Existing law requires a contract entered into by any state agency for the procurement or laundering of apparel, garments, or corresponding accessories, or the procurement of equipment, materials, or supplies, other than procurement related to a public works contract, to require that a contractor certify that nothing furnished to the state pursuant to the contract has been laundered or produced by certain types of labor, including forced labor, as defined. Existing law makes any person who falsely certifies pursuant to these provisions guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill would, for a contract entered into or renewed on or after January 1, 2027, with an estimated value that exceeds $550,000, revise the above contracting requirements to also require a contractor to certify that the contract complies with specified requirements relating to human trafficking, including certain prohibitions on contractors, contractor employees, subcontractors, subcontractor employees, and their agents. The bill would revise the definition of forced labor to mean knowingly providing or obtaining labor or services of a person by, among other things, threats of serious harm to, or physical restraint against, that person or another person. This bill would require contractors and subcontractors to notify employees of specified prohibited activities and the actions that may be taken against them for violations. The bill would provide that a contractor is ineligible for, and shall not bid on, or submit a proposal for, a contract under these provisions if the contractor has failed to certify its compliance. The bill would also require a contractor to exercise due diligence in ensuring that its subcontractors comply with those requirements, including requiring each subcontractor to sign a certification. By expanding the scope of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would, for a contract that has an estimated value that exceeds $550,000, require, before a contract or subcontract is awarded, a proposed contractor or proposed subcontractor to provide a certification to the contracting officer or contractor, as applicable, that states the contractor or subcontractor has implemented a compliance plan, as specified, and has conducted due diligence that either (1) to the best of the contractor's or subcontractor's knowledge and belief, certain parties have not engaged in any specified prohibited activities or (2) if the contractor or subcontractor is aware of abuses relating to the specified prohibited activities, then certain parties have taken the appropriate remedial and referral actions. This bill would require a contractor or subcontractor to take specified actions to ensure compliance with the above-described provisions, including requiring the contractor or subcontractor to disclose to the contracting officer and the state agency with oversight information sufficient to identify the nature and extent of a violation of a prohibited activity. The bill would specify certain actions a contractor would be required to take if a contractor, contractor employee, subcontractor, subcontractor employee, or agent violates these provisions or specified provisions, including, among others, notifying its employees of the actions that will be taken against the employee or agent for violations. Existing law authorizes certain sanctions to be imposed if a contractor knew or should have known that the apparel, garments, corresponding accessories, equipment, materials, or supplies furnished to the state were laundered or produced in violation of specified conditions, including, among others, voiding the contract under which the prohibited apparel, garments, or corresponding accessories, equipment, materials, or supplies were laundered or provided at the option of the state agency and removing the contractor from the bidder's list for a period not to exceed 360 days. This bill would, for a contract entered into or renewed on or after January 1, 2027, with an estimated value that exceeds $550,000, authorize additional sanctions, including, among others, requiring a contractor to remove a contractor employee from the performance of the contract, requiring the contractor to terminate a subcontractor, and suspending contract payments until the contractor has taken appropriate remedial action. The bill would also specify that these requirements govern contracts and subcontracts entered into by a state agency, regardless of place of performance. Existing law authorizes a contractor to request a hearing before an administrative law judge when sanctions are imposed. Existing law requires the administrative law judge to consider any measures the contractor has taken to ensure compliance with the above-described provisions and authorizes the administrative law judge to waive any or all sanctions if it is determined that the contractor has acted in good faith. This bill would, for a contract entered into or renewed on or after January 1, 2027, with an estimated value that exceeds $550,000, authorize the administrative law judge to additionally consider mitigating factors and aggravating factors, as specified. Existing law authorizes a state agency that investigates a complaint against a contractor for violation of the above-described provisions to limit its investigation to evaluating the information provided by the person or entity submitting the complaint and information provided by the contractor. This bill would, for a contract entered into or renewed on or after January 1, 2027, with an estimated value that exceeds $550,000, authorize the state agency to limit its investigation to credible information. The bill would require the contracting officer, upon receipt of credible information regarding a violation of specified provisions, to promptly notify the state agency with oversight, the agency debarring and suspending official, and law enforcement officials with jurisdiction over the alleged offense, as specified. The bill would authorize the contracting officer to direct the contractor to take specific steps to abate the alleged violation or enforcement of the requirements of its compliance plan. 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.
