Existing law authorizes a court to grant pretrial diversion to a defendant suffering from a mental disorder, on an accusatory pleading alleging the commission of a misdemeanor or felony offense, in order to allow the defendant to undergo mental health treatment. Existing law provides that a defendant is eligible for diversion if they have been diagnosed with certain mental disorders and the court finds that the mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense, unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the disorder was not a motivating, causal, or contributing factor to the defendant's involvement in the alleged offense. Existing law prohibits defendants charged with specified offenses, including murder, from being placed in this diversion program. This bill would require that the diagnosis or rediagnosis with a mental disorder be within 5 years before the alleged offense. Existing law makes a defendant suitable for this diversion program if, among other criteria, a qualified mental health expert opines that the defendant's symptoms of the mental disorder that caused, contributed to, or motivated the criminal behavior, would respond to mental health treatment and the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community, as specified. The bill would revise that standard and instead require the court to find that the defendant will not pose a substantial and undue risk to the physical safety of another person if treated in the community. The bill would require the mental health expert's opinion to include that the proposed mental health diversion plan is clinically appropriate to address the symptoms of the defendant's mental disorder, as specified. The bill would require the court to state the reasons for denial on the record.
Existing law requires the Board of Parole Hearings to conduct a youth offender parole hearing for offenders sentenced to state prison who committed specified crimes when they were under 25 years of age. Existing law makes a person who was convicted of a controlling offense that was committed when the person was under 18 years of age and for which the sentence is life without the possibility of parole eligible for release on parole at a youth offender hearing by the board during the person's 25th year of incarceration. Existing law specifies that these provisions do not alter the rights of a victim at a parole hearing. Under existing law, a murder perpetrated by specified means or under certain circumstances is defined as murder of the first degree. Existing law, as added by Proposition 7, an initiative measure approved by the voters at the November 7, 1978, statewide general election, requires that a person convicted of first-degree murder be subject to death or confinement in prison for a term of life without the possibility of parole in any case in which specified special circumstances are charged and found to be true. Proposition 7 does not provide for amendment by the Legislature. This bill, the Youth Rehabilitation and Opportunity Act, would instead make a person who was convicted of a controlling offense that was committed when the person was 25 years of age or younger and for which they were sentenced to life without the possibility of parole eligible for parole after their 25th year of incarceration, except as specified. The bill would require the board to complete, by January 1, 2028, all hearings for individuals who are or will be entitled to have their parole suitability considered at a youth offender parole hearing by these provisions, as specified.
This bill designates the week of April 19 to April 25, 2026, as Crime Victims' Rights Week. The primary purpose is to formally recognize and highlight the rights and needs of individuals who have been affected by crime. It does not create new laws or alter existing legal procedures but serves as a commemorative resolution to raise awareness during a specific time period.
Existing law requires the Attorney General to establish and maintain various databases and information centers relating to the identification, apprehension, and prevention of crimes, including the Violent Crime Information Center and the Automated Firearms System, among others. Existing law requires a business that controls the collection of a consumer's personal information to delete that information upon the request of the consumer and provides for administrative penalties if the business fails to act on the consumer's request. This bill would, beginning January 1, 2029, require the Department of Justice to establish the Nonconsensual Intimate Image Clearinghouse to allow individuals who were exploited in California to submit a request for the removal of nonconsensual intimate images from covered platforms. The bill would define nonconsensual intimate images to include an authentic image depicting a person nude or engaging in sexual conduct distributed without consent or an image digitally altered or generated by artificial intelligence realistically depicting a person nude or engaged in sexual conduct without consent. The bill would require the department to transmit verified identifiers of images to covered platforms and require those platforms to remove verified matches within 48 hours of receipt and to prevent the images from being uploaded again. The bill would require the department to enforce these provisions and would impose civil penalties for violations. The bill would require a peace officer in the investigation of a specified offense to advise a victim that they may make a request to the clearinghouse pursuant to these provisions and would require a peace officer to provide certain information to the clearinghouse, as specified. By increasing duties for peace 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 prohibits the false impersonation of another person in either that person's personal or official capacity with the intent to steal or defraud, as specified. Existing law protects all people from defamation, including libel and slander, as provided. Existing law makes any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness for commercial purposes, as specified, without that person's prior consent liable for damages, as specified. Existing law provides that a party seeking relief pursuant to those provisions may also seek an injunction or temporary restraining order according to specified procedures. This bill would enact the Digital Dignity Act. The act would subject to specified liability a person who, by distributing content with actual knowledge that the content includes a digital replica, is found guilty of violating a criminal provision for which false impersonation of another is a required element, as prescribed, or is found liable in a civil action arising from the use or portrayal through a digital replica, as provided. The Digital Dignity Act would require a large online platform that includes a generative AI tool, as defined, that provides users with the functionality to create a digital replica of other individuals to provide a mechanism for individuals to report content that violates the platform's terms of service or a provision of law relating to the individual's digital replica and to submit to the large online platform any certified court order or judgment ordering the removal of any content involving the individual's digital replica on the platform or finding that content involving the individual's digital replica was defamatory, fraudulent, or any other form of image appropriation not permitted by law, as prescribed. Upon receipt of the court order or judgment, the act would require the large online platform to remove the digital replica and make reasonable efforts to identify and remove any known identical copies. The act would authorize a city attorney or the Attorney General to bring a civil action to enforce these provisions and to seek a specified civil penalty and injunctive relief. The act would require a generative AI tool provider to maintain, for no less than 90 days, records sufficient to allow compliance with a court order issued pursuant to a civil action by the city attorney or Attorney General, as prescribed.
