Criminal Justice

Existing law requires the Board of Parole Hearings to meet with each indeterminately sentenced inmate during the 6th year before the inmate's minimum eligible parole date for the purpose of reviewing and documenting the inmate's activities and conduct pertinent to parole eligibility. One year before the inmate's minimum eligible parole date, existing law requires a panel of the board to meet with the inmate and to grant parole unless the panel or board sitting en banc determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for the inmate. In certain circumstances, the board will conduct an en banc review, defined as a review conducted by a majority of commissioners holding office on the date the matter is heard by the board, and existing law specifies how the en banc review is required to be conducted. Existing law authorizes the Governor to request a review of a decision by the board to grant or deny parole and, if a request has been made, existing law requires the request to be reviewed by a majority of commissioners, as specified. This bill would instead require that all commissioners participate in an en banc review and a request for review made by the Governor. The bill would also require the en banc review decision and the vote of each commissioner to be a public record. Existing law, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a state body be open and public and all persons be permitted to attend. Existing law authorizes certain state bodies to hold closed session meetings for certain purposes, including allowing a state body to hold a closed session when considering and acting upon the determination of a term, parole, or release of any individual or other disposition of an individual case. This bill would prohibit an en banc review conducted by the board from being held in a closed session.

Existing law authorizes a judge in a case where a misdemeanor is being prosecuted, over the objection of the prosecuting attorney, to offer diversion to the defendant. Existing law prohibits this type of diversion when, among other things, the current charged offense is willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following or willfully and maliciously harassing another person while making a credible threat toward that person, as specified. Existing law requires the clerk of a court, in which a person was convicted of a violation of the Vehicle Code or other specified provisions, to prepare within 5 days after conviction and immediately forward to the Department of Motor Vehicles an abstract of the record of the court covering the case in which the person was convicted. This bill would require the court, if the court grants diversion to a defendant who, if they had been convicted, would have had an abstract of record forwarded to the department pursuant to the above provisions, to instead direct that the prosecuting attorney ensure notice of the arrest or incident is provided to the department, as specified. By increasing the duties on local officials, 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 an ex parte restraining order to prevent abuse based on reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse. Existing law authorizes the order to be issued solely on the affidavit or testimony of the person requesting the ex parte restraining order. Existing law requires the ex parte order to be issued or denied on the same day the application is submitted to the court, except as specified. Existing law prohibits an ex parte restraining order from being denied solely because the other party was not provided with notice. This bill would instead prohibit a court from requiring that notice be provided to the party to be restrained in advance of accepting a filing for, or deciding, an application for an ex parte restraining order. The bill would also prohibit a court from requiring an explanation or declaration for not providing notice in advance of accepting a filing for, or deciding, an application for an ex parte restraining order. The bill would prohibit a court from adopting or maintaining any rule, form, or practice that is inconsistent with these provisions.

Existing law allows a person who is unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty to prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of their imprisonment or restraint. Existing law allows a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on several bases, including on the basis of false evidence that is material on the issue of guilt or punishment, as specified, or the discovery of new evidence that exists that is presented without substantial delay, is admissible, and that has not been previously presented and heard at trial and has been discovered after trial. Existing law creates a presumption in favor of granting relief through habeas when the district attorney in the county of the conviction or the Attorney General concedes or stipulates to a legal or factual basis for habeas relief. This bill would revise the above-described standards to no longer require false evidence to be material and would instead require that the evidence create any reasonable likelihood it could have affected the outcome of the case. The bill would also change the new evidence standard to instead require that there be a reasonable probability it would have produced a different result sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the case. The bill would revise the presumption in favor of granting relief to instead make a stipulation binding on the parties, if certain conditions are met, unless the moving party proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the other party violated the terms or the state withheld evidence, as specified. The bill would also revise the process for a concession and instead prohibit a party from withdrawing a concession if the concession is contained in a return or other written filing signed by counsel for respondent, as specified. Existing law allows a person who is no longer unlawfully imprisoned or restrained to prosecute a motion to vacate a judgment on the basis of newly discovered evidence of fraud by a government official that completely undermines the prosecution's case, is conclusive, and points unerringly to their innocence, newly discovered evidence that a government official testified falsely at trial that resulted in the conviction and that the testimony was substantially probative on the issue of guilt or punishment, or newly discovered evidence of misconduct by a government official committed in the underlying case that resulted in fabrication of evidence that was substantially material and probative on the issue of guilt or punishment. The bill would revise the above-described standards to instead require a demonstration that there is a reasonable probability the evidence would have produced a different result sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the case, as specified. The bill would make other conforming changes. The bill would make related findings and declarations.

