Existing law establishes the Elderly Parole Program for the purpose of reviewing the parole suitability of inmates who are 50 years of age or older and who have served a minimum of 20 years of continuous incarceration on their sentence. Existing law requires the Board of Parole Hearings, when considering the release of qualifying inmates, to give special consideration to whether certain criteria have reduced the elderly inmate's risk for future violence. Existing law excludes various persons from these provisions, including, among others, persons convicted of serious felonies, persons convicted of first-degree murder of a peace officer, or persons sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. This bill would additionally exclude, among others, persons receiving an enhancement to their sentence for committing certain sexual offenses including, among others, rape, sodomy, or lewd and lascivious acts, and habitual sex offenders. The bill would specify that these exclusions apply to all persons incarcerated as of January 1, 2026, regardless of the person's previous eligibility for parole or the status of any parole petition filed prior to that date.
Existing law requires prisoners sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison to serve time on parole or community supervision after their release from prison. Existing law authorizes courts to suspend the imposition or execution of punishments in specified criminal cases and instead enforce terms of probation or mandatory supervision. This bill would prohibit a supervision authority, as defined, from imposing a condition of supervision that prohibits a person on supervision from being in contact with any family member. The bill would authorize the supervision authority to prohibit contact if the family member is a victim of the crime for which the person on supervision was convicted, and it is deemed necessary for public safety. The bill would require the supervision authority prohibiting contact to provide a written explanation of why the public safety and rehabilitative benefits of prohibiting contact outweigh the rights to familial association, any rehabilitative benefits from contact, and any harms to either person from prohibiting contact. By increasing duties on local governments, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would exclude courts from the definition of a supervision authority. 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 minor who is 12 to 17 years of age when they violate any criminal law in this state, except an ordinance establishing a curfew based solely on age, or a minor under 12 years of age if they commit certain serious offenses, is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge the person a ward of the court. Existing law requires, after finding that the minor is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, the court to hear evidence on the question of the proper disposition to be made of the minor and requires the court to receive in evidence a social study of the minor made by the probation officer. Existing law requires, when the probation officer recommends the minor to be placed in foster care, or if the minor is already in foster care placement or pending placement pursuant to an earlier order, the social study to include a case plan with specified components. This bill would also require a case plan, with specified components, to be developed and included in the social study in cases in which the probation officer recommends wardship and either does not recommend removal of the minor from their parent or guardian, or recommends commitment of the minor to a juvenile home, ranch, camp, forestry camp, or juvenile hall. The bill would also require the court to order a minor to comply with any case plan that is developed and to review the ward's progress toward meeting the goals in a case plan at a hearing no less than once every 6 months. By increasing the duties of county probation 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, as added by the Victims' Bill of Rights, approved as Proposition 8 at the June 8, 1982, statewide primary election, and as amended by the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act of 1998, approved as Proposition 21 at the March 7, 2000, statewide primary election, among other things, defines a serious felony. 2 3 vote, or by a statute that becomes effective only when approved by the voters."?> Existing law prohibits plea bargaining in a case in which a serious felony is charged and imposes a 5-year enhancement for conviction of a serious felony if the person has previously been convicted of a serious felony. This bill would include knowingly furnishing fentanyl to a minor within the definition of a serious felony. By expanding the scope of an enhancement, 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 sets the period of parole for a person sentenced to prison for first- or 2nd-degree murder pursuant to specified provisions to be the remainder of the person's life. Existing law requires a person subject to those provisions who is on parole and who violates the law or the conditions of their parole to be remanded to the custody of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the jurisdiction of the Board of Parole Hearings for the purpose of future parole consideration. Existing law also sets the parole period for a person released on parole from state prison on or after July 1, 2020, and who was sentenced to life, to no more than 3 years. This bill would authorize the court to remand a person sentenced to prison for first- or 2nd-degree murder pursuant to specified provisions and released on parole on or after July 1, 2020, and who the court determines has committed a violation of law or the conditions of their parole, to the custody of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the jurisdiction of the Board of Parole Hearings for the purpose of future parole consideration, if the court finds that this is in the furtherance of justice. The bill would, if the court does not remand the person to the custody of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, instead subject the person to a period of confinement in the county jail, as specified.
