Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to possess nitrous oxide with the intent of inhaling it for specified purposes, including to cause intoxication. Existing law also makes it a misdemeanor to sell nitrous oxide to any person under 18 years of age. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to dispense nitrous oxide to a person and knowing that the person will use it for specified prohibited purposes, if that person then causes death or great bodily injury to themselves or another person. Under existing law, the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Licensing Act of 2003, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) administers and enforces a statewide program to license manufacturers, importers, distributors, wholesalers, and retailers of cigarettes and tobacco products. Existing law specifically requires a retailer, distributor, or wholesaler, as defined, to hold a license from the CDTFA to engage in the sale of cigarettes or tobacco products. Existing law subjects these licenses to suspension or revocation for violations of existing law. Existing law imposes specified noticing and posting requirements for retailer licenses that are revoked. A violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor. This bill would, except as specifically exempted, prohibit the sale and distribution of a nitrous oxide container that is capable of holding more than 8 grams of nitrous oxide or from which an individual may directly inhale nitrous oxide. The bill would also prohibit the sale and distribution of a nitrous oxide that has, or is marketed as having, the taste or smell of any food. The bill would prohibit knowingly selling or distributing a device that allows an individual to inhale nitrous oxide from the container or hold nitrous oxide for the purposes of inhalation. The bill would punish a violation of these provisions as an infraction, as specified. The bill would also authorize a court to suspend a business license if the business has a prior conviction for violating these prohibitions, and to revoke a license to sell tobacco products if the business has 2 prior convictions for violating these prohibitions. The bill would make any person, distributor, or business found to have violated these prohibitions liable for all reasonable costs incurred by a public agency in the investigation, inspection, seizure, storage, transportation, handling, venting, abatement, disposal, or destruction of nitrous oxide products, nitrous oxide containers, inhalation devices, or related materials involved in the violation, as specified. This bill would prohibit a person that is engaged in the business of selling cigarettes or tobacco products in this state from possessing, storing, owning, or selling nitrous oxide, in violation of the criminal provisions outlined above, at any site where cigarettes and tobacco products are stored or sold. The bill would authorize the CDTFA to seize nitrous oxide products, as prescribed. The bill would subject a violator to civil penalties in amounts depending on the aggregate retail value of the seized nitrous oxide and the number of violations within 5 years of the first violation. The bill would require the deposit of collected civil penalties in the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Compliance Fund. The bill would also subject a violator who commits a 2nd violation to license suspension and who commits a 3rd violation to license revocation, as prescribed. This bill would establish procedures for the CDTFA to follow for a court-ordered revocation. The bill would require the CDTFA to assess a $250 civil penalty for each revoked license and to deposit collected civil penalties into the fund, to be made available to the department, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for purposes of administering the bill. The bill would authorize a licensee to apply for a new license at the previously revoked location 6 months after the date of revocation and would authorize the CDTFA, at its discretion, to issue a new license. The bill would apply these noticing and posting requirements to a retailer subject to a court-ordered revocation pursuant to the bill. The California Constitution provides for the establishment of the State Board of Equalization, which, before July 1, 2017, had primary responsibility for most of the state's duties, powers, and responsibilities regarding the administration of taxes and fees. Existing law, on July 1, 2017, transferred to the CDTFA various duties, powers, and responsibilities of the State Board of Equalization, including administration of the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Licensing Act of 2003, as specified. This bill would change references in the provisions of the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Licensing Act of 2003 amended by this bill from the "State Board of Equalization" to the "California Department of Tax and Fee Administration" to reflect the transfer of the board's duties, powers, and responsibilities to the CDTFA. Because this bill would create new crimes, it 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 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, as amended by the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016, enacted by Proposition 57 at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, authorizes the district attorney to make a motion to transfer a minor from juvenile court to a court of criminal jurisdiction in a case in which a minor is alleged to have committed a felony when the minor was 16 years of age or older, or in a case in which a specified serious offense is alleged to have been committed by a minor when the minor was 14 or 15 years of age, but the minor was not apprehended prior to the end of juvenile court jurisdiction. Existing case law prohibits the use of a minor's statements made at a transfer hearing or to a probation officer from being used during a criminal prosecution of the minor transferred to the court of criminal jurisdiction. This bill would codify existing case law to prohibit the use of the minor's statements made during a transfer hearing or to the minor's probation officer for the purposes of preparing a report for a transfer hearing from being used against the minor during subsequent juvenile proceedings or subsequent criminal proceedings, as specified. This bill would state that the provisions of this bill are declaratory of existing law.
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.
