(1) Existing law requires a county social worker to investigate the circumstances of each child taken into temporary custody by a peace officer under specified circumstances. Existing law requires the social worker to conduct an investigation, within 30 days of the child's removal, to identify and locate adult relatives of the child, as specified, and to provide them with a notification that the child has been removed from the custody of the child's parents, guardians, or Indian custodian, and an explanation of the various options to participate in the care and placement of the child. Existing law requires a social worker to use due diligence in investigating the names and locations of relatives, and defines "due diligence" to include family finding, as specified. This bill would authorize a county child welfare agency or probation department to conduct family finding and engagement activities prior to the removal of a child from parental custody, as specified. (2) Existing law establishes various public social services programs to provide for protection, care, and assistance to the people of the state in need of those services. Existing law, in this regard, and with some exceptions, requires all applications and records concerning any individual made or kept by any public officer or agency in connection with the administration of public social services for which grants-in-aid are received by this state from the federal government be kept confidential. Existing law exempts from those confidentiality provisions the disclosure of information between employees of a county's adult protective services agency and a county's child welfare agency for the purpose of multidisciplinary teamwork in the prevention, intervention, management, or treatment of child abuse or neglect or abuse or neglect of an elder or dependent adult. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly secure or possess a list of persons who have applied for or who have been granted any form of public service in violation of these provisions. This bill would additionally exempt from these confidentiality provisions information regarding children receiving child welfare services to be disclosed to relatives and nonrelative extended family members without consent if the disclosure is directly connected to the administration of the child welfare program and serves the purpose of identifying placement and support resources for children. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law defines "child welfare services" to mean public social services that are directed toward the accomplishment of various purposes, including protecting and promoting the welfare of all children, and includes, among other services, emergency response services and family maintenance services. This bill would modify the definition of "child welfare services." The bill would require, upon providing child welfare services to a child or family, whether court-ordered or voluntarily accepted, the county child welfare agency or probation department to develop a case plan, as specified. The bill would authorize, as part of the case planning process, a county child welfare agency or probation department to conduct family finding and engagement activities to support the goals identified in the case plan. The bill would define "family finding and engagement" for these purposes. To the extent this bill increases the duties of county welfare agencies or probation departments, this bill imposes a state-mandated local program. (4) 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, until January 1, 2031, authorizes a city or county prosecuting attorney or county probation department to create a diversion or deferred entry of judgment program for persons who commit a theft offense or repeat theft offenses. Existing law requires the prosecuting attorney in a participating county to either refer the case to the county probation department to conduct a prefiling investigation report and determine the appropriateness of program placement or, if the prosecuting attorney's office operates the program, determine if the case is appropriate for referral. Existing law requires the county probation department or prosecuting attorney's office to consider certain factors for referral, including, among others, whether the person has a violent or serious prior criminal record or has previously been referred to a diversion program and failed that program. This bill would require the prosecutor or county probation department, for certain theft offenses, including shoplifting and vandalism, to determine whether, based on certain criteria, specified defendants are eligible for a theft diversion program. The bill would require the prosecuting attorney to review their file for certain factors, including whether the offense charged involved a crime of violence or threatened violence and, if the defendant is eligible, would require the attorney to file a declaration or state for the record the grounds for the determination of the defendant's eligibility. The bill would require the court to dismiss the action against the defendant at the end of the period of diversion if the defendant has complied with the imposed terms and conditions of diversion. By increasing the duties on local officials, 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 authorizes every person who is unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty to prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of that imprisonment or restraint. Existing law also authorizes a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on the basis that competent and substantial expert testimony relating to intimate partner battering and its effects was not presented to the trier of fact at the trial court proceedings and is of such substance that, had the competent and substantial expert testimony been presented, there is a reasonable probability, sufficient to undermine confidence in the judgment of conviction or sentence, that the result of the proceedings would have been different. This bill would additionally authorize a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on the basis that evidence or argument likely to trigger gender-based stereotypes was admitted or relied upon by the prosecution at trial in a manner that created a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different if such evidence was not admitted or argument offered. The bill would provide that evidence or argument likely to trigger gender-based stereotypes includes, but is not limited to, information concerning a defendant's sexual activity, sexual orientation, sexual partners, reproductive choices, gender presentation, clothing, or romantic relationships, when offered in a matter that may invoke gender-based stereotypes. The California Constitution provides for the Right to Truth-in-Evidence, which requires a 23 vote of the Legislature to exclude any relevant evidence from any criminal proceeding, as specified. Because this bill may result in the exclusion of evidence that would otherwise be admissible in a criminal proceeding, the bill would require a 23 vote of the Legislature.
