Existing law generally punishes the willful disobedience of a court order as contempt of court by imprisonment in a county jail for a term not exceeding 6 months, a fine not exceeding $1,000, or both that imprisonment and fine. Existing law makes the willful and knowing violation of specified protective orders or stay-away court orders punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by both that imprisonment and fine for a first offense, and makes a 2nd or subsequent conviction for a violation of these specified protective orders or stay-away court orders occurring within 7 years of a prior conviction and involving an act of violence or credible threat of violence punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony. If a violation of specified protective orders or stay-away court orders results in a physical injury, the individual is required to be in a county jail for at least 48 hours, whether a fine or imprisonment is imposed, or the sentence suspended. This bill would make a willful and knowing violation of specified criminal protective orders or stay-away orders punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony if the subject of the criminal protective order was charged with, or convicted of, a felony for the conduct upon which the criminal protective order was based. The bill would make a second or subsequent conviction for a violation of specified protective orders or stay-away orders a felony. If a violation of specified protective orders or stay-away orders alleges a physical injury, the bill would require the court to consider the violation of the protective order or stay-away order and alleged injury when considering the seriousness of the offense charged and the protection of the public for purposes of setting, reducing, or denying bail. 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, the California Public Records Act, requires state and local agencies to make their records available for public inspection, unless an exemption from disclosure applies. Existing law authorizes a person who faces violence, harassment, or threats of violence from the public because of their work for a public entity to apply to the Secretary of State for the purposes of enabling state and local agencies to respond to requests for public records without disclosing a program participant's residence address contained in any public record and otherwise provide for confidentiality of identity for that person, subject to specified conditions. Under existing law, any person who makes a false statement in an application is guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill would require the Attorney General to establish the Judicial Home Security Program under which a judicial officer, including an imminent, current, or former superior court judge or district court judge, or an adult household member of a judicial officer who is domiciled in California may request their home address in public records to be shielded or substituted with an alternate mailing address, as specified. The bill would establish the Judicial Home Security Program Fund in the General Fund and would authorize moneys in the fund to be made available for the administration of the program upon appropriation by the Legislature. The bill would require the Attorney General to approve an application to the program if it is filed in the manner and on the form prescribed by the Attorney General and contains prescribed information, including documentation showing the household contains an individual who is a judicial officer and a signed statement that the applicant fears for their safety or the safety of a household member of the applicant due to the employment of the judicial officer. The bill would require the application to be dated and signed, and would make knowingly providing false or incorrect information in the application a misdemeanor. The bill would require the Attorney General to commence accepting applications under the program on April 1, 2027. The bill would require the Attorney General to create, maintain, and update monthly a publicly available list that includes the name, county of residence, and designated alternate mailing address of each current program participant. The bill would also require the Attorney General to create, maintain, and update monthly a publicly available list that includes former participants who are no longer in the program. The bill would require, when disclosing or releasing records or information that would otherwise contain the home address of a program participant in any format or medium, a state or local agency to substitute the participant's alternate mailing address for any reference to the participant's home address. The bill would require, when disclosing or releasing records or information that would otherwise contain the situs of the home address of a program participant in any format or medium, a county assessor's office to substitute the program participant's alternate mailing address for the situs of the home address on assessment rolls, maps, property ownership statements and records, and any other records containing the home address