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.
Existing law requires a person, who claims title to a firearm that is in the custody of a court or law enforcement agency and wishes to have it returned, to make an application for a determination by the Department of Justice as to whether the applicant is eligible to possess a firearm. Under existing law, a law enforcement agency or court that has taken custody of a firearm is prohibited from returning the firearm to an individual unless specified requirements are met, including, but not limited to, requiring the person to be eligible to possess a firearm and verifying that the firearm is not listed as stolen and the firearm has been recorded in the Automated Firearms System in the name of the person, as specified. Existing law requires any weapon that was carried unlawfully for specified crimes to be surrendered to specified law enforcement entities. Existing law requires weapons surrendered pursuant to these provisions to be destroyed by the law enforcement entity. This bill would authorize a law enforcement agency, as defined, to create a voluntary firearm storage program that allows a person to voluntarily transfer custody of their firearm to the local law enforcement agency for temporary safekeeping purposes to prevent firearm violence, suicide, and other injury. The bill would require a law enforcement agency adopting this program to provide clear instructions on the procedure to voluntarily transfer custody of a firearm and to provide clear instructions on the process for requesting return of the firearm, as specified. Upon receipt of a firearm, the bill would require a law enforcement agency to, among other things, check a certain database to ensure the firearm has not previously been reported lost, stolen, or involved in a crime and ensure that the requesting person is eligible to possess firearms when the firearm is returned to the person. The bill would require a law enforcement agency to destroy a firearm that a person failed to retrieve at the end of a time period specified by the law enforcement agency, except as provided. Existing law prohibits the carrying of a concealed firearm or the open carrying of a firearm, as specified. Existing law provides certain exemptions to these prohibitions, including exemptions for peace officers, retired peace officers, and persons possessing a valid license to carry a concealed firearm. Existing law generally regulates the sale and transfer of firearms, including, among other requirements and subject to exceptions, that the transfer of a firearm be conducted through a firearms dealer. This bill would exempt the voluntary transfer of a firearm to a local law enforcement agency pursuant to the provisions above from these prohibitions and regulations.
Existing law provides the pleas a defendant may make to an indictment, information, or complaint charging a misdemeanor or infraction. Existing law requires defense counsel to advise a defendant about the immigration consequences of a proposed disposition, as specified. Existing law requires the prosecution to consider the avoidance of adverse immigration consequences in the plea negotiation process, as specified. This bill would instead require the prosecution to meet and confer during the negotiation process with the defense in an effort to avoid the adverse immigration consequences of a plea, conviction, or sentence. The bill would establish a rebuttable presumption of a violation of the above-described requirement if the defendant asserts facts that provide a prima facie showing that during negotiations the defendant proposed an alternative plea or sentence that would avoid adverse immigration consequences, including, among other things, an offense of greater seriousness, and the prosecution declined the offer. Upon a prima facie showing of the above-described circumstances, the bill would require the court to order a hearing and would require the prosecution to demonstrate good cause for the failure to offer a plea that would avoid adverse immigration consequences. If the court finds that the prosecuting attorney failed to establish good cause at the above-described hearing, the bill would require the court to impose an appropriate remedy, as specified. By imposing additional duties on local prosecutors, 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, 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 Board of Parole Hearings to meet with each indeterminately sentenced inmate during the 6th year before the inmate's minimum eligible parole date for the purpose of reviewing and documenting the inmate's activities and conduct pertinent to parole eligibility. One year before the inmate's minimum eligible parole date, existing law requires a panel of the board to meet with the inmate and to grant parole unless the panel or board sitting en banc determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for the inmate. In certain circumstances, the board will conduct an en banc review, defined as a review conducted by a majority of commissioners holding office on the date the matter is heard by the board, and existing law specifies how the en banc review is required to be conducted. Existing law authorizes the Governor to request a review of a decision by the board to grant or deny parole and, if a request has been made, existing law requires the request to be reviewed by a majority of commissioners, as specified. This bill would instead require that all commissioners participate in an en banc review and a request for review made by the Governor. The bill would also require the en banc review decision and the vote of each commissioner to be a public record. Existing law, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a state body be open and public and all persons be permitted to attend. Existing law authorizes certain state bodies to hold closed session meetings for certain purposes, including allowing a state body to hold a closed session when considering and acting upon the determination of a term, parole, or release of any individual or other disposition of an individual case. This bill would prohibit an en banc review conducted by the board from being held in a closed session.