The Trial Jury Selection and Management Act requires all persons be selected for jury service at random and from sources inclusive of a representative cross section of the population of the area served by the court. Existing law requires a trial judge to examine the prospective jurors in jury trials. Existing law gives the counsel for each party, after this initial examination, the right to examine any of the prospective jurors, as specified, in order to enable counsel to intelligently exercise both peremptory challenges and challenges for cause. Existing law requires, prior to the examination of prospective trial jurors in the panel assigned for voir dire, a specified perjury acknowledgment and agreement to be obtained from the prospective jurors. Existing law requires, after the selection of the trial jury is completed, another specified acknowledgment and agreement to be obtained from the trial jurors. This bill would revise the acknowledgment and agreements obtained from the jury panel prior to the examination of prospective trial jurors assigned for voir dire and after the completion of selection of trial jurors.
(1) Existing law generally provides for the confidentiality of information regarding a minor in proceedings in the juvenile court and related court proceedings and limits access to juvenile case files, as defined. Existing law authorizes only certain individuals to inspect a juvenile case file, including members of children's multidisciplinary teams, persons, or agencies providing treatment or supervision of the minor, and a judge, commissioner, or other hearing officer assigned to a family law case with issues concerning custody or visitation, or both, involving the minor, and specified individuals if actively participating in the family law case. Under existing law, if a juvenile case file or portion thereof is otherwise privileged or confidential pursuant to state or federal law or regulation, an individual not otherwise entitled to access the file or portions thereof without a court order must petition the juvenile court for release of the portion of, or information relating to the contents of, juvenile case files otherwise protected, as specified. This bill would, among other things, additionally authorize members of the parents' treatment teams to access a juvenile case file, as specified. The bill would additionally authorize a judge, commissioner, or other hearing officer assigned to a probate case, as well as specified persons if actively involved in a probate case, including counsel for the parents, to inspect the file, as specified. The bill would specify requirements for the use records or information received from the file. The bill would also require, if a juvenile case file, or portion thereof, is privileged or confidential pursuant to other state or federal law or regulation, if a petition is filed and the records are not released within 30 days after the filing of the petition, the juvenile court to set the matter for hearing. (2) Existing law authorizes a child welfare agency to permit its files and records relating to a minor who is the subject of a family law or probate guardianship case involving custody or visitation issues to be inspected by, and to provide copies to, specified individuals actively participating in the family law or probate case, including an attorney for a party to the family law or probate case. Existing law requires any records or information, including the testimony of a social worker, to be maintained solely in the confidential portion of the family law or probate file. The bill would instead require the child welfare agency to permit its files and records relating to a minor, who is the subject of a family law, probate guardianship case, or child welfare agency involvement, to be inspected by, and to provide copies to, specified individuals if the individuals are participating in these cases within 2 weeks of their written request, after an investigation has been closed. The bill would expand the individuals who qualify pursuant to this provision to include an attorney who is assisting a parent of a child who is subject to child welfare involvement, regardless of whether a petition is filed. The bill would require records or information to be filed under seal in a family law or probate matter. By increasing duties on child welfare agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize any person permitted to access records or information to release the records or information to any other person entitled to access the records or information. The bill would authorize attorneys to release any records or information, as necessary under certain circumstances. The bill would prohibit the juvenile case file, as specified, from being made as an attachment to any other documents without the prior approval of the presiding judge of the juvenile court, unless certain conditions are met. (3) 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 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. Existing law allows agencies responsible for supervision to determine appropriate responses to alleged violations, which can include, among other things, a one to 10 consecutive day period of flash incarceration. This bill would prohibit a person on any of those forms of supervision from being arrested, detained, or incarcerated for a technical violation of supervision, as defined, unless the person on supervision has had their supervision revoked by a judge after a revocation petition has been filed, except as specified. The bill would define a technical violation as any conduct in violation of a person's conditions of supervision that is not a new misdemeanor or felony. The bill would require a supervision agent to provide a person accused of a technical violation with a written summary of the technical violations alleged against them. The bill would prohibit the use of flash incarceration, and would make conforming changes. The bill would limit confinement pursuant to a revocation of