of a program participant. The bill would require, when disclosing or releasing, in any format or medium, records or information that would otherwise contain the situs of the home address of a program participant who requests shielding, a county assessor's office and a county recorder's office to shield the participant's public record, including real property deeds, real estate records, and any other records containing the home address of a program participant. In this regard, the bill would require a program participant to submit a request containing a list of documents to be shielded, a sworn statement attesting to the accuracy of the information provided, and payment of a fee, as specified. The bill would authorize a program participant to submit a request to update the list of documents to be shielded, a specified. The bill would require the county assessor's office and county recorder's office to validate and shield any requested records within 5 business days of receipt of a request for shielding. The bill would authorize making any original documents available only to specified persons or in specified circumstances. The bill would prohibit the disclosure of a participant's home address by the Attorney General and state and local agencies, except in specified circumstances. The bill would prohibit a person or organization from publicly posting or displaying the home address of a program participant who has made a written demand of that person or organization, including on the internet, and would prohibit a third-party data broker or aggregator from selling, licensing, trading, purchasing, transferring, releasing, or otherwise sharing in any format or medium, the home address of a program participant, including on the internet, except as specified. The bill would authorize the Attorney General to adopt guidance to facilitate the administration of the act by state and local agencies. The bill would define terms for its purposes. By imposing new duties on local agencies, expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, and creating a crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. 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 authorizes the finder of fact in a criminal prosecution to find the defendant guilty of an offense that is necessarily included in the charged offense. Case law requires the trial court to instruct the jury that it must find the defendant guilty of a necessarily included offense if there is substantial evidence that the defendant is guilty of the necessarily included offense. This bill would require the court, if requested by a defendant, to instruct the jury on a lesser offense, which is closely related to the offense charged, if the court finds that the defendant has relied on a theory of defense consistent with a conviction for the lesser offense, the evidence of the lesser offense is relevant to and admitted for the purpose of establishing guilt of the charged offense, and a basis exists on which the jury could find the offense to be less than charged. The bill would also authorize the judge to find the defendant guilty of the lesser offense if there is no jury. The bill would require the defendant to provide notice to the prosecution of the intent to seek the above-described jury instruction, as specified.
Existing law allows the court to issue a protective order restraining a defendant from any contact with the victim if the defendant has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence, human trafficking, a crime in furtherance of a criminal street gang, or a registerable sex offense. Under existing law, the protective order may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. Beginning July 1, 2027, this bill would additionally allow the court to issue a protective order, valid for up to the later of 10 years or until the minor victim reaches 18 years of age, restraining a defendant from any contact with a victim if the defendant has been convicted of a registerable sex offense involving a minor victim, as specified. The bill would require the Judicial Council, no later than July 1, 2027, to develop forms, instructions, and rules relating to these orders. The bill would make other conforming changes. By authorizing the issuance of protective orders in certain circumstances and the extension of certain protective orders, a violation of which is punishable as 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, commencing April 1, 2026, makes a gift certificate with a cash value of less than $15 redeemable in cash for its cash value. This bill would authorize the issuer of a gift certificate that contains printed language on the certificate stating a cash redemption threshold that is lower than the amount described above to sell the gift certificate until December 31, 2028, if certain requirements are met, including that the gift certificate was manufactured or printed before April 1, 2026, and the issuer of the gift certificate displays at specified point-of-sale devices, a notice stating that a gift certificate with a cash value of less than $15 is redeemable in cash for its cash value, as provided.
