Asm. Buffy Wicks

Existing law prohibits granting probation or suspending a sentence for persons convicted of specified crimes relating to controlled substances, including possessing or agreeing to sell or transport opiates or opium derivatives, possessing or transporting cannabis, planting or cultivating peyote, and various crimes relating to forging or altering prescriptions, among other crimes, if the person has previously been convicted of any one of specified felony offenses relating to controlled substances. Existing law also prohibits granting probation or suspending a sentence for persons convicted of specified crimes relating to controlled substances, including possessing for sale or selling 14.25 grams or more of a substance containing heroin and possessing for sale 14.25 grams or more of any salt or solution of phencyclidine or its analogs, among other crimes. This bill would delete various crimes relating to controlled substances, including, but not limited to, the crimes described above, from those prohibitions against granting probation or a suspended sentence. The bill would authorize the remaining prohibitions on probation to be waived by a court in the interests of justice. By making additional persons eligible for probation, 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.

(1) Existing law prohibits, during the prosecution of specified sex crimes, the admission of evidence of the manner in which the victim was dressed, when offered by either the prosecution or the defendant on the issue of consent, unless the court finds the evidence relevant and admissible in the interests of justice. This bill would prohibit the court from admitting evidence, in the above circumstances, of the manner in which the victim was dressed, upon a finding that the evidence is relevant and admissible in the interests of justice. (2) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1103 of the Evidence Code proposed by AB 1171 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1171 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (3) The California Constitution provides that relevant evidence shall not be excluded in any criminal proceeding except as provided by statute enacted by a 23 vote of the membership of each house of the Legislature. Because this bill would limit the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings, it would require a 23 vote.

Existing law disqualifies an individual for unemployment compensation benefits if that individual willfully, for the purpose of obtaining unemployment compensation benefits, either made a false statement or representation, including, but not limited to, using a false name, false social security number, or other false identification, with actual knowledge of the falsity of it, or withheld a material fact in order to obtain unemployment compensation benefits. An individual disqualified from unemployment compensation benefits for making a false statement or representation or withholding material facts is ineligible to receive unemployment compensation benefits for certain periods of time, as provided. This bill, among other things, would require the Employment Development Department, prior to disqualifying an individual and subjecting that person to a period of ineligibility, to provide notice to the individual of the proposed determination. The bill would authorize the notice to be sent in combination with other notices from the department and would require the notice to provide specified information with regard to the eligibility provision related to the false statement or misrepresentation on which the department is determining whether to disqualify the individual and the individual's right to respond. The bill would authorize the department, after certain conditions are fulfilled, to issue a final notice of determination to the individual that includes specified information, including the number of weeks for which the individual is ineligible for benefits and the individual's right of appeal. The bill would require the department to implement these provisions upon completing any necessary technical changes to fulfill these requirements or by September 1, 2022, whichever is earlier. Existing law authorizes the Director of Employment Development to extend the period of ineligibility for not more than 8 weeks when there have been successive disqualifications from unemployment compensation benefits, as provided. This bill would require the department to provide the above-described notices for each successive disqualification for making a false statement or representation or withholding material facts before the director can extend the ineligibility period.

Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care, and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law authorizes an individual to add a dependent to their health care service plan contract or health insurance policy, including adding a dependent outside of an initial enrollment period if certain criteria are met. Existing law defines "dependent" for the purpose of an individual contract or policy to mean the spouse, registered domestic partner, or child of an individual. Existing law establishes the Health Insurance Counseling and Advocacy Program (HICAP) in the California Department of Aging to provide Medicare beneficiaries and those imminently eligible for Medicare with counseling and advocacy regarding health care coverage options. This bill would require an individual health care service plan contract or health insurance policy issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2023, that provides dependent coverage to make dependent coverage available to a qualified dependent parent or stepparent. The bill would require a plan, an insurer, or the California Health Benefit Exchange to provide an applicant seeking to add a dependent parent or stepparent with written notice about HICAP and would require a solicitor or agent to provide specified HICAP contact information, as specified. The bill would expand the definition of "dependent" for an individual health care service plan contract or health insurance policy to include a qualified dependent parent or stepparent. Because a willful violation of these provisions by a health care service plan would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law regulates automatic renewal offers and continuous service offers that businesses make to California consumers. Existing law makes it unlawful for a business that makes an automatic renewal offer or continuous service offer to a consumer in this state, among other things, to fail to present the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms in a clear and conspicuous manner, to charge the consumer for an automatic renewal or continuous service without first obtaining the consumer's affirmative consent, and to fail to provide an acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer, as specified. This bill would, beginning July 1, 2022, revise and recast these provisions to also make it unlawful for the business to fail to provide a consumer with a notice containing specified information if the consumer accepted a free gift or trial, lasting 31 or more days that was included in an automatic renewal offer or continuous service offer or accepted an automatic renewal offer or continuous service offer at a promotional or discounted price, and the applicability of that price was more than 31 days. In these circumstances, the bill would require the notice to be provided at least 3 days before and at most 21 days before the expiration of the period of time for which the free gift or trial, or promotional or discounted price, applies. This bill would also require the notice, as specified, if the consumer accepted an automatic renewal offer or continuous service offer with an initial term of one year or longer that automatically renews for a subsequent term that is longer than one month, unless the consumer cancels the contract. In these circumstances, the bill would require the notice to be provided at least 15 days and not more than 45 days before the automatic renewal offer or continuous service offer renews. The bill would provide that if both types of notice are warranted, only the notice provisions requiring notice at least 15 days and not more than 45 days before the automatic renewal offer or continuous service offer renews apply. If sent electronically, the bill would require the notice to include a link that directs the consumer to the cancellation process, or another reasonably accessible electronic method that directs the consumer to the cancellation process if no link exists. Under existing law, if a consumer accepts an automatic renewal or continuous service offer online, then the business is required to allow the consumer to terminate the offer exclusively online, which may include a termination email formatted and provided by the business. This bill would additionally require the business to allow a consumer to terminate the automatic renewal or continuous service offer at will, and without engaging any further steps that obstruct or delay the consumer's ability to terminate immediately. The bill would require the business to provide a method of termination that is either online in the form of a prominently located direct link or button to cancel or by a termination email, as provided. This bill would also authorize a business to require a consumer to enter account information or otherwise authenticate online before termination of the automatic renewal or continuous service online, provided that a consumer who is unwilling or unable to enter account information or otherwise authenticate online before termination is not precluded from authenticating or terminating offline using another method, as specified. The bill would authorize these requirements to be fulfilled after completion of an initial order.

Existing law regulates various practices related to debt, including its sale and collection. Existing law, for purposes of debt collection, defines "consumer debt" as, among other things, money due or owing or alleged to be due or owing from a natural person by reason of a consumer credit transaction. Existing law, the Check Sellers, Bill Payers and Proraters Law, prohibits a person from engaging in the business of acting as a prorater without first obtaining a license from the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation and defines a "prorater" as, among other things, a person who, for compensation, engages in the business of receiving money for the purpose of distributing the money among creditors in payment or partial payment of the obligations of the debtor. Under existing law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, specified unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or that result in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer are unlawful. This bill would enact the Fair Debt Settlement Practices Act. The bill would define "debt settlement provider" as a person who, for compensation and on behalf of a consumer, provides debt settlement services, as defined. The bill would define a payment processor as a person who provides payment processing services, as defined. This bill would prohibit a debt settlement provider from engaging in false, deceptive, or misleading acts or practices, as specified, when providing debt settlement services. The bill would require a debt settlement provider to provide a consumer with certain disclosures along with an unsigned copy of the proposed written contract between the debt settlement provider and the consumer. The bill would prescribe requirements for the contents of these contracts. This bill would prohibit certain unfair, abusive, or deceptive practices in connection with debt settlement provider and payment processor activities, some of which would apply to both a debt settlement service provider and a payment processor, and some of which would only apply to a debt settlement service provider, or a payment processor. The bill would authorize a consumer to terminate a contract for debt settlement services at any time without a fee or penalty of any sort by notifying the debt settlement provider. The bill would make the notice of termination effective immediately when the notice is made electronically or orally. The bill would make the notice effective upon receipt if the notice is sent via certified mail and would make the notice effective 7 calendar days from the date of mailing if the notice is sent by noncertified mail. The bill would specify requirements for the debt settlement provider upon effective notice of termination, including immediately canceling the contract and notifying the payment processor, as provided. The bill would require a payment processor, upon notice of cancellation from the consumer or debt settlement provider, to stop accumulating service fees, close the settlement account, and deliver to the consumer the balance of the settlement account within 7 days. The bill would require the debt settlement provider to immediately forward any notice of a lawsuit or settlement agreement to the consumer, as provided. The bill would specify the application of its provisions, excluding certain parties. This bill would authorize a consumer to bring a civil action for violation of these provisions. The bill would authorize statutory damages of not more than $5,000, actual damages, injunctive relief, and other relief the court deems proper. The bill would require that a court award costs of the action and reasonable attorney's fees for any successful cause of action. The bill would specify that reasonable attorney's fees may be awarded to a prevailing debt settlement provider or prevailing payment processor upon a finding by the court that the consumer's prosecution of the cause of action was not in good faith. The bill would specify that a debt settlement provider or a payment processor would not be civilly liable under specified circumstances. The bill would require a cause of action to be brought within 4 years of specified dates. The bill would provide that a waiver of its provisions is contrary to public policy and that its provisions are severable.

