Asm. Mark Stone

Existing law imposes various restrictions on employers with respect to contracts and applications for employment. A violation of those restrictions is a misdemeanor. Existing law creates the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, which is under the direction of the Labor Commissioner, and generally commits to the commissioner the authority and responsibility for the enforcement of employment laws. This bill would prohibit a person from, as a condition of employment, continued employment, the receipt of any employment-related benefit, or as a condition of entering into a contractual agreement, prohibiting an applicant for employment, employee, or independent contractor from disclosing to any person an instance of sexual harassment that the employee or independent contractor suffers, witnesses, or discovers in the workplace or in the performance of the contract, or otherwise opposing any lawful practice, or from exercising any right or obligation or participating in any investigation or proceeding with respect to unlawful harassment or discrimination. The bill would also prohibit an employer from requiring any applicant for employment or any employee to waive any right, forum, or procedure for a violation of any provision of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) or other specific statutes governing employment, as a condition of employment, continued employment, the receipt of any employment-related benefit, or as a condition of entering into a contractual agreement. The bill would also prohibit an employer from threatening, retaliating or discriminating against, or terminating any applicant for employment or any employee because of the refusal to consent to the waiver of any right, forum, or procedure for a violation of specific statutes governing employment. The bill would establish a specific exemption from those prohibitions. Because a violation of these prohibitions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. FEHA makes specified employment and housing practices unlawful and provides procedures for enforcement by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing. FEHA authorizes a person alleging a violation of specified provisions of the act relating to employment discrimination to submit a verified complaint to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, and requires the department to take actions to investigate and conciliate that complaint. FEHA authorizes the department to bring a civil action on behalf of the person who submitted the complaint upon the failure to eliminate an unlawful practice under these provisions. FEHA requires the department to issue a right-to-sue notice to a person who submitted the complaint if certain conditions occur, and FEHA requires a person who has been issued a right-to-sue notice to bring an action within one year from when the department issued that notice. This bill would additionally make violations of the prohibitions described above, relating to sexual harassment and waivers, unlawful employment practices under FEHA. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law requires the Division of Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation of the Department of Parks and Recreation to develop and implement a grant and cooperative agreement program to support the planning, acquisition, development, maintenance, administration, operation, enforcement, restoration, and conservation of trails, trailheads, areas, and other facilities associated with the use of off-highway motor vehicles, and programs involving off-highway motor vehicle safety or education. This bill would require the Director of Parks and Recreation to establish the Outdoor Equity Grants Program, to increase the ability of underserved and at-risk populations to participate in outdoor environmental educational experiences at state parks and other public lands where outdoor environmental education programs take place. The bill would require the director to, among other things, give priority for funding to outdoor environmental education programs that primarily provide outreach to and serve students who are eligible for free or reduced-price meals, foster youth, or pupils of limited English proficiency, as provided. The bill would authorize the director to accept private funds to support the program. The bill would establish the California Outdoor Equity Account in the State Parks and Recreation Fund and would require any private funds donated for the program and any funds appropriated by the Legislature for purposes of the program to be deposited into the account. The California Coastal Act of 1976 (coastal act) requires any person wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone, as defined, to obtain a coastal development permit, except as provided. Existing law establishes the State Coastal Conservancy and prescribes its membership and responsibilities relating to the protection, preservation, and enhancement of coastal lands within the conservancy's jurisdiction. Existing law establishes the Coastal Access Account in the State Coastal Conservancy Fund and authorizes the conservancy to expend funds in the account, upon appropriation by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act, to pay for the development, maintenance, and operation of facilities that provide public access to the shoreline. The coastal act requires every person receiving a coastal development permit or a certificate of exemption for development on any vacant lot within specified designated areas, prior to commencement of construction, to pay to the California Coastal Commission for deposit in the Coastal Access Account an in-lieu public access fee, with the amount of the fee determined by specified costs of acquisition, as provided. This bill would delete the requirement, for purposes of this provision, that a coastal development permit or a certificate of exemption for development apply on any vacant lot within a designated area. The