Existing law requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to institute certain practices to prevent sexual violence and promote inmate and ward safety in the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, including reviewing and providing handbooks regarding sexual abuse in detention to inmates and wards. Existing law establishes 2 institutions for the punishment, treatment, supervision, custody, and care of women convicted of felonies, known as the California Institution for Women and the Central California Women's Facility. This bill would require the department to establish a secure facility at each women's prison to house transgender women, in order to protect the security needs of biological women, as specified. The bill would also prohibit certain inmates convicted of specified sexual offenses from being housed at a women's prison.
(1) Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act, authorizes the involuntary commitment and treatment of persons with specified mental disorders. Under the act, when a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to themselves or others, or is gravely disabled, the person may, upon probable cause, be taken into custody by specified individuals, including, among others, a peace officer and a designated member of a mobile crisis team, and placed in a facility designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services for up to 72 hours for evaluation and treatment. Existing law defines "assessment" for those purposes to mean the determination of whether a person shall be evaluated and treated. This bill would require an assessment to consider reasonably available, relevant information as specified. The bill would also authorize an assessment to be used to assist specified individuals in developing an aftercare plan for an individual, if that individual has agreed to an aftercare plan and can be properly served without being detained. (2) Existing law provides a procedure for the appointment of a conservator for a person who is determined to be gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder or an impairment by chronic alcoholism (hereafter LPS conservatorship) . Under existing law, a professional person in charge of an agency providing comprehensive evaluation or a facility providing intensive treatment may recommend a LPS conservatorship for a gravely disabled person in their care if the professional person determines that the person is unwilling to accept, or is incapable of accepting, treatment voluntarily. Under existing law, a professional person in charge of an agency providing comprehensive evaluation or a facility providing intensive treatment or a professional person in charge of providing mental health treatment at a county jail, or their designee, may recommend a conservatorship for a gravely disabled person without that person being an inpatient in a facility providing comprehensive evaluation or intensive treatment if specified conditions are met. This bill would additionally authorize recommendations for an LPS conservatorship if a determination is made that the gravely disabled person has demonstrated an inability to accept voluntary treatment due to apparent incapacity. The bill would expand the list of individuals or entities that may recommend a conservatorship for a gravely disabled person without that person being an inpatient in a facility providing comprehensive evaluation or intensive treatment to include, among others, the county agency providing investigations for conservatorships of the person. (3) Existing law separately provides for the establishment of a conservatorship for a person who is unable to properly provide for their personal needs or is substantially unable to manage their finances (hereafter probate conservatorship) . Existing law requires the officer providing conservatorship investigation, if they concur with the recommendation of the professional person or facility, to petition the superior court in the patient's county of residence to establish a conservatorship. Existing law requires the officer providing conservator investigation to investigate all available alternatives to conservatorship, including, among other things, assisted outpatient treatment, as specified, and the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment Act program. Existing law requires the officer to recommended conservatorship to the court only if no suitable alternatives are available. Existing law requires the officer to render to the court a comprehensive written report of investigation prior to the hearing and to set forth all alternatives available if the officer recommends either for or against conservatorship. This bill would specify probate conservatorships with or without major neurocognitive disorder powers in the list of available alternatives that the officer providing conservatorship investigation is required to investigate. In a county where probate conservatorship and LPS conservatorship duties are split between separate agencies, the bill would require LPS conservatorship referrals that include the presence of a major neurocognitive disorder to be reviewed by both agencies to ensure the continuity of evaluations. The bill would additionally require an officer providing conservatorship investigation to include a recommended individualized plan for treatment and care drawn from the documented list of less-restrictive alternatives in the written report described above if the officer recommends against an LPS conservatorship. The bill would also make various clarifying changes. By expanding the duties of county agencies that provide services related to probate conservatorships and LPS conservatorships, and by expanding the duties of the county officer providing conservatorship investigation, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) Existing law authorizes a conservator of the person, the estate, or the person and the estate to be appointed for a person who is gravely disabled as a result of a mental health disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism for the purpose of providing individualized treatment, supervision, and placement. Existing law requires the creation of an individualized treatment plan within 10 days of the establishment of a conservatorship, as specified. Existing law requires the treatment plan to specify goals for the conservatee's treatment, the criteria by which the accomplishment of those goals can be adjudged, and a plan for reviewing the progress of the