Existing law, commencing January 1, 2019, made various changes to the law governing ignition interlock devices (IID) , including, among other things, requiring a person who has been convicted of driving a motor vehicle under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, as specified, to install for a specified period of time as ordered by the court, an IID on the vehicle they operate, provided however that installation of an IID is discretionary for a first offender, as specified; authorizing a person convicted of driving a motor vehicle under the influence, if all other requirements are satisfied, including the installation of an IID, to apply for a restricted driver's license without completing a period of license suspension or revocation; and requiring ignition interlock device manufacturers to be in compliance with specified provisions relating to payment for the costs of an ignition interlock device. Existing law makes these changes operative until January 1, 2026. On January 1, 2026, existing law, as it relates to these provisions, is generally reinstated to read as it read prior to January 1, 2019. Existing law makes it a crime to violate certain provisions relating to IIDs and motor vehicles equipped with IIDs. This bill would extend the operation of these provisions until January 1, 2033, and would instead reinstate the law to how it read prior to January 1, 2019, on January 1, 2033. By extending the application of 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 defines rape as an act of sexual intercourse accomplished under certain circumstances, including with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator where the person is incapable of giving legal consent because of a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability. This bill would remove the spousal exception from this definition of rape. By expanding the scope of 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 sets forth filing fees and other civil fees for superior courts. Existing law requires certain applicants to be granted initial permission to proceed without paying court fees and costs because of the applicant's financial condition, including an applicant whose monthly income is 200% or less of the current poverty guidelines, as specified. This bill would prohibit veterans disability service-connected compensation from being included in monthly income for purposes of that provision.
Existing law, the Sex Offender Registration Act (act) , requires a person convicted of specified crimes to register with law enforcement as a sex offender while residing in California or while attending school or working in California, as specified. Existing law establishes 3 tiers of registration based on specified criteria, for periods of at least 10 years, at least 20 years, and life, respectively, for a conviction of specified sex offenses. Existing law exempts from mandatory registration under the act a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the person to register. A willful failure to register, as required by the act, is a misdemeanor or felony, depending on the underlying offense. This bill would require offenders convicted of engaging in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than 3 years younger than the offender or, if the offender was 21 years of age or older, engaging in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age, if the offense occurred on or after January 1, 2026, to register for 10 years as a tier one offender under the act, unless the offender was not more than 10 years older than the minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the offender to register. By expanding the scope of 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 establishes a summary proceeding, known as a forcible entry, forcible detainer, or unlawful detainer action, as specified, that a person in lawful possession of real property must follow in order to remove a person who unlawfully occupies that property. This bill, the Remove Illegal Squatters from Private Property Act, would make a person guilty of unlawful squatting when they enter upon the land or premises of another and reside on that land or premises for any period of time, knowingly acting without the knowledge or consent of the owner, rightful occupant, or an authorized representative of the owner. The bill would require a law enforcement agency that receives a complaint of a violation of these provisions to issue a citation and would provide a means for the person to show lawful entry on the land or premises. If court determines that the documentation showing lawful entry is improper or fraudulent, the bill would make the violation punishable by removal, specified fines, and as a misdemeanor. By increasing duties of local law enforcement and creating 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, with regard to certain mandates, no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
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.