Existing law, the California Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act (act) , provides specified punishments for certain crimes committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang, as specified. The act defines a "shared gang database" as a database accessed by a law enforcement agency that designates a person as a gang member or associate, or includes or points to information, including, but not limited to, fact-based or uncorroborated information, that reflects a designation of that person as a gang member or associate that is accessed by an agency or person outside of the agency that created the records that populate the database. Existing law requires the Department of Justice to regulate and oversee any shared gang databases in which California law enforcement agencies, participate, as specified. This bill would remove the term "shared gang database" and make the provisions under the act applicable to all gang databases, regardless of whether a gang database is accessed by an agency or person outside of the agency that created the database. The bill would make specified regulations applicable to all gang databases beginning on January 1, 2027.
Existing law establishes various programs to prevent crime, coordinate the efforts of law enforcement, and collect and analyze criminal statistics. Existing law specifically establishes a regional property crimes task force to assist local law enforcement and railroad police in counties identified as having elevated levels of property crime, including, but not limited to, organized retail theft, cargo theft, vehicle burglary, and theft of vehicle parts and accessories. Under existing law, the Attorney General is the chief law officer of the state and the head of the Department of Justice. This bill would require the Attorney General to establish the California Cargo Theft Task Force to combat crimes involving the theft, diversion, embezzlement, unlawful taking, or fraudulent acquisition of cargo or freight. The bill would prescribe the membership of the task force. The bill would require the task force, among other duties, to investigate, apprehend, and recommend for prosecution, as appropriate, individuals or entities that engage in cargo theft or related offenses. The bill would require the Attorney General, on or before January 1, 2028, and each year thereafter, to submit a report to the Governor, Legislature, and Secretary of State on the activities of the task force, as specified. The bill would define terms for its purposes.
(1) Existing law, the Bail Fugitive Recovery Persons Act, regulates bail fugitive recovery agents, defined to mean a licensed individual given written authorization by the bail or depositor of bail and contracted to investigate, surveil, locate, and arrest a bail fugitive, and any person employed to assist the bail or depositor of bail to investigate, surveil, locate, and arrest a bail fugitive. Existing law prohibits a person from performing the activities of a bail fugitive recovery agent unless licensed by the Insurance Commissioner, as provided. Existing law provides for the issuance of bail licenses under the jurisdiction of the commissioner and makes a violation of those provisions a crime. Existing law requires a bail fugitive recovery agent to file certain information with the commissioner, including a policy of liability insurance that provides minimum limits of insurance of $1,000,000 for any one loss or occurrence due to either bodily injury or death, or property damage, or both. This bill, the Bail Fugitive Recovery Agent Reform Act, would require a bail fugitive recovery agent (BFRA) to have on file the above-described policy of liability insurance that complies with various requirements, as specified. The bill would require specified records, documents, and information regarding the BFRA liability insurance policy to be filed in the manner specified by the commissioner no more than 30 days after issuance by the issuing insurance company or placement by the production agency. If a BFRA fails to maintain liability insurance or fails to provide proof of the required insurance policy, the bill would require the commissioner to provide written notice to the BFRA that they have 30 days to provide proof of compliance or the BFRA will be automatically suspended without proceedings after the 30-day period. (2) Existing law requires an applicant for a license to act as a bail agent to file with the commissioner a notice of appointment executed by a surety insurer or its authorized representative authorizing that applicant to execute undertakings of bail and to solicit and negotiate those undertakings on its behalf. Existing law similarly requires an applicant for a BFRA's license to file with the commissioner a notice of appointment executed by a bail agent or surety insurer authorizing that applicant to act on behalf of, and pursuant to, the instructions of the appointing licenseholder. Existing law authorizes these notices of appointment to continue in force until the termination of the agent's license, the end of the license term, or the filing of a notice of termination, as specified. This bill would apply the filing requirement for an applicant for a license to act as a bail agent to every holder of a license to act as a bail agent and would apply the filing