Existing law allows a person who was arrested or convicted of a nonviolent offense while they were a victim of human trafficking to petition the court, under penalty of perjury, for vacatur relief. Existing law requires a court that issues an order for relief pursuant to these provisions to also order specified law enforcement agencies to seal and destroy their records of the offense. This bill would authorize a person who has suffered an arrest for, or was charged with, any offense that did not result in conviction or who was convicted of an eligible offense, as defined, to petition the court to have their records of that conviction, charge, or arrest sealed if 4 years have elapsed since the date, including, among others, on which the person was arrested, as specified, or on which the defendant completed any terms of incarceration, probation, mandatory supervision, postrelease community supervision, or parole associated with the record, whichever was later, during which the person has not been convicted of a new offense. The bill would require a court granting this relief to also order specified law enforcement agencies to seal their records. By increasing duties on local law enforcement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would exclude specified offenses from being considered an eligible offense, including, among others, a serious or violent felony, or a sex offense. The bill would authorize a criminal justice agency to access and use a conviction record sealed pursuant to these provisions as required by an initiative statute and for the limited purpose of determining eligibility and suitability of a defendant for diversion. 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 Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, establishes procedures for the reporting and investigation of suspected child abuse or neglect. Existing law requires certain professionals, including specified health practitioners and social workers, known as "mandated reporters," to report known or suspected child abuse or neglect to a local law enforcement agency or a county welfare or probation department, as specified. Existing law requires an employee of those agencies, in certain circumstances, to send or have sent, within 36 hours, a copy of a report made pursuant to these provisions to the attorney who represents the child, who is the subject of the report, in dependency court. Existing law requires the agency to maintain a copy of the written report and provide all information requested by the attorney for the child or the child's guardian ad litem within 30 days of the request. This bill would require, if a county welfare agency substantiates a report for an incident that occurred in an out-of-home placement, including, but not limited to, placement in foster or congregate care, or if a child is removed from an out-of-home placement due to abuse or neglect, a county welfare agency to send notice, containing specified information, of the report to the attorney who represents a parent or legal guardian of the child in dependency court and, in the case of an Indian child, the tribal representative. The bill would make that requirement inapplicable to a parent whose parental rights have been terminated. The bill would require, if a county welfare agency substantiates a report for an incident that occurred in an out-of-home placement, including, but not limited to, placement in foster or congregate care, or if a child is removed from an out-of-home placement due to abuse or neglect, the agency to send a notice of the report, as specified, to all attorneys who represent a child with an open dependency case in that placement, as provided. By expanding the duties of local agencies that receive reports alleging abuse or neglect of children, 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 requires a prosecuting attorney to disclose to the defendant or their attorney all relevant real evidence seized or obtained as a part of the investigation of the offenses charged that is in the possession of the prosecuting attorney or known to be in the possession of the investigating agencies. Existing law requires the disclosures to be made at least 30 days prior to the trial, unless good cause is shown why a disclosure should be denied, restricted, or deferred. Existing law prohibits an attorney from disclosing or permitting to be disclosed to a defendant, members of the defendant's family, or anyone else copies of child pornography evidence, unless specifically permitted to do so by the court after a hearing and a showing of good cause. Existing law authorizes an attorney to disclose or permit to be disclosed copies of child pornography evidence to persons employed by the attorney or to persons appointed by the court to assist in the preparation of a defendant's case if that disclosure is required for that preparation. This bill would require the court, in specified criminal cases involving sexually explicit material depicting an adult victim, to issue a protective order governing the disclosure of that material, with conditions sufficient to safeguard the victim's privacy, prevent unnecessary copying, transmission, or dissemination of the material, and ensure the defendant's right to a fair trial and a meaningful opportunity to participate in their own defense. This bill would, if the court issues that protective order, prohibit the parties from disclosing to any person copies of sexually explicit material depicting an adult victim, unless specifically permitted to do so by the protective order. The bill would authorize an attorney for any party to disclose or permit to be disclosed copies of sexually explicit material depicting an adult victim subject to the protective order, to a person necessary for the preparation of the case, including the defendant. The bill would, if a party receives any other sexually explicit material of the adult victim, require the party to notify the court for inclusion of the material in any existing protective order, or inclusion in a new or separate protective order. By increasing duties on local prosecutors, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would clarify that these provisions do not relieve the prosecution from the duty to disclose the existence of any relevant or exculpatory evidence nor affect the admissibility of any relevant evidence in court. 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.