Existing law, the CalSavers Retirement Savings Trust Act, creates in state government the CalSavers Retirement Savings Board and requires the board to, among other things, design and implement the CalSavers Retirement Savings Program. This bill, the California Public Banking Option Act, until January 1, 2032, would require the Treasurer to convene, on or before September 1, 2022, the CalAccount Blue Ribbon Commission to be composed of certain members, including the Treasurer or the Treasurer's designee. The act would require the commission to, on or before July 1, 2024, conduct, by contracting with one or more entities with appropriate expertise, and deliver, as prescribed, a market analysis to determine if it is feasible to implement a "CalAccount Program," which, if implemented, would have certain characteristics, including that it would be a program established by the state for the purpose of protecting consumers who lack access to traditional banking services from predatory, discriminatory, and costly alternatives, which offers Californians access to a voluntary, zero-fee, zero-penalty, federally insured transaction account, known as a CalAccount, and related payment services at no cost to accountholders, including robust and geographically diverse mechanisms for accessing account funds and account management tools that facilitate the automation of basic financial transactions designed to serve the needs of individuals with low or fluctuating income. The bill would require the commission to hold a public hearing to review the market analysis and, after holding that hearing, would authorize the commission to issue a report to accompany the market analysis, as prescribed. The bill would make the operation of the act contingent upon an appropriation by the Legislature in the Budget Act or another statute for its purposes.

Existing law requires an act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different laws to be punished under the law that provides for the longest possible term of imprisonment. This bill, instead, would authorize an act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different laws to be punished under either of those provisions.

