Under existing law, a person who is arrested and charged by complaint with a felony offense shall, within 10-days, or later if they waive the 10 day requirement, have a preliminary examination to determine if there is probable cause to hold them to answer. After a finding by the court of probable cause, the defendant may file a motion to set aside the finding of probable cause. Under existing law, a person arrested and charged with a misdemeanor who is in custody at the time of arraignment may request a determination of probable cause on each charge, which shall be made immediately by the court on the basis of any warrant of arrest, the complaint, or any documents of similar reliability, unless good cause exists to delay the determination for not more than 3 days. This bill would authorize a person charged by complaint with a felony to, at the time of arraignment, make a motion for a determination of probable cause on each count charged, which shall be made by the court immediately on the basis of the complaint, warrant, police reports, or other documents of similar reliability, or may be continued for not more than 3 days for good cause. The bill would require the court to dismiss any count charged for which the court does not make a finding of probable cause. This bill would allow a charge dismissed pursuant to such a motion to be refiled under certain specified circumstances. The bill would also clarify that a finding that probable cause exists pursuant to such a motion is not binding on the court in any later hearing for the purpose of determining probable cause.
Sponsored bills
Existing law establishes the State Department of Public Health, which, among other things, administers various programs to prevent disease and promote health. Existing law also regulates certain advertising and promotion practices related to specific products, including by prohibiting the nonsale distribution of smokeless tobacco or cigarettes in designated places and the giving away of premiums, gifts, or free goods in connection with the sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages, except as specified. This bill would regulate promotion and marketing activities related to sugar-sweetened beverages, as defined, by prohibiting a beverage company, as defined, manufacturer, or distributor, as defined, from giving or offering incentives or other financial support to compensate distributors or retailers for the cost of promotional offers, coupons, or other incentives offered to consumers for branded products of the beverage company. The bill would exempt from that prohibition contracts between a beverage company, manufacturer, or distributor and a theme or amusement park, zoo, other attraction, or professional sports stadium that include nonfood promotions. The bill would authorize local governments and the Attorney General to impose civil penalties for a violation of the prohibition, as specified. The bill would state that these provisions do not preempt or prohibit the adoption and implementation of local ordinances related to promotional and marketing activities for sugar-sweetened beverages that are not inconsistent with these requirements, including ordinances that impose additional or more restrictive requirements on those activities.
Existing law establishes various public health programs related to nutrition that are administered by the State Department of Public Health, including the "5 A Day—For Better Health" program for the purpose of promoting public awareness of the need to increase the consumption of fruits and vegetables to improve health and prevent major chronic diseases. Under the California Retail Food Code, the department regulates retail food facilities, as defined, including administering uniform health and sanitation standards, and requires local enforcement agencies to enforce these provisions. This bill would enact the California Healthy Checkout Aisles for Healthy Families Act, and would require a store, as defined, to make available only specified beverages, including milk and natural fruit and vegetable juice, in the checkout areas of the store. The bill would require the department and the local health agency having jurisdiction over the store to administer and enforce the act. The bill would make a violation of its provisions an infraction, and would require the first violation to result in a notice of violation. The bill would make the 2nd and 3rd violations within a 5-year period punishable by fines of not more than $250 and $500, respectively. By imposing additional duties on local enforcement agencies and by creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize the department to promulgate regulations to carry out these provisions. 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.
The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) , an initiative measure approved as Proposition 64 at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, and additionally amended by statute, imposes duties on the Bureau of Cannabis Control in the Department of Consumer Affairs, the Department of Food and Agriculture, and the State Department of Public Health with respect to the creation, issuance, denial, suspension and revocation of commercial cannabis licenses, and imposes an excise tax commencing January 1, 2018, on the purchase of cannabis and cannabis products at the rate of 15% of the average market price of any retail sale by a cannabis retailer. Commencing January 1, 2018, AUMA also imposes a cultivation tax upon all cultivators on all harvested cannabis that enters the commercial market, at specified rates per dry-weight ounce of cannabis flowers and leaves. Existing law requires the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to administer those taxes, and requires the revenues from those taxes to be deposited into the California Cannabis Tax Fund and to be continuously appropriated for specified purposes pursuant to a specified schedule. AUMA requires the Legislative Analyst's Office to submit a report to the Legislature by January 1, 2020, with recommendations for adjustments to the tax rate to achieve the goals of undercutting illicit market prices and discouraging use by persons younger than 21 years of age while ensuring sufficient revenues are generated for specified programs. AUMA authorizes the Legislature to amend its provisions with a 23 vote of both houses to further its purposes and intent. This bill would reduce that excise tax rate to 11% on and after the operative date of this bill until July 1, 2022, at which time the excise tax rate would revert back to 15%. The bill would suspend the imposition of the cultivation tax on and after the operative date of this bill until July 1, 2022. The bill would require the bureau, the Department of Food and Agriculture, and the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to provide the Legislature with reports measuring the success of this bill, as specified. This bill would make specified findings and declare that its provisions further the purposes and intent of the AUMA. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy, but its operative date would depend on its effective date.