supervision for a technical violation to no more than 7 days for the first revocation, 15 days for the 2nd revocation, and 30 days for the 3rd or subsequent revocation. By increasing duties on local supervision agents, 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 gives a judge discretion when deciding various matters in a criminal proceeding, including, among other things, issuing bail or releasing a defendant on their own recognizance, accepting a diversion or deferred entry of judgment agreement, and imposing sentences and granting probation. This bill would, when a court is exercising its discretion with regard to these matters, make a rebuttable presumption against detention and incarceration of a pregnant or postpartum defendant, as defined, if the defendant provides the court and district attorney with notice of the defendant's status as a pregnant or postpartum defendant at each applicable stage of the proceedings. The bill would require a court that decides to detain or incarcerate a defendant after this consideration to make specific findings on the record that the risk to public safety or any other factor the court is required to consider is substantial enough to outweigh the risk of incarceration, as specified. The bill would authorize a person who may be pregnant or postpartum and who is arrested or in custody in a county jail to request a pregnancy test upon or following admission to the county jail and would require the county jail to provide a pregnancy test upon request and allow the person to take the pregnancy test within 24 hours after the request. The bill would require a county jail to keep a record of specified information, including the total number of incarcerated pregnant people at that county jail. By imposing additional duties on county jails, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize a pregnant or postpartum defendant to request a stay of execution of their sentence by filing a written request to the court if the pregnant or postpartum defendant is detained or incarcerated in a county jail for any period of time through the end of the pregnancy or the postpartum period, except as specified. The bill would require the court to apply the rebuttable presumption above when considering whether to grant that stay of execution. The bill would authorize a court to order a stay of execution of the sentence for any period of time through the end of the pregnancy or the postpartum period. 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.
(1) Existing law, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act (the act) , authorizes specified persons, including a person with whom the respondent resides, family members, and first responders, among others, 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, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, authorizes a conservator of the person, of the estate, or of 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. Existing law requires the officer providing the conservatorship investigation, which may include a public guardian or a county mental health program, to investigate all available alternatives to conservatorship and to recommend conservatorship to the court only if no suitable alternatives are available. Existing law requires a conservatorship under these provisions to terminate after one year and specifies procedures if the conservator determines conservatorship is still required. This bill would authorize a conservator to, upon the termination of a conservatorship, request the court refer the conservatee to CARE court, as specified. (2) The act authorizes services and supports to be provided to adults who are currently experiencing a qualifying severe mental illness and who meet other specified criteria, including that the person is not clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment and is either unlikely to survive safely in the community without ongoing supervision and the person's condition is substantially deteriorating or the person is in need of services and supports to prevent a relapse or deterioration that would likely result in grave disability or serious harm to the person or others. This bill would authorize the court, beginning July 1, 2028, and if it dismisses a CARE petition because a respondent needs a higher level of services, to order the county to develop an exit plan for the respondent. The bill would require the State Department of Health Care Services, by July 1, 2028, to develop, with input from certain stakeholder groups, a CARE Act model exit plan that identifies appropriate services and ongoing monitoring of an individual with a petition dismissed because the individual needed a higher level of services. This bill would update the definition of a petitioner for the purposes of the act. (3) Existing law requires the Judicial Council to develop a mandatory form or forms to use to file a CARE process petition. Existing law requires the petition to be signed under the penalty of perjury and to contain specified information, including the petitioner's relationship to the respondent and either an affidavit of a licensed behavioral health professional stating the licensed behavioral health professional or their designee has examined or made multiple unsuccessful attempts to examine the respondent within 60 days of submission of the petition, or that the respondent was detained for a minimum of 2 intensive treatments pursuant to state law. This bill would extend the 60-day period for examination of the respondent to 120 days. The bill would also authorize a petition to include evidence that the respondent was either detained for a minimum of 2 involuntary holds in the last 120 days or that they were referred to a full service partnership program more than once, but was not enrolled due to inability or unwillingness to engage in the previous 120 days. (4) Existing law authorizes a court to terminate a respondent's participation in the CARE process if the court determines that the respondent