treatment. If a treatment plan is not developed or if the conservator fails to report to the court that the conservatee is no longer gravely disabled, existing law requires specified individuals, including a person designated by the county, to refer the matter to the court. Existing law requires the court, upon report by a person designated by the county that the goals have been reached and the person is no longer gravely disabled, to terminate the conservatorship. This bill would require an individualized treatment plan to specify goals for stabilization, the individual's evidenced-based treatment, and movement to a less-restrictive setting. The bill would require those goals to include the criteria by which accomplishment can be judged. The bill would require the treatment plan to be filed with the court, as specified, after it is developed. The bill would require the court to order the treating agency to remedy any perceived defects in a treatment plan if the plan does not meet the specified goals and criteria and would create procedures for remedying those defects and terminating the conservatorship. The bill would authorize the court, upon termination of the conservatorship, to refer the individual to assisted outpatient treatment or CARE court, as specified. This bill would prohibit the court from terminating the conservatorship prior to the end of the conservator's one-year mark if the conservatee cannot be located at any point during that one-year period, except as specified. The bill would require, when a county is filing a petition and the county is aware that the subject of the petition was, within the prior 6 months, a conservatee whose conservatorship was terminated before the one-year termination date, to include in its petition the circumstances that gave rise to the termination. Because this bill would increase the duties on county personnel, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (5) Existing law, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, authorizes specified people to petition a civil court to create a CARE plan to provide an individualized, appropriate range of community-based services and supports to an eligible individual. Under the CARE Act, all reports, evaluations, diagnoses, and other information filed with the court that are related to the respondent are confidential, except as specified. This bill would authorize that information to be shared only by a court order or as approved by the respondent. If the information is used outside of the above-described proceedings, the bill requires a court order for that information to be shared. This bill would authorize a court, at any point after entry of a CARE agreement or adoption of a CARE plan, to order the respondent to an evaluation under the LPS without a petition from the county if the court believes the respondent has become gravely disabled. The bill would establish the procedures required before a court could issue an order pursuant to these provisions. (6) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law, the California Values Act, generally prohibits California law enforcement agencies from investigating, interrogating, detaining, detecting, or arresting persons for immigration enforcement purposes, including providing information regarding a person's release date or responding to requests for notification by providing release dates or other information, as specified. Existing law provides that responses are never required, but are permitted, provided that they do not violate any local law or policy. Existing law provides the above-described prohibition does not prevent a California law enforcement agency from performing certain limited exceptions to this prohibition that do not violate any policy of the law enforcement agency or any local law or policy of the jurisdiction in which the agency is operating. Existing law provides a law enforcement official with discretion to cooperate with immigration authorities only if doing so would not violate any federal, state, or local law, or local policy, and where permitted by the California Values Act. This bill would instead provide that responses relating to a person's release date, as described above, are required. The bill would instead require a California law enforcement agency to perform certain limited exceptions to the prohibition, as specified. The bill would instead require a law enforcement official to cooperate with immigration authorities only if doing so would not violate any federal or state law or policy, and where permitted by the California Values Act. By imposing new duties on local 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.
This measure would strongly condemn and denounce mass immigration raids that target immigrant workers and families in California and the engagement of the military in immigration enforcement operations and in response to community protests. This measure would affirm support for safeguarding the rights and safety of all Californians, regardless of immigration status, and support, among other things, the expansion of legal services and emergency response resources to protect workers, children, and families affected by immigration enforcement.
Existing law, the Sex Offender Registration Act (act) , requires a person convicted of specified crimes to register with law enforcement as a sex offender while residing in California or while attending school or working in California, as specified. Existing law establishes 3 tiers of registration based on specified criteria, for periods of at least 10 years, at least 20 years, and life, respectively, for a conviction of specified sex offenses. Existing law exempts from mandatory registration under the act a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the person to register. A willful failure to register, as required by the act, is a misdemeanor or felony, depending on the underlying offense. This bill would require offenders convicted of engaging in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than 3 years younger than the offender or, if the offender was 21 years of age or older, engaging in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age, if the offense occurred on or after January 1, 2026, to register for 10 years as a tier one offender under the act, unless the offender was not more than 10 years older than the minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the offender to register. By expanding the scope of 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.