Existing law provides that any person who willfully and lewdly commits any lewd or lascivious act, including any of the acts constituting other crimes, as provided, upon or with the body, or any part or member thereof, of a child who is under 14 years of age, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person or the child, is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 3, 6, or 8 years. The bill would require the Department of Justice, upon completion of an investigation of a person who holds an elected office in which the department determines the person committed specified crimes relating to rape, that the victim was a minor, and that the case is appropriate for prosecution, to bring criminal charges against that person within 30 days. Existing law authorizes a court to grant pretrial diversion to a defendant suffering from a mental disorder, on an accusatory pleading alleging the commission of a misdemeanor or felony offense, in order to allow the defendant to undergo mental health treatment. Existing law makes a defendant ineligible for this diversion program if the defendant is charged with specified offenses, including, among other offenses, any sex offense except indecent exposure. This bill would, when the facts alleged in the accusatory pleading or disclosed in the preliminary hearing transcript would constitute an offense for which a defendant would be ineligible for diversion under these provisions, and the defendant has not been charged with those offenses, require the prosecution to state on the record why those charges are not being sought and whether they have conferred with the victim about the charges filed. By increasing duties on prosecutors, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1001.36 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 46 to be operative only if this bill and AB 46 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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 subjects a person between 12 and 17 years of age, inclusive, who commits a crime, and a person under 12 years of age who commits specified crimes, to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge that person to be a ward of the court. Under existing law, as added by the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act of 1998, approved as Proposition 21 at the March 7, 2000, statewide primary election, a minor may be eligible for deferred entry of judgment if certain circumstances apply, including, among others, that the minor has not previously been declared to be a ward of the court for the commission of a felony offense. Existing law requires, once eligibility is established, the court to determine whether the minor is suitable for deferred entry of judgment and would benefit from education, treatment, and rehabilitation efforts. This bill would require the court to consider whether the minor is charged with an offense of carrying a loaded firearm, as specified, when evaluating suitability of the minor for deferred entry of judgment.
Existing law prohibits law enforcement officers from employing threats, physical harm, deception, or psychologically manipulative interrogation tactics, as specified, during a custodial interrogation of a person 17 years of age or younger. This bill would prohibit a law enforcement officer from seeking statements or information while working undercover, or by individuals working in collaboration with, or acting as agents of, law enforcement, from a person who was 17 years of age or younger during the commission of crime and who is under 26 years of age while in custody. The bill would direct a court to consider any willful failure of a law enforcement officer in violation of these provisions in determining the credibility of that law enforcement officer. The bill would specify that these provisions do not apply to the admissibility of statements or information provided to an officer or individuals working in collaboration with law enforcement that were sought to protect against an imminent threat to life.