is not participating in the CARE process or is not adhering to their CARE plan, as specified. Existing law authorizes the court to order an evaluation under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, as specified, to ensure the respondent's safety. Existing law requires the court to consider the respondent's failure to successfully complete their CARE plan and the reasons for that failure in a subsequent hearing under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, provided that the hearing occurs within 6 months of the termination of the CARE plan, and creates a presumption that the respondent needs additional intervention beyond the supports and services provided by the CARE plan. This bill would prohibit the court from terminating a respondent's participation in the CARE process solely due to a failure of the county or other local government entity to properly engage with the CARE process. (5) Existing law requires CARE Act proceedings to occur in person unless the court, in its discretion, allows a party or witness to appear remotely through the use of remote technology. Existing law authorizes the respondent to be in person for all hearings. This bill would instead authorize all parties and witnesses to appear remotely through the use of remotely technology. The bill would authorize the court with discretion to order a party or witness to appear in person if necessary. This bill would authorize the parties to agree to an alternative method of service for all subsequent reports and notices after the notice of initial appearance. This bill would require, by January 1, 2028, all counties to establish a process for electronic submission of CARE Act documents using a secured portal. By increasing the duties on county behavioral health agencies, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. (6) Existing law authorizes a provider of health care or a covered entity, as defined, to disclose to the county behavioral health agency any information, including protected health information, and mental health records excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that is relevant to the county behavioral health agency's provision, coordination, or management or services or supports. Existing law specifies protections for this information and required procedures when such a disclosure is made. This bill would authorize a county behavioral health agency to disclose to a provider of health care or a covered entity any information, including protected health information, and mental health records, excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that is relevant to the provider or entity's provision, coordination, or management of services and supports. The bill would also specify protections for this information and required procedures when such a disclosure is made. (7) Existing law requires the department to develop, in consultation with specified entities, an annual CARE Act report that includes specified information on CARE Act petitions, including the number of initial appearances, and information compiled from county behavioral health departments and courts. This bill would expand the information on CARE Act petitions to include the number of petitions submitted electronically as well as other specified information. The bill would also expand the data to be compiled from county behavioral health departments and courts to include the number of individuals who were enrolled in a Full Service Partnership program postreferral, among other things. The bill would also require the data collected from county behavioral health departments and courts to be collected for cases involving dismissed respondents, where available. (8) Existing law requires the California Health and Human Services Agency, or a designated department within the agency, to perform specified functions, including engaging an independent, research-based entity to advise on the development of data-driven process and outcome measures to guide the planning, collaboration, reporting, and evaluation of the CARE Act. This bill would require the agency to annually release a list of overperforming counties and shall annually provide written notice identifying areas of concern and opportunities for improvement to underperforming counties. This bill would also establish within the California Health and Human Services Agency the position of a CARE Court Ombudsperson, as specified. (9) 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 judge in the superior court in which a misdemeanor is being prosecuted to offer misdemeanor diversion to a defendant. Existing law, upon successful completion of the terms, conditions, or programs ordered by the court, makes the arrest upon which the diversion was imposed deemed to have never occurred, except as specified relating to application to be a peace officer. This bill, the Safer Communities Through Opportunities Act, would authorize a court to exercise its discretion to grant pretrial diversion on a felony offense, subject to certain exceptions. The bill would authorize the court to consider information from, among others, the prosecutor and the defense in determining whether or not to grant diversion and would prohibit a court from granting diversion unless it finds that the diversion plan mitigates any unreasonable risk of danger to public safety and that the defendant is likely to benefit from the services provided in the diversion plan. The bill would authorize a court to consider reinstating criminal proceedings in certain circumstances, such as the commission of a misdemeanor committed while the defendant is receiving pretrial diversion services that shows a propensity for violence, among others. The bill would require the court to dismiss the criminal allegations if it finds that the defendant has complied with the terms and conditions during the diversion period. The bill would require the court, if the court reduces the felony to a misdemeanor, to follow existing misdemeanor diversion proceedings.