coastal act, for purposes of the above provisions governing the in-lieu public access fee amount and with respect to the Hollister Ranch public access program in the County of Santa Barbara, requires that the Hollister Ranch in-lieu fee for public access be $5,000 for each permit. The coastal act also requires that all in-lieu fees received pursuant to those provisions be deposited in the State Coastal Conservancy Fund and be available for appropriation to the conservancy for specified conservancy purposes. This bill would require that all past, present, and future in-lieu fees received pursuant to those provisions, as well as other moneys received by the State Coastal Conservancy for providing public access at Hollister Ranch from public and private sources, including nonprofit sources, be deposited in the Hollister Access Management Subaccount, which the bill would create in the fund, and used for any action necessary to implement the 1982 adopted coastal access program for the Hollister Ranch. Existing law, the Kapiloff Land Bank Act, creates the Land Bank Fund and continuously appropriates moneys in the fund, subject to a statutory trust, to the State Lands Commission, acting as the Land Bank Trustee, to acquire real property or any interest in real property for the purposes of public trust title settlements. Existing law requires that moneys in the fund be available for expenditure by the trustee to purchase outstanding interests in land where the public use and ownership of the land is necessary or extremely beneficial for furtherance of public trust purposes. Existing law authorizes acquisitions by negotiated agreement with the owner of the outstanding interests and specifies that the act is not intended to confer any authority to exercise the power of eminent domain for its purposes. This bill would create the Hollister Ranch Subaccount in the fund, and would require moneys received by the State Lands Commission from public and private sources, including nonprofit sources, to be used for the implementation of the 1982 adopted coastal access program for Hollister Ranch to be deposited into that subaccount and, upon appropriation by the Legislature, expended by the State Lands Commission for prescribed purposes. The bill would also authorize the State Lands Commission to transfer moneys from the fund to the subaccount, in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000, for expenditure for those purposes. Existing law states it is the intent of the Legislature that the State Coastal Conservancy and the State Public Works Board utilize their authority to implement specified public access policies and provisions at the Hollister Ranch in the County of Santa Barbara as expeditiously as possible. This bill would additionally state the intent of the Legislature that all other relevant state agencies, boards, and commissions utilize their authority to implement specified public access policies and provisions at the Hollister Ranch in the County of Santa Barbara as expeditiously as possible. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for Hollister Ranch.

Existing law authorizes, during the pendency of any juvenile proceeding, the minor's counsel or the court to express a doubt as to the minor's competency. Existing law requires proceedings to be suspended if the court finds substantial evidence raises a doubt as to the minor's competency. Upon suspension of proceedings, existing law requires the court to order that the question of the minor's competence be determined at a hearing. Existing law requires the court to appoint an expert, as specified, to evaluate whether the minor suffers from a mental disorder, developmental disability, developmental immaturity, or other condition and, if so, whether the condition or conditions impair the minor's competency. This bill would revise and recast these provisions to, among other things, expand upon the duties imposed upon the expert during his or her evaluation of a minor whose competency is in doubt, as specified. The bill would authorize the district attorney or minor's counsel to retain or seek the appointment of additional qualified experts with regard to determining competency, as specified. The bill would require the Judicial Council to adopt a rule of court relating to the qualifications of those experts, as specified. The bill would require the minor's competency to be determined at an evidentiary hearing, except as specified, and establish a presumption of competency, unless it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is incompetent. If the minor is found incompetent and the petition contains only misdemeanor offenses, the bill would require the petition to be dismissed. The bill would require the court, upon a finding of incompetency, to refer the minor to services designed to help the minor attain competency unless the court finds that competency cannot be achieved within the foreseeable future, would authorize the court to refer the minor to treatment services to assist in remediation, and would require the court to consider appropriate alternatives to juvenile hall confinement, as specified. The bill would require the presiding judge of a juvenile court, the probation department, the county mental health department, and other specified entities to develop a written protocol describing the competency process and a program to ensure that minors who are found incompetent receive appropriate remediation services. By imposing additional duties on local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would also make conforming changes. 