Criminal Justice

Existing law prohibits the touching of any intimate part of another person for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse, under specified circumstances, including if the victim is unconscious of the nature of the act because the perpetrator fraudulently represented that the touching served a professional purpose. A violation of these provisions is punishable as a misdemeanor or as a felony by imprisonment in the state prison for 2, 3, or 4 years, and by a fine not exceeding $10,000. Existing law requires, in the case of a felony conviction for a violation of these provisions, the fact that the defendant was an employer and the victim was an employee of the defendant to be a factor in aggravation in sentencing. This bill would require, in the case of a felony conviction for a violation of these provisions, the fact that the defendant was employed at a hospital where the offense occurred and the victim was in the defendant's care or seeking medical care at the hospital to be a factor in aggravation in sentencing. By increasing the punishment for a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law provides for the exclusion of a prospective juror from a trial jury by peremptory challenge. Existing law prohibits a party from using a peremptory challenge to remove a prospective juror on the basis of, among other things, the prospective juror's race, ethnicity, or gender. Existing law allows a party, or the trial court on its own motion, to object to the use of a peremptory challenge based on these criteria. Upon objection, existing law requires the party exercising the challenge to state the reasons the peremptory challenge has been exercised. Existing law requires the court to evaluate the reasons given, as specified, and, if the court grants the objection, authorizes the court to take certain actions, including, but not limited to, starting a new jury selection, declaring a mistrial at the request of the objecting party, seating the challenged juror, or providing another remedy as the court deems appropriate. Under existing law, one of the circumstances the court may consider includes whether the counsel or counsel's office exercising the challenge has used peremptory challenges disproportionately against a given race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, or religious affiliation, or perceived membership in any of these groups, in the present case or in past cases, as specified. Existing law, until January 1, 2026, prohibits the application of these provisions to civil cases. This bill would extend the prohibition against application of these provisions to civil cases indefinitely, except as specified, including cases involving a civil rights violation and cases for the civil commitment of a person. The bill would require the party bringing specified claims to notify the court and the other party or parties of the applicability of these provisions in those civil cases, as specified. The bill would limit the court's consideration of counsel or counsel's office use of peremptory challenges in the present case or in past cases, as described above, to when counsel or counsel's office is a public entity.

Existing law, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, prohibits a government entity from compelling the production of, or access to, electronic communication information or electronic device information, as defined, without a search warrant, wiretap order, order for electronic reader records, or subpoena issued pursuant to specified conditions. Existing law authorizes a government entity to access electronic device information by means of physical interaction or electronic communication with the device in certain circumstances, including, pursuant to the specific consent of the authorized possessor of the device or if the government entity, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to a person requires access to the information. Existing law requires a government entity that obtains electronic information pursuant to an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to a person, within 3 court days after obtaining the electronic information, to file with the appropriate court an application for a warrant or order setting forth the facts giving rise to the emergency. Existing law requires the court to promptly rule on the application and to destroy all information obtained upon a finding that the facts did not give rise to an emergency or upon rejecting the application on any other ground. This bill would additionally authorize a government entity to access electronic device information with the specific consent of an individual who locates a tracking or surveillance device, as defined, and the device is reasonably believed to have been used to track or record the individual without their permission. The bill would require a government entity that obtains information through this method, within 3 court days after obtaining the electronic information, to follow the above process for applying for a warrant or order from a court by setting forth the facts that describe the circumstances and would require the court to promptly rule on the application and order the immediate destruction of all information obtained upon a finding that the facts were not as described. Existing law authorizes an individual whose information is targeted by a warrant, order, or other legal process, or other specified recipients of a warrant, that is inconsistent with the act or the California or United States Constitution, to petition the issuing court to void or modify the warrant, order, or process, or to order the destruction of any information obtained in violation of the act or the California or United States Constitution. This bill would recast the provisions described above to authorize an individual whose information is sought or obtained by a government entity in a manner that is inconsistent with the act or the California or United States Constitution, or other specified recipients of a warrant, order, legal process, request, or demand seeking the individual's information, to petition a court to void or modify the warrant, order, other legal process, request, or demand to order the destruction of the information.

