Existing law sets forth filing fees and other civil fees for superior courts. Existing law requires certain applicants to be granted initial permission to proceed without paying court fees and costs because of the applicant's financial condition, including an applicant whose monthly income is 200% or less of the current poverty guidelines, as specified. This bill would prohibit veterans disability service-connected compensation from being included in monthly income for purposes of that provision.
Existing law provides for the exclusion of a prospective juror from a trial jury by peremptory challenge. Existing law prohibits a party from using a peremptory challenge to remove a prospective juror on the basis of, among other things, the prospective juror's race, ethnicity, or gender. Existing law allows a party, or the trial court on its own motion, to object to the use of a peremptory challenge based on these criteria. Upon objection, existing law requires the party exercising the challenge to state the reasons the peremptory challenge has been exercised. Existing law requires the court to evaluate the reasons given, as specified, and, if the court grants the objection, authorizes the court to take certain actions, including, but not limited to, starting a new jury selection, declaring a mistrial at the request of the objecting party, seating the challenged juror, or providing another remedy as the court deems appropriate. Under existing law, one of the circumstances the court may consider includes whether the counsel or counsel's office exercising the challenge has used peremptory challenges disproportionately against a given race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, or religious affiliation, or perceived membership in any of these groups, in the present case or in past cases, as specified. Existing law, until January 1, 2026, prohibits the application of these provisions to civil cases. This bill would extend the prohibition against application of these provisions to civil cases indefinitely, except as specified, including cases involving a civil rights violation and cases for the civil commitment of a person. The bill would require the party bringing specified claims to notify the court and the other party or parties of the applicability of these provisions in those civil cases, as specified. The bill would limit the court's consideration of counsel or counsel's office use of peremptory challenges in the present case or in past cases, as described above, to when counsel or counsel's office is a public entity.
Existing law prohibits the touching of any intimate part of another person for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse, under specified circumstances, including if the victim is unconscious of the nature of the act because the perpetrator fraudulently represented that the touching served a professional purpose. A violation of these provisions is punishable as a misdemeanor or as a felony by imprisonment in the state prison for 2, 3, or 4 years, and by a fine not exceeding $10,000. Existing law requires, in the case of a felony conviction for a violation of these provisions, the fact that the defendant was an employer and the victim was an employee of the defendant to be a factor in aggravation in sentencing. This bill would require, in the case of a felony conviction for a violation of these provisions, the fact that the defendant was employed at a hospital where the offense occurred and the victim was in the defendant's care or seeking medical care at the hospital to be a factor in aggravation in sentencing. By increasing the punishment for 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 requires the Department of Justice to maintain an index of all reports of child abuse and severe neglect submitted by an agency mandated to make those reports. Existing law requires the department to make relevant information contained in the index available to specified law enforcement agencies, county welfare departments, and other agencies that are conducting a child abuse investigation. Existing law authorizes a designated Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) program to submit fingerprint images and related information of employment and volunteer candidates to the department for the purpose of obtaining information as to the existence and nature of a record of a child abuse investigation contained in the Child Abuse Central Index, state- or federal-level convictions, or state- or federal-level arrests for which the department establishes that the applicant was released on bail or on their own recognizance pending trial. Existing law requires the department to charge a fee sufficient to cover the cost of processing the requests for federal-level criminal offender record information and prohibits the department from charging a fee for state-level criminal offender record information. This bill would instead require a CASA program to submit fingerprint images and related information of employment and volunteer candidates to the department for the purpose of conducting a state and federal criminal history background check. The bill would require the department to monitor the Child Abuse Central Index and notify the CASA program if a record of a child abuse investigation involving a CASA employee or volunteer is added to that index. The bill would impose notification and review requirements on a CASA program to request that the department remove the notification for an individual who is no longer employed by or volunteering with the CASA program, as specified. The bill would require the department to terminate notification for an individual upon receipt of that request. The bill would authorize the department to increase its fee for a CASA employment and volunteer candidate to cover the cost of processing those subsequent notifications.