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 prohibits specified persons from taking salmon for commercial purposes unless the person has a commercial fishing salmon stamp affixed to that person's commercial fishing license. Existing law requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife to issue a commercial fishing salmon stamp upon application for the stamp and payment of a base fee of $85. That base fee is required to be adjusted during specified commercial salmon seasons. However, existing law prohibits the total fees, as adjusted, from exceeding $260. Existing law requires the department to deposit revenues from this fee, funds received from other sources, as specified, and other specified revenues in the Commercial Salmon Stamp Dedicated Subaccount in the Fish and Game Preservation Fund, to be available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for purposes relating to enhancement and restoration of salmon. Existing law also authorizes up to 15% of funds expended from the subaccount for these purposes to be used for administrative costs. Existing law establishes the Commercial Salmon Trollers Advisory Committee, consisting of 6 members selected by the Director of Fish and Wildlife, as provided, to make recommendations on programs and a budget for the subaccount, and on specified revenue-raising measures. Existing law repeals these provisions as of January 1, 2019. A violation of any provision of the Fish and Game Code, or any rule, regulation, or order made or adopted under those provisions, is a misdemeanor, unless otherwise specified. This bill would extend the operation of these provisions until January 1, 2029. By extending the operation of existing requirements, the violation of which would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law prohibits the taking of anchovies for any purpose in Humboldt Bay, except that anchovies may be taken in specified areas of the bay for live bait between May 1 and December 1, and for dead bait between May 1 and August 31, by the operator of a vessel for use in his or her own fishing operation, except for incidental sales to local sport fishermen for bait. Existing law establishes a 15-ton limit on the total number of anchovies that may be taken between May 1 and August 31 of each year and a 15-ton limit between September 1 and December 1 of each year. Existing law requires an observer employed by the Department of Fish and Wildlife to inspect any bait operation and halt that operation if it cannot be conducted without adversely affecting the game species of the bay. Existing law requires the department to receive notification of a bait operation in the bay at least 12 hours before the operation commences. Existing law authorizes the Fish and Game Commission to adopt any other regulation it determines is necessary to protect the Humboldt Bay anchovy resource. This bill would permit taking of anchovies in Humboldt Bay between May 1 and December 1 without restrictions on area or use. Instead of 2 15-ton limits on the taking of anchovies in 2 separate periods, the bill would authorize not more than 60 tons of anchovies to be taken between May 1 and December 1 of each year. The bill would include, as part of the commission's regulatory authority to protect anchovy in Humboldt Bay, the authority to adopt a regulation that changes this permitted take amount based upon credible science. The bill would delete the above-described provisions regarding inspection and notification of bait operations. By changing the definition of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law regulates the Dungeness crab fishery and, among other things, permits the Director of Fish and Wildlife to delay the opening of the fishery in specified situations and regulates the taking of Dungeness crab during those delays. This bill would require the Department of Fish and Wildlife, on or before November 1, 2020, in consultation with the California Dungeness Crab Fishing Gear Working Group and other stakeholders, to adopt regulations establishing criteria and protocols to evaluate and respond to potential risk of marine life entanglement, as prescribed. Upon the effective date of these regulations, the bill would authorize the director to restrict the take of Dungeness crab pursuant to the criteria and protocols. Until those regulations become effective or until November 1, 2020, whichever is sooner, the bill would authorize the director to restrict the take of Dungeness crab in those areas where the Dungeness crab fishery is being conducted in a manner that poses a significant risk of marine life entanglement if the director makes a specified determination, in consultation with the working group, and after the director complies with specified procedures. The bill would require the director to expeditiously lift any restriction in waters if the director determines, in consultation with the working group, that the significant risk has abated in those waters. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2024. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) Existing law requires any vessel using bottom trawl gear in state-managed halibut fisheries to possess a California halibut bottom trawl vessel permit issued by the Department of Fish and Wildlife that authorizes the use of trawl gear by that vessel for the take of California halibut. Existing law requires a permit to be issued annually, and, since the 2007–08 season, has required an applicant to have previously held a valid permit. Existing law prohibits the department from issuing a permit unless a vessel has landed a minimum of 200 pounds of California halibut in specified calendar years before 2005, as provided, as documented on fish landing receipts. Existing law only authorizes transfer of a permit to another vessel if the transfer occurs before the implementation of a restricted access program and either the originally permitted vessel was lost, stolen, destroyed, or suffered a major irreparable mechanical breakdown, or the permitholder has died, is permanently disabled, or has retired, and, in the case of death, disability, or retirement, California halibut landings contributed significantly to the record and economic income derived from the vessel, as determined by regulations adopted by the Fish and Game Commission. Under existing law, these provisions will become inoperative upon the adoption