The Secretary of State is the chief elections officer of the state, and the Attorney General is the chief law officer of the state. Existing law requires a state or local agency that files or is served with an elections-related claim arising under federal law to provide written notice to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General within 3 court days. Existing law requires a state or local agency that intends to enter into a settlement, consent decree, or other court-approved agreement related to the claim to provide a draft copy of the settlement, consent decree, or agreement to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General at least 14 court days before entering into it. This bill would require a local agency, political subdivision, or elections official to provide notice to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General immediately, but no later than one calendar day, after becoming aware of any warrant, subpoena, or active law enforcement investigation pertaining to any election records or certified voting technology under their custody or control. The bill would authorize the Secretary of State or the Attorney General to intervene in, or initiate, any court proceedings to challenge a warrant or subpoena on any valid grounds or seek any other appropriate relief. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2030. By increasing the duties of local elections officials, 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

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 authorizes, until January 1, 2027, a party to appear remotely and a court to conduct conferences, hearings, proceedings, and trials in civil cases, in whole or in part, through the use of remote technology. This bill would extend the operation of these provisions to January 31, 2029. The bill would additionally authorize any non-party witness to appear remotely pursuant to these provisions.

Existing law prohibits the use of kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents by any law enforcement agency to disperse any assembly, protest, or demonstration, except in compliance with specified standards. Existing law requires kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents only to be deployed by a peace officer that has received proper training for crowd control, as specified, or to bring an objectively dangerous and unlawful situation safely and effectively under control and only in accordance with certain requirements, including that de-escalation techniques have been attempted and have failed, kinetic energy projectiles are not aimed at the head, neck, or any other vital organs, and, if the chemical agent to be deployed is tear gas, only a commanding officer at the scene of the assembly, protest, or demonstration may authorize the use of tear gas. This bill would expand the above prohibition and exception to include flash-bang grenades, as defined. The bill would define law enforcement agency as any department or agency of the state or any local government, special district, or other political subdivision thereof, that employs any peace officer, as defined, or any federal law enforcement agency. The bill would prohibit the use of flash-bang grenades by any law enforcement agency for the purposes of immigration enforcement, except as specified. The bill would also only allow a commanding officer at the scene to authorize the use of flash-bang grenades. Existing law requires each law enforcement agency to publish specified use of force incidents to the Department of Justice and requires the Department of Justice to publish those reports, as specified. This bill would additionally require law enforcement agencies to report the use of flash-bang grenades. By imposing new duties on local law enforcement agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law prohibits the possession of any destructive device and makes a violation of this prohibition punishable as a misdemeanor or felony. Existing law exempts specified peace officers from this prohibition. This bill would prohibit a peace officer, as defined, from using an explosive breaching charge, as defined, for the purpose of immigration enforcement, except as specified. 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. The bill would declare the severability of its provisions.

Existing law defines "hate crime" as a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of actual or perceived characteristics of the victim, including, among other things, race, religion, disability, and sexual orientation. Except as provided, existing law requires the fact that a person committed or attempted to commit a felony that is a hate crime to be considered a circumstance in aggravation of the crime in imposing a specified term. This bill, the Hortman-Kirk Political Violence Prevention Act, in the case of any felony conviction, would authorize the court to consider as a circumstance in aggravation in sentencing the fact that the defendant's conduct was motivated, in whole or in part, by the victim's actual or perceived political affiliation. The bill would define "political affiliation" to mean the state of belonging to a political party, the endorsement of a political party or a platform of a political party, or the endorsement of a politician or a platform of a politician. By increasing the punishment for a 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 misdemeanor to, by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten another person in the free exercise or enjoyment of a right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States, in whole or in part, because of one or more of specified actual or perceived characteristics of the victim, including disability, gender, religion, race, or sexual orientation. This bill would make it a crime for an elected or appointed official, under color of authority, to retaliate or exert political retribution, as defined, against a person for exercising a constitutionally protected right. The bill would make a violation of this crime punishable by forfeiture of office. The bill would specify that these provisions do not apply to the hiring or personnel decisions of elected or appointed officials that are relative to an employee or prospective employee of that elected or appointed official. 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.