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, 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.
Existing law makes it a crime to operate a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and sets forth the penalties for a violation of these provisions. Under existing law, if a person is convicted of a driving under the influence violation and the offense occurs within 10 years of one or more separate driving under the influence violations that resulted in convictions, the offense is subject to escalating fines, suspensions, and other sanctions. This bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles, upon an appropriation from the Legislature, to provide, as appropriate, a summary of the penalties for specified violations involving alcohol or drugs on specified vehicle registration materials and with each driver's license, and license renewal, as specified. The bill would require the department's summary to include, among other things, the financial consequences of driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol or drugs, and annual updates to DUI-related statutes.
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, to allow the defendant to undergo mental health treatment. Existing law prescribes specified criteria for a defendant to be eligible for pretrial diversion and for a court to consider whether the defendant is suitable for pretrial diversion. Existing law authorizes a court to require the defendant to make a prima facie showing that they will meet the minimum requirements of eligibility for diversion and that the defendant and the offense are suitable for diversion and authorizes the court, if that showing is not made, to summarily deny diversion and grant alternate relief. This bill, if the court intends to summarily grant diversion or any other relief, would require the court to conduct an additional hearing if requested by either party. By increasing the duties on local prosecutors, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Under existing law, a person who deprives or violates the personal liberty of another with the intent to obtain forced labor or services, or for the purpose of prostitution or sexual exploitation, is guilty of the crime of human trafficking and subject to imprisonment. This bill would, upon appropriation by the Legislature, establish the California Multidisciplinary Alliance to Stop Trafficking Act (California MAST) task force to review collaborative models between governmental and nongovernmental organizations for protecting victims and survivors of trafficking, among other related duties. The task force would be composed of specified state officials or their designees and specified individuals who have expertise in human trafficking or providing services to victims of human trafficking, as specified. The bill would require the task force to hold its first meeting no later than July 1, 2027, and would require the task force to meet at least 4 times. The bill would require the task force to, on or before January 1, 2029, and annually thereafter, report its findings and recommendations to the Office of Emergency Services, the Governor, the Attorney General, and the Legislature. The bill would make related findings and declarations.
Existing law defines an assault as an unlawful attempt, coupled with present ability, to commit a violent injury upon the person of another. Existing law defines a battery as any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another. Under existing law, an assault or battery committed against specified professionals engaged in the performance of their duties, including peace officers, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, by a fine not exceeding $2,000, or by both that fine and imprisonment. This bill would make an assault or battery committed against a utility worker, as defined, who is engaged in the performance of their duties punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, by a fine not exceeding $2,000, or by both that fine and imprisonment. By expanding the scope of these crimes, 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.