Existing law requires each school district or county superintendent of schools maintaining kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, and, commencing with the 2019–20 school year, each charter school, to provide each needy pupil with one nutritionally adequate free or reduced-price meal during each schoolday. Existing law authorizes a school district or county office of education, in order to comply with that requirement, to use funds made available through any federal or state program the purpose of which includes the provision of meals to a pupil, including, among other programs, the federal School Breakfast Program. This bill would establish the Breakfast After the Bell Program to be administered by the State Department of Education, consisting of awarding grants, contingent upon a one-time appropriation by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act, to school districts, charter schools, and county offices of education for schoolsite breakfast after the bell programs that provide breakfast to pupils after the schoolday has begun. The bill would establish criteria for awarding grants and would require the department to collaborate with stakeholders in developing the grantmaking process. The bill would require the department to modify existing processes and systems used to collect schoolsite-level data about school nutrition programs in order to collect data about school breakfast service models at each schoolsite operating a school breakfast program.
Existing law, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, enacted by Proposition 47, as approved by the voters at the November 4, 2014, statewide general election, reduced the penalties for various crimes. Under the provisions of the act, a person currently convicted of a felony or felonies who would have been guilty of a misdemeanor under the act if the act had been in effect at the time of the conviction may petition or apply to have the sentence reduced in accordance with the act. The act required that this petition or application be filed before November 4, 2017, or at a later date upon a showing of good cause. Existing law requires that the petition be filed on or before November 4, 2022, or at a later date upon showing of good cause. This bill would, on or before July 1, 2020, amend Proposition 47 to require the Department of Justice to review the records in the state summary criminal history information database and to identify past convictions that are potentially eligible for resentencing under the act. The bill would require the department to notify the district attorney and the court of all cases in that jurisdiction that are potentially eligible for resentencing. The bill would require the district attorney, before November 2, 2022, to review those cases to determine whether the conviction meets the criteria for resentencing, and to notify the court if the case meets the criteria, or the court and the public defender if it does not. The bill would require the public defender, when notified by the district attorney that a case does not meet the requirements for resentencing, to make a reasonable effort to notify the person that the conviction has been deemed by the district attorney to not meet the criteria for resentencing. The bill would require a court to recall the sentence and resentence the person unless the district attorney notifies the court that a conviction does not meet the criteria for resentencing. The bill would require the department to post specified information relating to resentencing on its internet website. By increasing the duties of district attorneys and public defenders, 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 provides for the licensure and regulation of various professions and vocations by regulatory boards and entities within the Department of Consumer Affairs, including athlete agents. This bill would enact the Athletic Training Practice Act, which, until January 1, 2028, would establish the California Board of Athletic Training within the Department of Consumer Affairs to exercise licensing, regulatory, and disciplinary functions under the act. The bill would prohibit a person from practicing as an athletic trainer or using certain titles or terms without being licensed by the board. The bill would define the practice of athletic training, specify requirements for licensure as an athletic trainer, and would require a licensed athletic trainer to practice only under the supervision of a physician and surgeon. The bill would provide that an athletic trainer license would be valid for 2 years and subject to renewal, and would authorize the board to deny, suspend, or revoke a license and to discipline a licensee for specified reasons. The bill would specify acts that constitute unprofessional conduct and would make it a misdemeanor for any person to violate the act. The bill would establish the Athletic Trainers Fund for the deposit of application and renewal fees, as specified, and would make those fees available to the board for the purpose of implementing the act's provisions upon appropriation by the Legislature. The bill would authorize the Director of Consumer Affairs to seek and receive donations from the California Athletic Trainers' Association or any other private individual or entity for the initial costs of implementing the act, and would specify that, if private funds are unavailable, would specify that a general fund or special fund loan may be used and repaid with fee revenue. The bill would repeal its provisions on January 1, 2028. 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.