by the commission of a halibut fishery management plan, as specified. This bill would repeal the above-described provisions conditioning issuance of a permit on landings in calendar years before 2005. The bill would repeal both of the above-described limitations on the circumstances under which a transfer may be authorized, and would authorize the department, rather than the commission, before the implementation of a restricted access program, to consider a request to transfer a permit to another vessel owned by the permitholder or to another person, as provided, without regard to either of those limitations. The bill would authorize an applicant who is denied a transfer of a permit to appeal the denial in writing to the commission within 60 days from the date of the department's decision. (5) Existing law designates a specified area as the California halibut trawl grounds and regulates trawl net fishing within the trawl grounds. Existing law specifies trawl net fishing season in the trawl grounds. Existing law authorizes the Director of Fish and Wildlife to close the trawl grounds, or portions of the trawl grounds, to trawl net fishing or restrict the nets that may be used in the trawl grounds, or portions of the trawl grounds, if the director determines that the California halibut resource, or existing fishing operations, are in danger of irreparable injury, as provided. Existing law closes specified areas in the trawl grounds to trawl gear, and closes other specified areas unless the Fish and Game Commission finds that a bottom trawl fishery for halibut minimizes bycatch, is likely not damaging sea floor habitat, is not adversely affecting ecosystem health, and is not impeding reasonable restoration of kelp, coral, or other biogenic habitats. Existing law requires the commission to close additional areas in the trawl grounds if it makes certain findings pursuant to a mandatory triennial review. This bill would designate 2 additional areas as California halibut trawl grounds: an area of the ocean waters of Monterey Bay, as described, and an area of ocean waters offshore of Port San Luis, as described. However, under the bill, those additional areas would remain closed to trawling until the commission determines that trawling in those areas is consistent with the above-described provisions. The bill would also provide that trawl fishing gear may only be deployed in those additional areas between sunrise and sunset. By changing the definition of a crime and creating new crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill authorize the commission to reduce the length of the open season or hours of operation specified in statute and to modify specified statutory requirements applicable to the use of trawl nets in the California halibut trawl grounds to make those requirements more restrictive. (6) Existing law authorizes the Department of Fish and Wildlife, in consultation with the Dungeness crab task force, to develop regulations as necessary to provide for the retrieval of lost or abandoned commercial crab traps. Existing law requires the department, as part of those regulations, to establish a retrieval permit program that grants a person who obtains a retrieval permit the authority to retrieve during the closed season of the Dungeness crab commercial fishery lost or abandoned Dungeness crab traps belonging to another person and to receive compensation for that retrieval on a per trap basis. Existing law requires the department to establish a fee to be charged to a Dungeness crab vessel permitholder for each trap belonging to the permitholder that is retrieved through the program. Existing law prohibits the department from renewing a Dungeness crab vessel permit until any fee imposed pursuant to the program has been paid. Existing law provides that these provisions shall become inoperative on April 1, 2019, and, as of January 1, 2020, are repealed. This bill would revise and recast these provisions. The bill would require the department, in consultation with the Dungeness crab task force, to establish a retrieval program to provide for the retrieval of lost or abandoned commercial Dungeness crab traps by June 30, 2019. The bill would require, as part of the program, the department to establish a retrieval permit similar to the one described above, but would require the payment of a permit fee to obtain a retrieval permit and would provide that any Dungeness crab trap retrieved under the authority of a retrieval permit would become the property of the retrieval permitholder. The bill would require a retrieval permitholder to notify the former trap owner of the retrieval of a Dungeness crab trap and to offer to sell the trap to the former owner for a reasonable recovery fee. The bill would require the department to impose per-trap fees on any former owner who refuses to pay the recovery fee to the retrieval permitholder. The bill would require the department to set the rate of these fees at a level sufficient to recover any costs to the department from handling noncompliance with the gear retrieval program and to reimburse the retrieval permitholder, as provided, and would require the department, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to use the proceeds of these fees for those purposes. The bill would authorize, rather than require, the department to deny an application for renewal or transfer of a Dungeness crab vessel permit until the applicant pays any fees imposed for failure to pay a recovery fee to a retrieval permitholder. The bill would make the revised provisions inoperative on April 1, 2029. By extending the operation of existing requirements, the violation of which would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (7) Existing law requires every trap or string of traps in state waters to be marked with a buoy. This bill would require the Department of Fish and Wildlife, by January 1, 2020, to implement regulations requiring standardized gear marking for those fisheries in which the department determines it is appropriate. The bill would require the department to establish a gear marking fee for each fishery requiring standardized gear marking and to set and adjust each fee in an amount to fully recover, but not exceed, all reasonable administrative and implementation costs of the department relating to the gear marking requirement. Because a violation of these regulations would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (8) 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.