(1) Under existing law, the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, if a person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes or attempts to interfere, by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney, is authorized to bring a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief in the name of the people of the State of California, in order to protect the exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured. Existing law also authorizes an action brought by the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney, to seek a civil penalty of $25,000. Existing law also allows an individual whose exercise or enjoyment of rights has been interfered with to prosecute a civil action for damages on their own behalf. The bill would eliminate certain immunity provisions for peace officers and custodial officers, or public entities employing peace officers or custodial officers sued under the act. (2) Existing laws defines persons who are peace officers and the entities authorized to appoint them. Existing law requires certain minimum training requirements for peace officers including the completion of a basic training course, as specified. Existing law prescribes certain minimum standards for a person to be appointed as a peace officer, including moral character and physical and mental condition, and certain disqualifying factors for a person to be employed as a peace officer, including a felony conviction. This bill would prohibit a person who has been convicted of a felony, as specified, from regaining eligibility for peace officer employment based upon any later order of the court setting aside, vacating, withdrawing, expunging or otherwise dismissing or reversing the conviction, unless the court finds the person to be factually innocent of the crime for which they were convicted at the time of entry of the order. The bill would disqualify a person from being employed as a peace officer if that person has been convicted of, or has been adjudicated in an administrative, military, or civil judicial process as having committed, a violation of certain specified crimes against public justice, including the falsification of records, bribery, or perjury. The bill would also disqualify any person who has been certified as a peace officer by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training and has surrendered that certification or had that certification revoked by the commission, or has been denied certification. The bill would disqualify any person previously employed in law enforcement in any state or United States territory or by the federal government, whose name is listed in the national decertification index, or any other database designated by the federal government, or who engaged in serious misconduct that would have resulted in their certification being revoked in this state. The bill would require a law enforcement agency employing certain peace officers to employ only individuals with a current, valid certification or pending certification. (3) Existing law establishes the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to set minimum standards for the recruitment and training of peace officers and to develop training courses and curriculum. Existing law authorizes the commission to establish a professional certificate program that awards basic, intermediate, advanced, supervisory, management, and executive certificates on the basis of a combination of training, education, experience, and other prerequisites, for the purpose of fostering the professionalization, education, and experience necessary to adequately accomplish the general police service duties performed by peace officers. Existing law authorizes the commission to cancel a certificate that was awarded in error or obtained through misrepresentation or fraud, but otherwise prohibits the commission from canceling a certificate that has properly been issued. This bill would require the Department of Justice to provide the commission with necessary disqualifying felony and misdemeanor conviction data for all persons known by the department to be current or former peace officers, as specified. The bill would grant the commission the power to investigate and determine the fitness of any person to serve as a peace officer in the state. The bill would direct the commission to issue or deny certification, which includes a basic certificate or proof of eligibility, to a peace officer in accordance with specified criteria. The bill would require the commission to issue a proof of eligibility or basic certificate, as specified, to certain persons employed as a peace officer on January 1, 2022, who do not otherwise possess a certificate. The bill would declare certificates or proof of eligibility awarded by the commission to be property of the commission and would authorize the commission to suspend or revoke a proof of eligibility or certificate on specified grounds, including the use of excessive force, sexual assault, making a false arrest, or participating in a law enforcement gang, as defined. The bill would create the Peace Officer Standards Accountability Division within the commission to review investigations conducted by law enforcement agencies and to conduct additional investigations into serious misconduct that may provide grounds for suspension or revocation of a peace officer's certification, as specified. The bill would require the division to review grounds for decertification and make findings as to whether grounds for action against an officer's certification exist. The bill would require the division to notify the officer subject to decertification of their findings and allow the officer to request review. The bill would also create the Peace Officer Standards Accountability Advisory Board with 9 members to be appointed as specified. The bill would require the board to hold public meetings to review the findings after an investigation made by the division and to make a recommendation to the commission. The bill would require the commission to review the recommendation made by the board based on whether there is evidence that reasonably supports the board's conclusion that misconduct has been established and, if action is to be taken against an officer's certification, return the determination to the division to commence formal proceedings consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. The bill would require the commission to notify the employing agency and the district attorney of the county in which the officer is employed of this determination, as specified. The bill would make all records related to the revocation of a peace officer's certification public and would require that records of an investigation be retained for 30 years. The bill would require an agency employing peace officers to report to the commission the employment, appointment, or separation from employment of a peace officer, any complaint, charge, allegation, or investigation into the conduct of a peace officer that could render the officer subject to suspension or revocation, findings by civil oversight entities, and civil judgements that could affect the officer's certification. In case of a separation from employment or appointment, the bill would require each agency to execute an affidavit-of-separation form adopted by the commission describing the reason for separation. The bill would require the affidavit to be signed under penalty of perjury. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the board to report annually on the activities of the division, board, and commission, relating to the certification program, including the number of applications for certification, the events reported, the number of investigations conducted, and the number of certificates surrendered or revoked. By imposing new requirements on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 832.7 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 16 to be operative only if this bill and SB 16 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 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.

(1) Existing law authorizes a peace officer to use reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape, or to overcome resistance. Existing law requires law enforcement agencies to maintain a policy on the use of force, as specified. Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to implement courses of instruction for the regular and periodic training of law enforcement officers in the use of force. This bill would prohibit the use of kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents by any law enforcement agency to disperse any assembly, protest, or demonstration, except in compliance with specified standards set by the bill, and would prohibit their use solely due to a violation of an imposed curfew, verbal threat, or noncompliance with a law enforcement directive. The bill would include in the standards for the use of kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents to disperse gatherings the requirement that, among other things, those weapons only be used to defend against a threat to life or serious bodily injury to any individual, including a peace officer, or to bring an objectively dangerous and unlawful situation safely and effectively under control. The bill would define chemical agents to include, among other substances, chloroacetophenone tear gas or 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile gas. The bill would make these provisions inapplicable within a county jail or state prison facility. This bill would also require each law enforcement agency, within a specified timeframe, to post on their internet website a summary, as described, of any incident in which a kinetic energy projectile or chemical agent is deployed by that agency for the purpose of crowd control. The bill would require the Department of Justice to provide a compiled list of links to these reports on its internet website. (2) Existing law requires each law enforcement agency to annually report specified use of force incidents to the Department of Justice and requires the Department of Justice to annually publish a summary of those incidents, as specified. This bill would require these reports to be made monthly. By imposing new duties on law enforcement agencies, this bill would create 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.