Existing law makes a person who, with the intent to cause cruel or extreme pain and suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or for any sadistic purpose, inflicts great bodily injury upon the person of another guilty of torture, and makes the crime punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of life. Existing law specifies that an inmate imprisoned under a life sentence shall not be paroled until they have served a term of at least 7 years or as established pursuant to a law that establishes a minimum term. This bill would prohibit a person imprisoned for committing the crime of torture from being eligible for parole until they have served at least 10 years, if the defendant is an adult who had care or custody of the victim and the victim was 14 years of age or younger at the time of the crime. By creating a new sentencing enhancement, 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, the California Public Records Act, generally requires public records to be open for inspection by the public. Existing law provides numerous exceptions to this requirement. Under existing law, the personnel records of peace officers and custodial officers are confidential and not subject to public inspection. Existing law provides certain exemptions to this confidentiality, including the reports, investigations, and findings of certain incidents involving the use of force by a peace officer. Existing law authorizes an agency to redact the records disclosed for specified purposes including, among others, to remove personal data or information, as specified, and where there is a specific, articulable, and particularized reason to believe that disclosure of the record would pose a significant danger to the physical safety of the peace officer, custodial officer, or another person. This bill would require a court in an action to compel disclosure pursuant to specified provisions, in determining whether there is a specific, articulable, and particularized reason to believe that disclosure of the record would pose a significant danger to the physical safety of a person, to consider whether a particular peace officer is currently operating undercover and their duties demand anonymity. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 832.7 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 847 and AB 1388, to be operative only if this bill and AB 847 or AB 1388 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law makes it a crime for a person to manufacture or cause to be manufactured specified firearms. Existing law prohibits a person, other than a state-licensed firearms manufacturer, from using a computer numerical control (CNC) milling machine or three-dimensional printer to manufacture a firearm. This bill would prohibit a person from knowingly or willfully causing another person to engage in the unlawful manufacture of firearms or knowingly or willfully aiding, abetting, prompting, or facilitating the unlawful manufacture of firearms, including the manufacture of assault weapons or .50 BMG rifles or the manufacture of any firearm using a three-dimensional printer or CNC milling machine, as specified. The bill would make a violation of these provisions a misdemeanor. By creating a new crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. Existing law authorizes a civil action against a person who knowingly distributes or causes to be distributed any digital firearm manufacturing code to any person, except as specified. For these purposes, existing law defines "digital firearm manufacturing code" to mean any digital instructions in the form of computer-aided design files or other code or instructions that may be used to program a CNC milling machine, a three-dimensional printer, or a similar machine to manufacture or produce a firearm, including a completed frame or receiver or a firearm precursor part. Existing law authorizes the Attorney General, county counsel, or city attorney to bring an action against this person and seek a civil penalty, as specified, for each violation, as well as injunctive relief. This bill would include computer-aided manufacturing files as a digital instruction and include the manufacture or production of a machinegun and specified firearm components, including large-capacity magazines, as part of the definition of digital firearm manufacturing code. The bill would also authorize a person who has suffered harm in California as a result of a violation of these provisions to seek compensatory damages and injunctive relief. The bill would create a rebuttable presumption that a person violated the provision of unlawfully distributing or causing to be distributed any digital firearm manufacturing code if the person owns or participates in the management of an internet website that makes digital firearm manufacturing code available for purchase, download, or other distribution to individuals, and the internet website, under the totality of the circumstances, encourages individuals to upload, disseminate, or use digital firearm manufacturing code to manufacture firearms, as specified. Existing law establishes a firearm industry standard of conduct, which requires a firearm industry member, as defined, to establish, implement, and enforce reasonable controls, as defined, and to take reasonable precautions to ensure that the member does not sell, distribute, or provide a firearm-related product, as defined, to a downstream distributor or retailer of firearm-related products who fails to establish, implement, and enforce reasonable controls. For these purposes, existing law defines firearm accessory and firearm manufacturing machine. This bill would require, prior to completing the sale or delivery in California or to a California resident of a firearm barrel that is unattached to a firearm, firearm accessory, or a firearm manufacturing machine, a firearm industry member to comply with specified requirements, including providing a prospective purchaser with clear and conspicuous notice that specified conduct is generally a crime in California, including manufacturing firearms to be sold or transferred to an individual without a license to manufacture firearms. Existing law, subject to exceptions, provides that any person who has been convicted of certain misdemeanors may not, within 10 years of the conviction, own, purchase, receive, possess, or have under their custody or control any firearm and makes a violation of that prohibition a crime. This bill would also prohibit any person convicted of specified misdemeanor violations, including manufacturing an undetectable firearm or knowingly or willfully causing another person to engage in the unlawful manufacture of firearms, on or after January 1, 2026, from owning, purchasing, or receiving any firearm within 10 years of the conviction, and makes a violation of that prohibition a public offense punishable by imprisonment in a county jail, a fine, or by both the fine and imprisonment. Because this bill would expand the application of a crime to a larger class of potential offenders, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would make these provisions severable. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 3273.50 of the Civil Code proposed by AB 1127 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1127 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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, 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. Existing law authorizes a specified individual to commence the CARE process, known as the original petitioner. Existing law authorizes the court to dismiss a case without prejudice when the court finds that a petitioner has not made a prima facie showing that they qualify for the CARE process. Existing law requires the court to take prescribed actions if it finds that a prima facie showing has been made, including, but not limited to, setting the matter for an initial appearance on the petition. Existing law requires the court, if it determines the parties have entered or are likely to enter into a CARE agreement, to either approve or modify the CARE agreement and continue the matter at a progress hearing in 60 days, or continue the matter for 14 days to allow the parties additional time to enter into an agreement. Existing law prohibits a person from being tried or adjudged to punishment while that person is mentally incompetent. Existing law requires the court to, for a person found mentally incompetent and not charged with certain offenses, among other things, determine whether restoring the person to mental competence is in the interests of justice. Existing law requires the court to, if restoring the person to mental competence is not in the interests of justice, conduct a hearing, as specified, and determine the person's eligibility for diversion. Under existing law, if the court determines, at the first hearing, that the person is ineligible for diversion, the court is required to hold a hearing to determine the person's other options, including the CARE program. Existing law authorizes a court to refer an individual from, among other things, assisted outpatient treatment or conservatorship proceedings, as specified, to CARE Act proceedings. Existing law provides that if the individual is referred from assisted outpatient treatment, the county behavioral health director or their designee shall be the petitioner, whereas if the referral is from conservatorship proceedings, the conservator or proposed conservator is the petitioner. This bill would allow the court to make a prima facie determination without conducting a hearing. The bill, in the first hearing to determine competence to stand trial, would authorize the court to consider the petitioner's eligibility for both diversion and the CARE program. The bill would authorize the court to refer the petitioner to the CARE Act court if the defendant or counsel for the defendant agrees to the referral and the court has reason to believe the petitioner may be eligible for the CARE program. If the petitioner is not accepted into the CARE program or if the CARE Act court refers the petitioner back to criminal court, as specified, the bill would require the criminal court to conduct a hearing to determine whether the petitioner is eligible for a diversion program. The bill would authorize the county behavioral health agency and jail medical providers to share confidential medical records and other relevant information with the court for the purpose of determining likelihood of eligibility for behavioral health services and programs. The bill would authorize the court to call additional progress hearings after 60 days. The bill would also include persons suffering from bipolar I disorder with psychotic features, except for psychosis related to current intoxication, in the disorder class. The bill would additionally authorize a court to refer an individual from felony proceedings, as specified, to the CARE Act program. The bill would authorize a CARE Act court to consider a referral as a petition for participation in the CARE program if certain requirements are met. The bill would make additional technical and conforming changes. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to develop a mandatory form for use to file a CARE process petition with the court, and requires the petition to be signed under penalty of perjury and include either an affidavit of a licensed behavioral health professional, as defined, or evidence that the respondent was detained for a minimum of 2 intensive treatments, as specified. The bill would additionally include a nurse practitioner and physician assistant as a licensed behavioral health professional for purposes of individuals authorized to prepare an affidavit supporting a CARE process petition. By increasing various duties on 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.
Existing law authorizes a court to issue a gun violence restraining order to prohibit a person from purchasing or possessing a firearm or ammunition for a period of one to 5 years, subject to renewal for additional one- to 5-year periods, if the subject of the petition poses a significant danger of self-harm or harm to another in the near future by having a firearm and the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to the subject of the petition or another. Existing law also allows a gun violence restraining order to be issued on an ex parte basis for up to 21 days. Existing law allows a petition for these gun violence restraining orders to be made by a law enforcement officer, or an immediate family member, employer, coworker, or teacher, as specified, of the subject of the petition. This bill would authorize the Counties of Alameda, El Dorado, Santa Clara, and Ventura to establish, until January 1, 2032, a pilot program to additionally authorize a district attorney to request that the court issue a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order, as specified. The bill would require the district attorney of a county that establishes a pilot program, commencing April 1, 2027, to annually submit specified data to the California Firearm Violence Research Center at UC Davis, and would authorize the center, commencing July 1, 2027, to conduct an evaluation of the pilot program and annually report that evaluation to the Legislature, as specified. The bill would require the district attorney of a county that establishes a pilot program, commencing April 1, 2027, to make the data described above available upon request to the Department of Justice and the Judicial Council. The bill would make related findings and declarations.
Existing law generally provides for the regulation of law enforcement agencies, including, among other things, requiring each local law enforcement agency to conspicuously post on their internet websites all current standards, policies, practices, operating procedures, and education and training materials that would otherwise be available to the public under specified circumstances. This bill would require each law enforcement agency to maintain a policy to require an official report prepared by a law enforcement officer or any member of a law enforcement agency that is generated using artificial intelligence either fully or partially to include specified information, including a disclosure statement and the signature of the law enforcement officer or member of a law enforcement agency who prepared the official report, as specified. If an officer or any member of an agency uses artificial intelligence to create an official report, the bill would require the first draft created to be retained for as long as the official report is retained. The bill would, except for the official report, prohibit a draft of any report created with the use of artificial intelligence from constituting an officer's statement. The bill would require an agency utilizing artificial intelligence to generate a first draft or official report to maintain an audit trail that identifies, at a minimum, certain things, including the person who used artificial intelligence to create a report. The bill would prohibit a contracted vendor from sharing, selling, or otherwise using information provided by a law enforcement agency to be processed by artificial intelligence, except as provided. The bill would define terms for purposes of these provisions. By requiring local law enforcement agencies to adopt a new policy, 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.