The California Public Records Act requires a state or local agency, as defined, to make public records available for inspection, subject to certain exceptions. Existing law requires any peace officer or custodial officer personnel records, as defined, and any records maintained by any state or local agency relating to complaints against peace officers and custodial officers, or any information obtained from these records, to be confidential and prohibits the disclosure of those records in any criminal or civil proceeding, except by discovery. Existing law describes exceptions to this requirement for investigations or proceedings concerning the conduct of peace officers or custodial officers, and for an agency or department that employs those officers, conducted by a grand jury, a district attorney's office, or the Attorney General's office. This bill would require, notwithstanding any other law, certain peace officer or custodial officer personnel records and records relating to specified incidents, complaints, and investigations involving peace officers and custodial officers to be made available for public inspection pursuant to the California Public Records Act. The bill would define the scope of disclosable records. The bill would require records disclosed pursuant to this provision to be redacted only to remove personal data or information, such as a home address, telephone number, or identities of family members, other than the names and work-related information of peace officers and custodial officers, to preserve the anonymity of complainants and witnesses, or to protect confidential medical, financial, or other information in which disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy that clearly outweighs the strong public interest in records about misconduct by peace officers and custodial officers, or where there is a specific, particularized reason to believe that disclosure would pose a significant danger to the physical safety of the peace officer, custodial officer, or others. Additionally the bill would authorize redaction where, on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure. The bill would allow the delay of disclosure, as specified, for records relating to an open investigation or court proceeding, subject to certain limitations. The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law requires a family court to determine the best interests of the child for purposes of deciding child custody in proceedings for dissolution of marriage, nullity of marriage, legal separation of the parties, petitions for exclusive custody of a child, and proceedings under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. In making that determination, existing law requires the court to consider specified factors, including whether either of the child's parents habitually or continually uses alcohol or illegal drugs. This bill would require the court to make the determination consistent with specified findings. The bill would include in those findings that children have the right to be safe and free from abuse and that domestic violence in a household where a child resides is detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the child. Existing law establishes a rebuttable presumption that an award of sole or joint physical or legal custody of a child to a person who has perpetrated domestic violence against the other party seeking custody of the child or against the child or the child's siblings within the previous five years is detrimental to the best interests of the child. In overcoming that presumption, existing law requires the court to consider specified factors, including whether the perpetrator of domestic violence has committed any further acts of domestic violence. This bill would extend this presumption to a person who has committed domestic violence against another person with whom that party has a specified relationship. The bill would require the court, in determining whether the presumption is overcome, to find that the perpetrator of domestic violence has demonstrated that giving sole or joint physical or legal custody of a child to the perpetrator is in the best interests of the child and would specify additional factors that, on balance, are required to support the grant of custody. The bill would require the court to state its reasons for finding that the presumption has been overcome in writing or on the record. Existing law requires a court to grant reasonable visitation rights to a parent unless it is shown that the visitation would be detrimental to the best interest of the child. This bill, instead, would require the court to grant reasonable visitation rights when it is shown that the visitation would be in the best interest of the child, as defined, and consistent with the above provisions for ordering custody. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to establish judicial training programs for individuals who perform duties in domestic violence matters, including judges, referees, and mediators, among others, and requires that the training programs include instruction in all aspects of domestic violence. This bill would require the training to include the detriment to children of residing in a home with a person who perpetrates domestic violence and that domestic violence can occur without a party seeking or obtaining a restraining order, without a substantiated child protective services finding, and without other documented evidence of abuse.