Under existing law, a court is authorized to suspend the driving privilege of a licensed driver convicted of a violation relating to the speed of vehicles or reckless driving for a period not to exceed 30 days for a first conviction, for a period not to exceed 60 days upon a 2nd conviction, and for a period not to exceed 6 months upon a 3rd or any subsequent conviction. This bill would, commencing on January 1, 2028, authorize a court, for a conviction of reckless driving, to suspend the driving privilege for a period not to exceed 60 days, and for a period of not less than 30 days and not to exceed 6 months when the offense occurred within 10 years of a separate reckless driving violation. The bill would require a court to suspend the driving privilege for a period of not less than 90 days and not to exceed one year if the offense occurred within 10 years of 2 or more separate reckless driving violations. Existing law authorizes a peace officer to arrest a person and seize the motor vehicle of the person if a peace officer determines that the person was engaged in a motor vehicle speed contest, reckless driving, or an exhibition of speed on a highway or in an offstreet parking facility. Existing law allows a vehicle seized under this provision to be impounded for up to 30 days. Existing law requires an impounding agency to release a motor vehicle to the registered owner or their agent prior to the conclusion of the impoundment period if, among other reasons, the person alleged to have been engaged in the motor vehicle speed contest was not authorized by the registered owner to operate the motor vehicle at the time of the commission of the offense, or if the registered owner was neither the driver nor a passenger of the motor vehicle or was unaware that the driver was using the motor vehicle to engage in the prohibited activities. If an impounding agency releases a motor vehicle to the registered owner or agent prior to the conclusion of the impoundment period, this bill would require the registered owner to provide evidence that the driver did not have authorization from the registered owner to operate the motor vehicle, as specified, or require the registered owner to submit a written, signed statement attesting that the registered owner was unaware that the driver was using the vehicle to engage in reckless driving. The bill would allow a registered owner or their agent to obtain their vehicle prior to the conclusion of the impoundment period based on the reason that the registered owner was not the driver or passenger of the motor vehicle or was unaware that the driver was engaging in reckless driving 3 times. The bill would prohibit a registered owner from using this reason to obtain the motor vehicle prior to the conclusion of the impoundment period for a 4th or any subsequent arrest that involves the same driver and vehicle. Existing law requires an impounding agency to release an impounded vehicle before the conclusion of the impound period if the charges against the driver are dismissed. This bill would prohibit the registered owner or driver of the vehicle from being charged any towing or storage fees if the vehicle is released for this reason.
Existing law, known as Laura's Law, requires a county or group of counties to provide assisted outpatient treatment as part of mental health services, unless a county or group of counties opts out by a resolution passed by the governing body, as specified. For participating counties, existing law authorizes a court to order a person who is the subject of a certain petition to obtain assisted outpatient treatment if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that various conditions are met, including, among others, that the person is experiencing a mental illness and that the person has a history of lack of compliance with treatment for their mental illness, as specified. Existing law sets forth certain rights of the person relating to the hearing and imposes conditions on an extension to an initial treatment order. This bill would authorize the county behavioral health director, or their designee, to file a petition for an order authorizing the use of involuntary psychotropic medication independent of, or concurrently with, a petition for assisted outpatient treatment. The bill would authorize a court to issue an order for the use of involuntary medication if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the facts stated in the required verified petition are true and establish that, among other things, a licensed mental health treatment provider has determined the person who is the subject of the petition has a serious mental disorder. The bill would specify rights that the person who is the subject of the petition is entitled to, including the right to demand a court or jury trial on the issue or issues of whether the person has a serious mental disorder, the person does not have the capacity to refuse treatment with psychotropic medications, or the psychotropic medications are necessary to prevent a relapse or deterioration that would be likely to result in grave disability or serious harm to the person or to others. The bill would provide the procedure for filing of the petition and setting of a trial date. The bill would prohibit any order for involuntary medication until the conclusion of the court or jury trial. The bill would authorize a licensed mental health provider who is a member of the assisted outpatient treatment services team to request that first responders take the subject of the petition into custody and transport the person, or cause the person to be transported, to a designated facility for the administration of the court-ordered medication if specified conditions are met. If the court grants the petition for involuntary psychotropic medication, the bill would require the county behavioral health director, or their designee, to file an affidavit with the court, as specified, affirming that the person who is the subject of the order continues to meet the criteria for the involuntary medication order and whether any medication changes pursuant to authorization occurred during the prior 60 days. By expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also prohibit criminal or civil liability for an individual authorized to take custody of and transport individuals with an involuntary medication order issued pursuant to these provisions exercising this authority in accordance with the law. 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.