Existing law, subject to an appropriation, requires the Department of Justice, on a monthly basis, to review the records in the statewide criminal justice databases and identify persons who are eligible for arrest record relief and automatic conviction record relief. Commencing on October 1, 2024, existing law makes arrest record relief available to an eligible person if the arrest occurred on or after January 1, 1973. Under existing law, a person is eligible for arrest record relief under these provisions if, among other things, the arrest was for a misdemeanor offense and the charge was dismissed. This bill, on and after October 1, 2029, additionally makes a person eligible for that relief if the arrest was for a felony offense, all charges arising from the arrest were dismissed, one year has elapsed since the date on which the most recent charge arising from the arrest was dismissed, and no charge arising from the arrest was refiled or is pending during that period. Under existing law, a person is eligible for automatic conviction record relief if the person meets certain requirements, including that it does not appear, based upon information available in the Department of Justice's record, that the person is currently serving a sentence of an offense and there is no indication of pending criminal charges. This bill would, on and after October 1, 2029, require, in determining whether there is a pending criminal charge based on the department's records, the department to conclude that there is no indication of pending criminal charges if at least 3 years have elapsed with no new activity related to that record. The bill would require, in determining whether a person is currently serving a sentence for an offense, the department to conclude that the person is no longer serving a sentence if the department is unable to determine whether a sentence is complete and at least 7 years have passed since the date of conviction. Existing law, subject to an appropriation, on a monthly basis, requires the department to electronically submit a notice to the superior court having jurisdiction over the criminal case and inform the court of all cases for which a complaint was filed and for which relief was granted pursuant to the provisions above. Existing law, for any certain record retained by the court, prohibits the court from disclosing information concerning a conviction granted relief pursuant to specified provisions, including the above provisions, to any person or entity, in any format, except to the person whose conviction was granted relief or a criminal justice agency. This bill would, on and after October 1, 2029, expand the above-described prohibition to include other provisions that authorize relief from a conviction. By placing additional duties on court staff, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. This bill would, on and after October 1, 2029, also require a court, upon the request of the subject of a record granted relief, to furnish a register of action confirming the court's receipt of notification and compliance with a grant of relief for a specified record granted relief under the above provisions. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1203.425 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 1395 to be operative only if this bill and SB 1395 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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 makes it unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage, has 0.08 or 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in their blood, as specified, is addicted to the use of any drug, is under the influence of any drug, or is under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug to drive a vehicle. Existing law prohibits a person from driving a vehicle under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug and concurrently do an act forbidden by law, or neglect a duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, which act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to a person other than the driver. Existing law, until January 1, 2033, requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to immediately suspend or revoke the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle upon the receipt of an abstract of the record of a court showing that the person has been convicted of driving a vehicle under the circumstances above as well as for engaging in a motor vehicle speed contest for specified periods of time, depending on the statute under which the driving violation was punished, and prohibits the reinstatement of the driving privilege until the person gives proof of financial responsibility and proof satisfactory to the department of successful completion of a driving-under-the-influence (DUI) program, as specified. Existing law requires the department to advise the person that they may apply for a restricted driver's license if the person meets certain requirements, including, among others, satisfactorily providing proof of enrollment in a certain DUI program and the installment of a functioning, certified ignition interlock device (IID) . Existing law allows, for certain violations, a person who has had their driver's license suspended to apply to the department for a restricted license, subject to certain requirements. For specified violations, existing law requires the department to issue a restricted driver's license if the person has met certain requirements, including proof satisfactory to the department of enrollment in, or completion of, a DUI program, proof of financial responsibility, and the payment of all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees, among other fees, required by the department. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would reorganize and recast the penalties and sanctions for the alcohol- and drug-related driving offenses described above. The bill would recast violations for driving under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or having 0.08 or 0.04 percent or more, by weight of alcohol in blood (collectively "alcohol-related driving violations") from violations for driving under the influence of any drug or driving while a person is addicted to the use of any drug (collectively "drug-related driving violations") . For convictions of alcohol-related driving violations, the bill would require the department to suspend the privilege to operate a motor vehicle and would allow the suspension to be indefinite. The bill would prohibit the reinstatement of that privilege until the person satisfies certain requirements, including, among others, the person applying for and maintaining a restricted driver's license for certain periods of time depending on the statute under which the driving violation is punished, which includes installing a certified IID on each vehicle operated by the person, providing proof satisfactory to the department of successful completion of a DUI program, as specified, paying all applicable reinstatement and reissue fees required by the department, and providing proof of financial responsibility. For convictions of drug-related driving violations described above, this bill would require the department to suspend the privilege to operate a motor vehicle for specified periods of time, depending on the statute under which the violation was punished. The bill would also prohibit the reinstatement of the privilege until the person satisfies certain requirements described above, but the bill would not require the person to install a certified IID or apply for and maintain a restricted driver's license for a specified period of time. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would authorize a person, whose privilege to operate a motor vehicle is suspended for alcohol-related driving violations, to apply for a restricted license if certain requirements are met, including, among others, installing a certified IID on each vehicle operated by the person, as specified, providing proof of financial responsibility for 3 years, providing satisfactorily proof of enrollment in, or completion of, a DUI program, as specified, and paying a fee that is sufficient to cover the costs of administration of these requirements. The bill would require the department to terminate the restricted driver's license and suspend the privilege to drive if the person fails to comply with the DUI program requirements. The bill would also authorize a person, whose driving privilege was suspended for a conviction of a drug-related driving violation, to apply for a restricted driver's license if similar certain requirements are met, except the person would not be required to install a certified IID but would be required to complete a minimum number of months of a suspension period, as specified. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would require the department to monitor the installation and maintenance of an IID that is installed pursuant to specified provisions. The bill would require the installer of the IID to notify the department if the device is removed or indicates that a person has attempted to remove, bypass, or tamper with the device, or the person fails 3 or more times to comply with these requirements. The bill would require the department to immediately suspend or revoke the privilege to operate a motor vehicle and any restricted driver's license if the person attempts to remove, bypass, or tamper with an IID, has the IID removed prior to the termination date of the restriction, or fails 3 or more times to comply with any requirement for the maintenance or calibration of the IID. The bill would require the department, and manufacturers, installers, and repairers of IIDs, to post information regarding filing complaints against manufacturers, installers, and repairers, as specified. (2) Existing law requires an order of suspension of a person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle for any of specified reasons, including the person was driving a motor vehicle when the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in their blood. Existing law requires the notice to be served on the person by a peace officer under specified conditions where test results show that the person has specified percentages of alcohol in the person's blood or where a person under 21 years of age refuses to take, or fails to complete, a specified test for alcohol in the blood. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would include a person driving a motor vehicle when a passenger for hire was a passenger in the vehicle and the person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in their blood as a reason to immediately suspend the privilege to operate a motor vehicle. The bill would authorize a person, whose driving privilege has been suspended pursuant to the provision above but not suspended or revoked based on the person's refusal to submit to, or failure to complete, a chemical test or tests, to apply for a restricted driver's license if certain requirements are met, including completing 30 days of the suspension period, providing proof of enrollment in a DUI program, installing a functioning, certified IID on any vehicle that they operate, being 21 years of age or older at the time of the offense, giving proof of financial responsibility, and paying all reissue and restriction fees. The bill would require the department to terminate the restricted driver's license and suspend the privilege to operate if the person has failed to comply with the DUI program requirements, or if the person attempts to remove, bypass, or tamper with the IID, removes the IID prior to the termination date of the restriction, or fails 3 or more times to comply with any requirement for the maintenance or calibration of the IID. (3) Existing law requires the department to suspend or revoke a person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle based on a peace officer's sworn statement or report, as specified. Existing law requires the department to review the record to determine whether the suspension or revocation is supported by the record, as specified. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would require the department to review these determinations and consider the sworn report and any other information and evidence, as specified. If, by a preponderance of the evidence, the department determines in the review of a determination certain facts are proven, including, among other facts, that the peace officer had reasonable cause to believe that the person had been driving a motor vehicle in violation of an alcohol- or drug-related driving provision, the bill would require the department to sustain the order of suspension or revocation. If the department determines that any of these certain facts are not proven by a preponderance of the evidence, the bill would require the department to rescind the order of suspension or revocation, as specified. (4) Existing law allows, for certain violations, a person who has had their driver's license suspended to apply to the department for a restricted license, subject to certain requirements as provided above. