Existing law establishes the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, and requires the commission to, among other things, establish a certification program for peace officers, as defined. Existing law requires the commission to establish procedures for accepting complaints from members of the public regarding peace officers or law enforcement agencies that may be investigated. Existing law establishes, within the commission, the Peace Officer Standards Accountability Division and requires the division, among other things, to bring proceedings seeking the suspension or revocation of certification of a peace officer. 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. This bill would additionally exempt agreements between an employing agency and a peace officer that, among other things, require the agency to destroy, remove, or conceal a record of a misconduct investigation. The bill would declare that its provisions are severable. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 832.7 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 847 and AB 1178, to be operative only if this bill and AB 847 or AB 1178 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
Existing law revives certain claims seeking to recover damages suffered as a result of a sexual assault that occurred on or after the plaintiff's 18th birthday when one or more entities are legally responsible for damages and the entity or their agents engaged in a cover up, as defined, that would otherwise be barred prior to January 1, 2023, solely because the applicable statute of limitations has or had expired. Existing law authorizes a cause of action for any such claim to proceed if already pending in court on January 1, 2023, or, if not filed by that date, to be commenced between January 1, 2023, and December 31, 2023. Existing law revives such claims brought by a plaintiff who alleges all of the following: (1) the plaintiff was sexually assaulted, (2) one or more entities are legally responsible for damages arising out of the assault, and (3) the entity or entities engaged in a cover up or attempted cover up, as defined, of a previous instance or allegations of sexual assault. This bill would extend the eligibility period for revival of claims of the type described above to include claims that would otherwise be barred prior to January 1, 2026, because the applicable statute of limitations has or had expired. The bill would instead require a revived claim against an entity, as defined, to allege that the plaintiff was sexually assaulted and that (1) one or more entities or persons are legally responsible for damages arising out of sexual assault by an alleged perpetrator against the plaintiff, and (2) an entity or entities, including their specified representatives, engaged in a cover up or attempted a cover up of a previous instance or allegations of sexual assault by an alleged perpetrator. The bill would additionally revive a claim against the person who committed the sexual assault brought by a plaintiff who alleges, among other things, that one or more entities or persons are legally responsible for damages arising out of the sexual assault. The bill would specify that failure to allege a cover up as to one entity does not affect revival of a claim or claims against any other entity or person, including the perpetrator. The bill would permit a cause of action for any such claim to proceed if already pending in court on the effective date of the bill or, if not filed by that date, to be commenced between January 1, 2026, and December 31, 2027. The bill would exempt public entities from these provisions and would provide that public entities are not required to indemnify perpetrators of sexual assault, as specified. The bill would make conforming changes.
Existing law prohibits the state from seeking, obtaining, or imposing a criminal conviction or sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. Under existing law, a defendant may pursue relief for a violation of this prohibition by filing a motion pursuant to the provisions that prohibit this conduct, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, or a motion to vacate a conviction or sentence. This bill would authorize the defendant in these proceedings to file a motion for disclosure of all relevant evidence related to a potential violation of the prohibition on the state seeking, obtaining, or imposing a criminal conviction or sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin, as specified. The bill would also authorize the court to remedy a violation of these provisions with any other remedy not prohibited by another law. The bill would make other technical changes. This bill makes legislative findings and declarations in support of its provisions. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 745, 1473, and 1473.7 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 734 to be operative only if this bill and SB 734 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law requires law enforcement agencies to maintain policies on specified subjects, including, among others, the use of force, gun violence restraining orders, and responding to domestic violence calls. This bill would require each municipal police department and county sheriff's department, the Department of the California Highway Patrol, and the University of California and California State University Police Departments to, on or before January 1, 2027, develop, adopt, and implement written policies and standards to promote safe, consistent, and effective service, implementation, and enforcement of court protection and restraining orders that include firearm access restrictions. The bill would require these policies and standards to, among other things, provide a standard agency process for law enforcement to serve an order against a restrained person in a timely manner and ensure the agency consistently complies with specified requirements under California law governing service of protection and restraining orders. By expanding the duties of local law enforcement, 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 requires the court, prior to the acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, to advise the defendant that if they are not a citizen, conviction of the crime charged may result in deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization. After January 1, 1978, if the court fails to advise the defendant, as required, and the defendant shows that conviction of the offense to which the defendant pleaded guilty or nolo contendere may have the consequences for the defendant of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States, the court, on the defendant's motion, is required to vacate the judgment and permit the defendant to withdraw the plea of guilty or nolo contendere, and enter a plea of not guilty. This bill would require the court to give the above-described advisement verbatim and would clarify the advisement to state that if the defendant is not a citizen of the United States, conviction may result in the specified immigration consequences. The bill would state that for a plea accepted prior to January 1, 2026, it is not the intent of the Legislature that a court's failure to provide the advisement verbatim requires vacation of judgment and withdrawal of the plea or constitutes grounds for finding a prior conviction invalid, as specified.
Existing law defines rape as an act of sexual intercourse accomplished under certain circumstances, including with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator where the person is incapable of giving legal consent because of a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability. This bill would remove the spousal exception from this definition of rape. 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.
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.