requirement for an applicant to act as a BFRA to every holder of a license to act as a BFRA. For an applicant for a license to act as a BFRA or a holder of a license to act as a BFRA, the bill would prohibit the notices of appointment from being considered effective until the notice is formally filed with and acknowledged by the Department of Insurance. (3) Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to establish a certification program for peace officers for the purpose of fostering professionalization, education, and experience necessary to accomplish the general police service duties, as specified. This bill would require a BFRA applicant or licensee who has been issued the above-described certificate for peace officers and has had that certification suspended or revoked by POST, or has voluntarily surrendered that certification, to notify the commissioner, as provided. (4) Existing law authorizes the commissioner to decline to issue a bail license until the commissioner is satisfied that the applicant, among other things, has not willfully misstated any material fact in their application or procured a misstatement in the supporting documents of their application. This bill would revise that condition to authorize the commissioner to decline to issue a bail license until the commissioner is satisfied that the applicant has not willfully or knowingly made a misstatement in the application or has not made a false statement in testimony given under oath before the commissioner or another person acting in the commissioner's stead. The bill would also require any applicant for, or holder of, a BFRA license to be a current resident of this state and have been a continuous resident of this state for at least 2 years before applying for a BFRA license. (5) Existing law generally prescribes the requirements of conduct by a BFRA licensee, including, among other things, prohibitions against any uniform of a BFRA that represents the BFRA as belonging to any part or department of the federal, state, or local government, as specified. Existing law, except under exigent circumstances, requires a BFRA to, prior to and no more than 6 hours before attempting to apprehend the bail fugitive, notify the local police or sheriff's department of the intent to apprehend a bail fugitive in that jurisdiction. If an exigent circumstance arises and prior notification is not given, existing law requires a BFRA to notify the local police or sheriff's department immediately after the apprehension and submit a detailed explanation of those exigent circumstances upon request of the local jurisdiction. This bill would additionally prohibit a BFRA from, among other things, threatening legal action unrelated to the case for which bail was given and loitering on or around a property if the bail subject is not present. The bill would also require a BFRA licensee to affix, type, or print their license number on business cards or other documents produced by the licensee in a specified type size. The bill would require the above-described notice provided to the local police or sheriff's department to be in writing and include specified information. The bill would require any record relating to notice to the local police or sheriff's department to be transcribed in writing and retained by the BFRA for a period of not less than 5 years from the date of notice. The bill would require the BFRA to provide a copy of any notice requested by the commissioner within 21 calendar days of the request and would require specified information to be included in the copy. The bill would prescribe a fine of $4,000 for each offense, as specified. By establishing new requirements for BFRA applicants and licensees, the violation of which is a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (6) This bill would make various conforming changes. The bill would provide that its provisions are severable. 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 generally provides financial support for cities and counties to provide public safety services, including, among other funding, moneys allocated through the Local Revenue Fund 2011 and its accounts. Existing law, enacted by the voters as the Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act (Proposition 36) at the November 5, 2024, statewide general election, authorizes the Board of State and Community Corrections to allocate appropriate funds to counties and local governments for programs under the Treatment-Mandated Felony Act, as specified. This bill, the Funding of Proposition 36 Act, would create the California Public Safety Services Support Fund to be used, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to implement Proposition 36. The bill would, upon appropriation by the Legislature for the 2026–27 fiscal year, require the funds to be administered by the Board of State and Community Corrections, as specified. The bill would also require, beginning in the 2027–28 fiscal year, the Governor to annually include a proposed transfer from the General Fund to the California Public Safety Services Support Fund of an amount sufficient to fund the ongoing administration of Proposition 36 as part of the Governor's proposed budget to the Legislature. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
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.