(1) Existing law authorizes a person who is 18 years of age or older to circulate an initiative, referendum, or recall petition anywhere within the state. This bill would provide that a person or organization who pays a person money or any other thing of value based on the number of signatures obtained on a state or local initiative, referendum, or recall petition is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a specified fine, imprisonment, or both that fine and imprisonment. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law requires that each section of a petition for a statewide initiative or referendum measure have attached thereto the declaration of the person soliciting the signatures that includes specified information. This bill would require a person who solicits signatures for a proposed initiative measure and does not receive money or other valuable consideration for the specific purpose of soliciting signatures of electors to make additional declarations, as specified. (3) Existing law requires local elections officials to perform various duties with respect to statewide initiative and referendum petitions including, within 8 days after the filing of a petition, determining the total number of signatures affixed to the petition. Existing law also requires an elections official, within 30 days of notification from the Secretary of State that a petition has received 100% or more of the signatures needed to declare the petition sufficient, to determine the number of qualified voters who signed the petition. This bill would extend the time a local elections official is required to determine the total number of signatures affixed to a petition to 10 days, and would extend the time a local elections official is required to determine the number of qualified voters who signed the petition to 35 days after receiving notice from the Secretary of State that the petition has received the signatures needed to declare the petition sufficient. This bill would require at least 10% of the signatures that are required to qualify an initiative measure to be solicited by a person who does not receive money or other valuable consideration for the specific purpose of soliciting signatures of electors. The bill would require an elections official who determines the total number of signatures affixed to a petition and verifies those signatures to also determine the total number of signatures submitted by persons who do not receive money or other valuable consideration for the specific purpose of soliciting signatures of electors and verify those signatures. (4) Existing law requires, if the statistical sampling shows that the number of valid signatures on a petition is within 95 to 110% of the number of signatures of qualified voters needed to declare the petition sufficient, the Secretary of State to order the examination and verification of each signature filed and to notify the elections officials. This bill, with regard to an initiative petition for which the statistical sampling shows that the number of valid signatures for all signatures submitted is more than 110% of the number of qualified voters needed to find the petition sufficient, but the number of valid signatures submitted for purposes of the 10% requirement described above is within 95 to 110% of the number of signatures needed to satisfy that requirement, would require the Secretary of State to only order an examination and verification of each signature filed to satisfy the 10% requirement. (5) Existing law requires every proposed initiative measure, prior to circulation, to include on the petition, among other things, the circulating title and summary prepared by the Attorney General and a heading for the initiative measure, as specified. Existing law also permits a petition for a proposed initiative or referendum measure to be presented in sections, as specified. This bill would provide that its provisions do not apply to any initiative petition for which the Attorney General issued a circulating title and summary before July 1, 2020. The bill would additionally require a petition for a proposed initiative measure that is circulated by persons who do not receive money or other valuable consideration for the purpose of obtaining signatures of electors to be printed on green paper in a contrasting color ink. The bill also would require a petition for a proposed initiative measure that is circulated by persons who do receive money or other valuable consideration for the purpose of obtaining signatures of electors to be printed on white paper in a contrasting color ink. (6) Under existing law, an initiative petition must contain specified language advising the public of its right to ask whether the person circulating the petition is a paid signature gatherer or a volunteer. This bill would, for statewide initiative or referendum measures, instead require an initiative petition to include a disclosure, as specified, notifying the public that the petition circulator is receiving money or other valuable consideration for the specific purpose of soliciting signatures of electors, or is a volunteer or employee of a nonprofit organization. (7) Existing law provides that a person who engages in specified conduct in connection with the collection of signatures on any initiative, referendum, or recall petition is guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill would require that an initiative petition section be deemed invalid, and would prohibit use of the petition section for the purpose of determining whether the initiative measure qualifies for the ballot, if the signatures are solicited and submitted by a person who engages in fraud, misrepresentation, or any of the specified conduct for which the person may be found guilty of a misdemeanor. The bill would authorize specified persons to enforce this provision by a civil action upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence. (8) Because this bill would impose new requirements on local elections officials relative to calculating and verifying signatures on a petition, 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 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. (9) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 101 of the Elections Code proposed by SB 47 to be operative only if this bill and SB 47 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 9030 of the Elections Code proposed by AB 698 and AB 1829 to be operative only if this bill and those bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 9031 of the Elections Code proposed by AB 698 to be operative only if this bill and AB 698 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
The Personal Income Tax Law, in modified conformity with federal income tax law, excludes from the gross income of a beneficiary of, or contributor to, a qualified tuition program, which includes a Golden State Scholarshare College Savings Trust, distributions or earnings under that program, as specified. This bill, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2020, and before January 1, 2025, would allow under that law a deduction against gross income in the amount equal to the monetary contribution made by a qualified taxpayer, as defined, to the California qualified tuition program established pursuant to the Golden State Scholarshare Trust Act not to exceed either $5,000 or $10,000, as provided. The bill would require, with exceptions, in the case of any distribution in excess of qualified higher education expenses, as defined, the aggregate amount of the deduction allowed that reduced the qualified taxpayer's gross income in any taxable year to be added to the gross income of the qualified taxpayer in the taxable year of the distribution, as provided. The bill would require the Scholarshare Investment Board to report to the Legislature, on an annual basis, specified data related to this deduction and Scholarshare accounts and would require the Franchise Tax Board to provide certain information to the Scholarshare Investment Board upon request. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.