interest involving a staff member with whom they have a personal relationship, as defined. (4) Existing law authorizes the secretary of the department to prescribe and amend rules and regulations for the administration of prisons. Under existing law, the State Civil Service Act, certain acts, including convictions of certain crimes, are cause for discipline of a state employee or of a person whose name appears on an employment list. This bill would prohibit the department from appointing a person to a position that may involve any contact with incarcerated persons, or engaging a contractor for services that may involve contact with incarcerated persons, if the department obtains information that substantiated allegations of sexual abuse in the course of their employment have been reported against them, as specified. The bill would prohibit the department from appointing any person to a position that may involve contact with incarcerated persons, or engaging a contractor for services that may involve contact with incarcerated persons, if the department learns that the person or contractor has been convicted of certain offenses, including felony domestic battery and specified sex offenses, among others. The bill would also prohibit the department from appointing any person to a position that may involve contact with incarcerated persons, or engaging a contractor for any services, if it obtains information that the person or contractor has been civilly or administratively adjudicated to have engaged in that conduct. The bill would require the department to make best efforts to contact all prior institutional employers for information on substantiated allegations of sexual abuse, among other things. The bill would require the department to conduct criminal background checks every 5 years of existing employees or implement a system to otherwise capture that information. (5) Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for an employee or officer of a public entity health facility, or an employee, officer, or agent of a private person or entity that provides a health facility or staff for a health facility under contract with a public entity, to engage in sexual activity with a consenting adult who is confined in a health facility. Existing law additionally makes it a misdemeanor for specified individuals, including an employee or officer of a public entity detention facility or an employee with a department, board, or authority under the department, to engage in sexual activity with a consenting adult who is confined in a detention facility or who is an inmate, ward, or parolee, as specified. Existing law makes it a felony for any subsequent violations for a person who was previously convicted of these violations. Existing law requires a person convicted of a felony violation of the above-described provisions who is employed by a department, board, or authority within the department to be terminated, as specified, and prohibits that person from being eligible to be hired or reinstated by the department. Existing law requires administrators to report criminal sexual abuse by staff to law enforcement authorities. This bill would instead require that a person convicted of any violation of these provisions be terminated and prohibited from being reinstated by the department. The bill would also require that a person convicted of any violation of these provisions who is employed by a public entity health facility be terminated and made ineligible to be hired or reinstated by a public entity health facility. This bill would require administrators to report any known or suspected sexual abuse by staff to a local law enforcement agency. (6) Existing law establishes the Office of the Inspector General that is responsible for, among other things, contemporaneous public oversight of internal affairs investigations and staff grievance inquiries conducted by the department's Office of Internal Affairs. Existing law requires the Office of the Inspector General to have investigatory authority over all staff misconduct cases that involve sexual misconduct with an incarcerated person, as specified. This bill would authorize an incarcerated person to file an anonymous grievance relating to an allegation of sexual misconduct directly to the Office of the Inspector General, and would authorize the Inspector General to review any grievance filed from an incarcerated person, whether or not that grievance had been previously filed with the institution or hiring authority where the grievance occurred. (7) Existing regulations establish a grievance procedure for individuals in the custody of, or under the supervision of, the department. Under those regulations, a claimant is required to submit a grievance no later than 60 calendar days after discovering an adverse policy, decision, action, condition, or omission by the department. This bill would extend that time period to 120 calendar days.
(1) Existing law makes it unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage, has 0.08 or 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in their blood, as specified, is addicted to the use of any drug, is under the influence of any drug, or is under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug to drive a vehicle. Existing law prohibits a person from driving a vehicle under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug and concurrently do an act forbidden by law, or neglect a duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, which act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to a person other than the driver. Existing law, until January 1, 2033, requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to immediately suspend or revoke the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle upon the receipt of an abstract of the record of a court showing that the person has been convicted of driving a vehicle under the circumstances above as well as for engaging in a motor vehicle speed contest for specified periods of time, depending on the statute under which the driving violation was punished, and prohibits the reinstatement of the driving privilege until the person gives proof of financial responsibility and proof satisfactory to the department of successful completion of a driving-under-the-influence (DUI) program, as specified. Existing law requires the department to advise the person that they may apply for a restricted driver's license if the person meets certain requirements, including, among others, satisfactorily providing proof of enrollment in a certain DUI program and the installment of a functioning, certified ignition interlock device (IID) . Existing law allows, for certain violations, a person who has had their driver's license suspended to apply to the department for a restricted license, subject to certain requirements. For specified violations, existing law requires the department to issue a restricted driver's license if the person has met certain requirements, including proof satisfactory to the department of enrollment in, or completion of, a DUI program, proof of financial responsibility, and the payment of all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees, among other fees, required by the department. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would reorganize and recast the penalties and sanctions for the alcohol- and drug-related driving offenses described above. The bill would recast violations for driving under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or having 0.08 or 0.04 percent or more, by weight of alcohol in blood (collectively "alcohol-related driving violations") from violations for driving under the influence of any drug or driving while a person is addicted to the use of any drug (collectively "drug-related driving violations") . For convictions of alcohol-related driving violations, the bill would require the department to suspend the privilege to operate a motor vehicle and would allow the suspension to be indefinite. The bill would prohibit the reinstatement of that privilege until the person satisfies certain requirements, including, among others, the person applying for and maintaining a restricted driver's license for certain periods of time depending on the statute under which the driving violation is punished, which includes installing a certified IID on each vehicle operated by the person, providing proof satisfactory to the department of successful completion of a DUI program, as specified, paying all applicable reinstatement and reissue fees required by the department, and providing proof of financial responsibility. For convictions of drug-related driving violations described above, this bill would require the department to suspend the privilege to operate a motor vehicle for specified periods of time, depending on the statute under which the violation was punished. The bill would also prohibit the reinstatement of the privilege until the person satisfies certain requirements described above, but the bill would not require the person to install a certified IID or apply for and maintain a restricted driver's license for a specified period of time. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would authorize a person, whose privilege to operate a motor vehicle is suspended for alcohol-related driving violations, to apply for a restricted license if certain requirements are met, including, among others, installing a certified IID on each vehicle operated by the person, as specified, providing proof of financial responsibility for 3 years, providing satisfactorily proof of enrollment in, or completion of, a DUI program, as specified, and paying a fee that is sufficient to cover the costs of administration of these requirements. The bill would require the department to terminate the restricted driver's license and suspend the privilege to drive if the person fails to comply with the DUI program requirements. The bill would also authorize a person, whose driving privilege was suspended for a conviction of a drug-related driving violation, to apply for a restricted driver's license if similar certain requirements are met, except the person would not be required to install a certified IID but would be required to complete a minimum number of months of a suspension period, as specified. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would require the department to monitor the installation and maintenance of an IID that is installed pursuant to specified provisions. The bill would require the installer of the IID to notify the department if the device is removed or indicates that a person has attempted to remove, bypass, or tamper with the device, or the person fails 3 or more times to comply with these requirements. The bill would require the department to immediately suspend or revoke the privilege to operate a motor vehicle and any restricted driver's license if the person attempts to remove, bypass, or tamper with an IID, has the IID removed prior to the termination date of the restriction, or fails 3 or more times to comply with any requirement for the maintenance or calibration of the IID. The bill would require the department, and manufacturers, installers, and repairers of IIDs, to post information regarding filing complaints against manufacturers, installers, and repairers, as specified. (2) Existing law requires an order of suspension of a person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle for any of specified reasons, including the person was driving a motor vehicle when the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in their blood. Existing law requires the notice to be served on the person by a peace officer under specified conditions where test results show that the person has specified percentages of alcohol in the person's blood or where a person under 21 years of age refuses to take, or fails to complete, a specified test for alcohol in the blood. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would include a person driving a motor vehicle when a passenger for hire was a passenger in the vehicle and the person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in their blood as a reason to immediately suspend the privilege to operate a motor vehicle. The bill would authorize a person, whose driving privilege has been suspended pursuant to the provision above but not suspended or revoked based on the person's refusal to submit to, or failure to complete, a chemical test or tests, to apply for a restricted driver's license if certain requirements are met, including completing 30 days of the suspension period, providing proof of enrollment in a DUI program, installing a functioning, certified IID on any vehicle that they operate, being 21 years of age or older at the time of the offense, giving proof of financial responsibility, and paying all reissue and restriction fees. The bill would require the department to terminate the restricted driver's license and suspend the privilege to operate if the person has failed to comply with the DUI program requirements, or if the person attempts to remove, bypass, or tamper with the IID, removes the IID prior to the termination date of the restriction, or fails 3 or more times to comply with any requirement for the maintenance or calibration of the IID. (3) Existing law requires the department to suspend or revoke a person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle based on a peace officer's sworn statement or report, as specified. Existing law requires the department to review the record to determine whether the suspension or revocation is supported by the record, as specified. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would require the department to review these determinations and consider the sworn report and any other information and evidence, as specified. If, by a preponderance of the evidence, the department determines in the review of a determination certain facts are proven, including, among other facts, that the peace officer had reasonable cause to believe that the person had been driving a motor vehicle in violation of an alcohol- or drug-related driving provision, the bill would require the department to sustain the order of suspension or revocation. If the department determines that any of these certain facts are not proven by a preponderance of the evidence, the bill would require the department to rescind the order of suspension or revocation, as specified. (4) Existing law allows, for certain violations, a person who has had their driver's license suspended to apply to the department for a restricted license, subject to certain requirements as provided above. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would authorize a court to disallow the issuance of the restricted driver's license if the court determines that the person would present a traffic safety or public safety risk if the person were authorized to operate a motor vehicle during the period of suspension. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would make conforming changes to include the provisions above, as applicable, in statutes that generally pertain to the suspension, revocation, or restriction of the privilege to operate a motor vehicle. (5) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
This measure would make specified statements relating to the release of files involving Jeffrey Epstein and would urge federal and local law enforcement to take immediate action to hold accountable all those who harmed survivors or who were complicit in Epstein's crimes, regardless of elected title, royal title, party affiliation, or economic status.
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.
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 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.