(1) Existing law establishes procedures by which a person may petition the court for certain protective or restraining orders, including civil harassment restraining orders, domestic violence restraining orders, elder or dependent adult abuse restraining orders, gun violence restraining orders, postsecondary school restraining orders, and workplace violence restraining orders, to enjoin a restrained person from taking specified actions. Beginning January 1, 2026, upon a court's issuance of such a protective order, existing law will require the restrained person to relinquish any firearm and ammunition in that person's immediate possession or control, according to specified procedures. Existing law prescribes procedures by which the restrained person must certify compliance with the court, and for the court to determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the person has a firearm in violation of the order. This bill would make clarifying and conforming changes to the procedures relating to the protective or restraining orders described above by explicitly requiring the restrained person to relinquish, in addition to any firearm, any ammunition in that person's immediate possession or control. The bill would require courts to permit a party, support person, or witness to appear remotely at a hearing for a postsecondary educational institution or workplace violence restraining order at no cost. This bill would also require courts to develop rules and instructions for such remote appearances and to post them on its website. (2) Existing law requires a peace officer who is at the scene of a domestic violence incident or enforcing a domestic violence restraining order or gun violence restraining order to take temporary custody of any firearm or other deadly weapon in plain sight or discovered pursuant to a consensual or otherwise lawful search, as specified. This bill would additionally require a peace officer to take temporary custody of any ammunition in plain sight or discovered pursuant to such a search. By expanding the duties of local law enforcement 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 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. This bill would prohibit a supervision authority, as defined, from imposing a condition of supervision that prohibits a person on supervision from being in contact with any family member. The bill would authorize the supervision authority to prohibit contact if the family member is a victim of the crime for which the person on supervision was convicted, and it is deemed necessary for public safety. The bill would require the supervision authority prohibiting contact to provide a written explanation of why the public safety and rehabilitative benefits of prohibiting contact outweigh the rights to familial association, any rehabilitative benefits from contact, and any harms to either person from prohibiting contact. By increasing duties on local governments, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would exclude courts from the definition of a supervision authority. 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 Attorney General to establish an online, automated computer system designed to effect an immediate law enforcement response to reports of missing persons. Existing law requires the online missing persons registry to accept and generate specified information on a missing person. Existing law also requires the Attorney General to establish a separate and confidential historic database relating to missing children and at-risk adults, for statistical and research purposes, as specified. This bill would require the Attorney General to establish, in consultation with specified groups, agencies, and organizations, an electronic database and support system, as specified, for the public to report and search for missing children, as specified. The bill would require that parents reunified with children be offered free DNA testing to confirm parentage.

Existing law, the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act, requires the State Department of Developmental Services to contract with regional centers for the provision of services and supports for persons with developmental disabilities and their families. Existing law, until July 1, 2026, creates the Advisory Council on Improving Interactions between People with Intellectual and Development Disabilities and Law Enforcement, under the Department of Justice, to, among other things, evaluate existing training for peace officers specific to interactions between law enforcement and individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Existing law requires the council to submit a report including recommendations to the Legislature for improving outcomes of interactions with both individuals who have an intellectual or developmental disability and mental health conditions, as specified. This bill would require the State Department of Developmental Services to conduct a statewide evaluation of safety training services provided by regional centers, as specified. The bill would require the department, by July 1, 2028, to submit a report to the Legislature summarizing its findings and recommendations and would require the recommendations to address specified topics, including, among others, recommendations for establishing standardized, statewide protocols for responding to crises involving individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature to consider, upon receipt and consideration of that report, providing funding to the department for the purpose of developing, implementing, and sustaining safety training services statewide.

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.

Under existing law, a minor who is 12 to 17 years of age when they violate any criminal law in this state, except an ordinance establishing a curfew based solely on age, or a minor under 12 years of age if they commit certain serious offenses, is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge the person a ward of the court. Existing law requires, after finding that the minor is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, the court to hear evidence on the question of the proper disposition to be made of the minor and requires the court to receive in evidence a social study of the minor made by the probation officer. Existing law requires, when the probation officer recommends the minor to be placed in foster care, or if the minor is already in foster care placement or pending placement pursuant to an earlier order, the social study to include a case plan with specified components. This bill would also require a case plan, with specified components, to be developed and included in the social study in cases in which the probation officer recommends wardship and either does not recommend removal of the minor from their parent or guardian, or recommends commitment of the minor to a juvenile home, ranch, camp, forestry camp, or juvenile hall. The bill would also require the court to order a minor to comply with any case plan that is developed and to review the ward's progress toward meeting the goals in a case plan at a hearing no less than once every 6 months. By increasing the duties of county probation officers, 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, the Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District Act, establishes the Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District governed by, and under the control of, 8 trustees. The act requires that 7 of the trustees are the 7 members of the City Council of the City of Vallejo and the 8th member-at-large trustee is appointed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Solano, as specified. The act prescribes the compensation for each trustee or alternate, including that each trustee of the district who is a member of the City Council of the City of Vallejo receives $100 per month for their services as a trustee of the board and may receive their actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties as trustee, as provided. Under existing law, the member-at-large trustee or alternate receives $100 for each district meeting attended, as provided, and the trustee or alternate is prohibited from being compensated for more than 3 meetings, or $300, in any calendar month. Existing law requires certain legislative bodies to prepare annually a list of, among other things, all appointive terms that will expire during the next calendar year, known as the Local Appointments List, and prescribes rules for filling unscheduled vacancies of boards, commissions, or committees for which the legislative body has the appointing power. This bill would revise the membership and size of the governing board of the district, as specified. The bill would repeal the payment for trustees who are members of the city council described above and would instead apply the above-described at-large trustee or alternate payment and prohibition to all trustees, among other changes. To the extent that the bill would impose new duties on the City Council of the City of Vallejo, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Solano, and the remaining members of the Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District regarding the appointment of trustees and alternates, this bill would constitute a state-mandated local program. This bill would apply the provisions regarding the Local Appointments List and prescribed rules described above to the public members of the governing board of the district. 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.