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.
Existing law defines looting as the commission of certain offenses during and within an affected county in a state of emergency or local emergency, as specified. Existing law includes any 2nd-degree burglary or grand theft in the definition of looting, and makes looting based on those offenses punishable by either imprisonment in a county jail for one year or as a felony. This bill would authorize the court to consider the fact, if pled and proven, that the defendant committed the crime of looting while impersonating emergency personnel as a factor in aggravation. Existing law prohibits credibly impersonating a peace officer, firefighter, or employee of a state or local government agency, or a search and rescue team, as specified. A violation of these prohibitions is punishable as a misdemeanor. This bill would make it a crime, punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony, for a person, other than a first responder to wear, exhibit, or use the uniform, insignia, emblem, device, label, certificate, card, or writing of a first responder with the intent of fraudulently impersonating a first responder within an area under an evacuation order, as specified. The bill would also make it a crime, punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony, to impersonate a first responder on the internet or by electronic means during an evacuation order or within 30 days of its termination for the purpose of defrauding another, as specified. Existing law, until January 1, 2029, defines the offense of aggravated arson, and defines the aggravating factors for the offense as: the person has been previously convicted of arson on one or more occasions within the past 10 years, the fire caused property damage and other losses in excess of $10,100,000, or the fire caused damage to, or the destruction of, 5 or more inhabited dwellings. Existing law, commencing January 1, 2029, deletes the aggravating factor of property damage and other losses in excess of $10,100,000 from the definition of aggravated arson. This bill would state that it is the intent of the Legislature that amendments to the above-described dollar amounts are to be applied prospectively and shall not be interpreted to benefit any defendant who committed a crime or received a sentence before the effective date of the amendment. By creating a new crime and by increasing the punishment of specified 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. This bill would make the operation of its provisions contingent upon the enactment of AB 468 of the 2025–26 Regular Session.
Existing law requires each county to develop a procedure for electronically transmitting, upon the issuance of certain types of protective orders, the contents of the order and other specified information to the Department of Justice through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System. Existing law also requires the department to maintain a California Restraining and Protective Order System and to make specified information electronically available to court clerks and law enforcement personnel. This bill, Wyland's Law, would, subject to an appropriation by the Legislature, authorize the department to establish, or contract with a vendor to establish, an automated protected person information and notification system to provide a petitioner or a protected person in a protective order case with automated access to information about their case, as specified. The bill would require a record demonstrating whether the superior court has fulfilled its transmission obligations or a record demonstrating receipt of information about a protective order that the department maintains to be open to public inspection and copying.
(1) Existing law requires a natural person who, for specific compensation, makes more than 10 services of process within the state in one calendar year, or a corporation or partnership that derives compensation from service of process within the state, to file and maintain a verified certificate of registration as a process server with the county clerk of the county in which the person, corporation, or partnership resides or has its principal place of business, except as specified. Existing law requires each county clerk to maintain a register of process servers and assign a number and issue an identification card to each process server. This bill would, beginning January 1, 2027, require that the register of process servers maintained by a county clerk be publicly available. By imposing a new duty on county clerks, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law provides that a service of a summons in a civil action that complies with specified procedures is not invalid or ineffective solely because it was made by a person in violation of the requirements pertaining to registered process servers. Existing law provides that if a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served, the summons may be served by leaving a copy at the person's dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address, in the presence of a person who is at least 18 years of age, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint as specified. Existing law also authorizes a summons in an action for unlawful detainer to be served by posting if the court is satisfied that the party to be served cannot with reasonable diligence be served in any authorized manner other than publication, and that other specified conditions are met. Existing law requires the proof of service of a summons to contain specified information and documentation. This bill would define "reasonable diligence," for purposes of service of process in specified civil cases, to mean attempting personal delivery of the summons and complaint, in good faith, on at least three occasions on three different days at three different times. The bill would require the proof of service of a summons and complaint, if served personally, by substituted service, or by posting, if the summons is for an action for unlawful detainer of real property, to include at least one photograph, if such can be obtained without compromising the safety of the process server, of the site of the effectuated or attempted service and contain a readable stamp and global positioning system (GPS) coordinates indicating the date, time, and location of service. The bill would require the process server to provide a detailed statement on the proof of service, as specified, if there is no GPS or cellular signal available at the time and place of the effected or attempted service. The bill would make these requirements operative on January 1, 2027. (3) Existing law authorizes a court, on motion of a party and after notice to the other party, to set aside any void judgment or order. This bill would authorize a party that did not receive proper service of the summons and complaint to bring a motion to set aside or vacate a default or default judgment or for leave to defend the action or to move for dismissal. The bill would require a party that files a motion to set aside or vacate a default or default judgment to proffer evidence that service of the summons and complaint was not effected. The bill would provide that the party seeking the default or default judgment has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that service was lawful. The bill would require the court to take evidence and would require the court to conduct a hearing and receive oral testimony if requested by either party. The bill would specify that the above provisions would not limit any other available remedies under the law. The bill would make these provisions operative on January 1, 2027. (4) Existing law prescribes requirements for civil actions for unlawful detainer filed by landlords to remove tenants from their properties. Existing law requires that certain information be included in the complaint for unlawful detainer, including the method used to serve the defendant with the notice of termination of tenancy. This bill would additionally require the complaint to include information describing the date, time, and location of effected service of the termination notice. The bill would make this requirement operative on January 1, 2027. (5) 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, in a case involving a conviction of a serious or violent felony resulting in a sentence of 15 years or more, to order that the defendant be provided reasonable access to discovery materials upon the prosecution of a postconviction writ of habeas corpus or a motion to vacate judgment and a showing that good faith efforts to obtain discovery materials from trial counsel were made and were unsuccessful. Existing law defines "discovery materials" as materials in the possession of the prosecution and law enforcement authorities that the defendant would have been entitled to at the time of trial. Existing law requires trial counsel to retain copies of files for criminal convictions of serious or violent felonies resulting in a sentence greater than 15 years for the duration of the client's imprisonment. Existing law authorizes trial counsel to retain those copies digitally, if every item is preserved. This bill would authorize reasonable access, except as specified, to discovery materials for felonies resulting in a sentence of incarceration in the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The bill would broaden the definition of "discovery materials" to include, among other things, materials from any prosecutor who tried or worked on the case that tend to negate guilt, or mitigate the sentence or offense. The bill would clarify the definition of "the prosecution" to include the prosecuting agency and counsel for the respondent to a habeas corpus petition. The bill would require the prosecutor, in order to shield jury selection notes from disclosure, to make a foundational proffer describing how information in their file would bear on their case strategy. The bill would require the court, upon a showing of good cause by the prosecutor, to conduct an in camera review and order necessary redactions. The bill would clarify that good cause to shield jury selection notes from disclosure is shown when the prosecution did not exercise any peremptory challenges during jury selection. The bill would additionally require trial counsel, for all criminal convictions on or after July 1, 2026, that result in a sentence of incarceration in the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to retain digital color copies of every item in the file. By increasing the duties of public defenders, this bill would create 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.