Existing law authorizes a judge in a case where a misdemeanor is being prosecuted, over the objection of the prosecuting attorney, to offer diversion to the defendant. Existing law prohibits this type of diversion when, among other things, the current charged offense is willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following or willfully and maliciously harassing another person while making a credible threat toward that person, as specified. Existing law requires the clerk of a court, in which a person was convicted of a violation of the Vehicle Code or other specified provisions, to prepare within 5 days after conviction and immediately forward to the Department of Motor Vehicles an abstract of the record of the court covering the case in which the person was convicted. This bill would require the court, if the court grants diversion to a defendant who, if they had been convicted, would have had an abstract of record forwarded to the department pursuant to the above provisions, to instead direct that the prosecuting attorney ensure notice of the arrest or incident is provided to the department, as specified. 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 makes it a misdemeanor to possess nitrous oxide with the intent of inhaling it for specified purposes, including to cause intoxication. Existing law also makes it a misdemeanor to sell nitrous oxide to any person under 18 years of age. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to dispense nitrous oxide to a person and knowing that the person will use it for specified prohibited purposes, if that person then causes death or great bodily injury to themselves or another person. Under existing law, the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Licensing Act of 2003, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) administers and enforces a statewide program to license manufacturers, importers, distributors, wholesalers, and retailers of cigarettes and tobacco products. Existing law specifically requires a retailer, distributor, or wholesaler, as defined, to hold a license from the CDTFA to engage in the sale of cigarettes or tobacco products. Existing law subjects these licenses to suspension or revocation for violations of existing law. Existing law imposes specified noticing and posting requirements for retailer licenses that are revoked. A violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor. This bill would, except as specifically exempted, prohibit the sale and distribution of a nitrous oxide container that is capable of holding more than 8 grams of nitrous oxide or from which an individual may directly inhale nitrous oxide. The bill would also prohibit the sale and distribution of a nitrous oxide that has, or is marketed as having, the taste or smell of any food. The bill would prohibit knowingly selling or distributing a device that allows an individual to inhale nitrous oxide from the container or hold nitrous oxide for the purposes of inhalation. The bill would punish a violation of these provisions as an infraction, as specified. The bill would also authorize a court to suspend a business license if the business has a prior conviction for violating these prohibitions, and to revoke a license to sell tobacco products if the business has 2 prior convictions for violating these prohibitions. The bill would make any person, distributor, or business found to have violated these prohibitions liable for all reasonable costs incurred by a public agency in the investigation, inspection, seizure, storage, transportation, handling, venting, abatement, disposal, or destruction of nitrous oxide products, nitrous oxide containers, inhalation devices, or related materials involved in the violation, as specified. This bill would prohibit a person that is engaged in the business of selling cigarettes or tobacco products in this state from possessing, storing, owning, or selling nitrous oxide, in violation of the criminal provisions outlined above, at any site where cigarettes and tobacco products are stored or sold. The bill would authorize the CDTFA to seize nitrous oxide products, as prescribed. The bill would subject a violator to civil penalties in amounts depending on the aggregate retail value of the seized nitrous oxide and the number of violations within 5 years of the first violation. The bill would require the deposit of collected civil penalties in the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Compliance Fund. The bill would also subject a violator who commits a 2nd violation to license suspension and who commits a 3rd violation to license revocation, as prescribed. This bill would establish procedures for the CDTFA to follow for a court-ordered revocation. The bill would require the CDTFA to assess a $250 civil penalty for each revoked license and to deposit collected civil penalties into the fund, to be made available to the department, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for purposes of administering the bill. The bill would authorize a licensee to apply for a new license at the previously revoked location 6 months after the date of revocation and would authorize the CDTFA, at its discretion, to issue a new license. The bill would apply these noticing and posting requirements to a retailer subject to a court-ordered revocation pursuant to the bill. The California Constitution provides for the establishment of the State Board of Equalization, which, before July 1, 2017, had primary responsibility for most of the state's duties, powers, and responsibilities regarding the administration of taxes and fees. Existing law, on July 1, 2017, transferred to the CDTFA various duties, powers, and responsibilities of the State Board of Equalization, including administration of the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Licensing Act of 2003, as specified. This bill would change references in the provisions of the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Licensing Act of 2003 amended by this bill from the "State Board of Equalization" to the "California Department of Tax and Fee Administration" to reflect the transfer of the board's duties, powers, and responsibilities to the CDTFA. Because this bill would create new crimes, it 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.