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would authorize a court to disallow the issuance of the restricted driver's license if the court determines that the person would present a traffic safety or public safety risk if the person were authorized to operate a motor vehicle during the period of suspension. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would make conforming changes to include the provisions above, as applicable, in statutes that generally pertain to the suspension, revocation, or restriction of the privilege to operate a motor vehicle. (5) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law prohibits the false impersonation of another person in either that person's personal or official capacity with the intent to steal or defraud, as specified. Existing law protects all people from defamation, including libel and slander, as provided. Existing law makes any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness for commercial purposes, as specified, without that person's prior consent liable for damages, as specified. Existing law provides that a party seeking relief pursuant to those provisions may also seek an injunction or temporary restraining order according to specified procedures. This bill would enact the Digital Dignity Act. The act would subject to specified liability a person who, by distributing content with actual knowledge that the content includes a digital replica, is found guilty of violating a criminal provision for which false impersonation of another is a required element, as prescribed, or is found liable in a civil action arising from the use or portrayal through a digital replica, as provided. The Digital Dignity Act would require a large online platform that includes a generative AI tool, as defined, that provides users with the functionality to create a digital replica of other individuals to provide a mechanism for individuals to report content that violates the platform's terms of service or a provision of law relating to the individual's digital replica and to submit to the large online platform any certified court order or judgment ordering the removal of any content involving the individual's digital replica on the platform or finding that content involving the individual's digital replica was defamatory, fraudulent, or any other form of image appropriation not permitted by law, as prescribed. Upon receipt of the court order or judgment, the act would require the large online platform to remove the digital replica and make reasonable efforts to identify and remove any known identical copies. The act would authorize a city attorney or the Attorney General to bring a civil action to enforce these provisions and to seek a specified civil penalty and injunctive relief. The act would require a generative AI tool provider to maintain, for no less than 90 days, records sufficient to allow compliance with a court order issued pursuant to a civil action by the city attorney or Attorney General, as prescribed.
Existing law, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act (CARE 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, or bipolar I disorder with psychotic features, and who meet other specified criteria. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to develop a mandatory form for use to file a CARE process petition with the court and any other forms necessary for the CARE process, to be signed under the penalty of perjury, and requires the form to contain certain information, including either a specified affidavit of a licensed behavioral health professional or evidence the respondent was detained for a minimum of two intensive treatments pursuant to specified provisions of law. Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act) , generally provides for the evaluation, treatment, and civil commitment of persons with mental health disorders and other specified persons. Existing law authorizes, under a superior court order, an evaluation of a person alleged, as a result of mental disorder, to be a danger to themselves or others or to be gravely disabled, and provides the forms to use for these evaluations. The CARE Act 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, and authorizes the court to order the court-ordered evaluation under the LPS Act. If the court finds the petitioner has made a prima facie showing that the respondent is, or may be, a person eligible for the CARE program, the court is required to order the county behavioral health agency, or their designee, as specified, to submit a written report to the court with specified information, including, but not limited to, a determination whether the respondent meets, or is likely to meet, the criteria for the CARE process and conclusions and recommendations about the respondent's ability to voluntarily engage in services. Existing law requires the court to, within 5 days of receiving the report, take one of several actions, including dismissing the petition if the court determines that voluntary engagement with the respondent is effective and the individual has enrolled, or is likely to enroll, in behavioral health treatment. This bill would require the written report to include conclusions about whether the respondent is likely to need a higher level of care than is available under the CARE Act and, if so, recommendations about the appropriate level of care and the necessary steps to obtain that level of care for the respondent and remove the authorization for a court to dismiss the petition if the respondent is only likely to enroll in behavioral health treatment. If the court intends to dismiss a petition because the respondent needs a higher level of services, the bill would authorize the court to order the county to conduct a prepetition screening and hold the CARE petition open until the screening is complete. The bill would also make other technical and conforming changes. By requiring a higher level of service on the county, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires all hearings regarding these provisions to occur in person unless the court, in its discretion, allows a party or witness to appear remotely. This bill would require the court to allow the hearings to be held remotely, unless otherwise ordered by the court or demanded by the respondent. 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.