Existing law imposes certain obligations in the context of particular transactions, and provides mechanisms to enforce those obligations. This bill would enact the California Internet Consumer Protection and Net Neutrality Act of 2018. This act would prohibit fixed and mobile Internet service providers, as defined, that provide broadband Internet access service, as defined, from engaging in specified actions concerning the treatment of Internet traffic. The act would prohibit, among other things, blocking lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, impairing or degrading lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a nonharmful device, and specified practices relating to zero-rating, as defined. It would also prohibit fixed and mobile Internet service providers from offering or providing services other than broadband Internet access service that are delivered over the same last-mile connection as the broadband Internet access service, if those services have the purpose or effect of evading the above-described prohibitions or negatively affect the performance of broadband Internet access service.

(1) Existing law generally subjects any person under 18 years of age who commits a crime to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge that person to be a ward of the court. Under existing law, juvenile court proceedings to declare a minor a ward of the court are commenced by the filing of a petition by the probation officer, the district attorney after consultation with the probation officer, or the prosecuting attorney, as specified. Existing law requires a judge of the juvenile court to dismiss a petition if the ward satisfactorily completes an informal program of supervision, probation, or a term of probation, as specified. Existing law requires the court to order sealed all records pertaining to the dismissed petition in the custody of the juvenile court, and in the custody of law enforcement agencies, the probation department, or the Department of Justice. Existing law authorizes the sealed records of juveniles to be accessed, inspected, or utilized only under limited circumstances. This bill would authorize a prosecuting attorney to access, inspect, or utilize a juvenile record that has been sealed under these provisions in order to meet a statutory or constitutional obligation to disclose favorable or exculpatory evidence to a defendant in a criminal case in which the prosecuting attorney has reason to believe that access to the record is necessary to meet the disclosure obligation, subject to approval by the court, as specified. The bill would establish procedural requirements that would apply to the court and the prosecuting attorney under these provisions, as specified. (2) Existing law authorizes a court and a state or local agency to access certain sealed juvenile records for the limited purpose of complying with data collection or data reporting requirements imposed by other provisions of law. Existing law authorizes a court to grant a researcher or research organization access to information contained in those records, as specified. Existing law requires a probation department to seal the records of a juvenile upon satisfactory completion of a program of diversion or supervision to which the juvenile is referred by the probation officer or the prosecutor in lieu of filing a petition to adjudge the juvenile a ward. Existing law also requires a public or private agency operating a diversion program to seal the records in its custody for that juvenile, as specified. This bill would authorize a court, a state or local agency, and, subject to approval by a court, a researcher or research organization to access those juvenile records sealed by the probation department or the agency operating a diversion program, for the limited purpose of complying with data collection or data reporting requirements, as specified. (3) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 786 of the Welfare and Institutions Code proposed by SB 1281 to be operative only if this bill and SB 1281 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.

The California Constitution provides that the people have the right to petition government for redress of grievances and to assemble freely to consult for the common good. The California Constitution provides that every person may freely speak, write, and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. Existing law generally regulates formation and enforcement of contracts, including what constitutes an unlawful contract. Under existing law, a contract is unlawful if it is contrary to an express provision of law, contrary to the policy of express law, though not expressly prohibited, or otherwise contrary to good morals. A contract is also void to the extent that it restrains a person from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind. This bill would make a provision in a contract or settlement agreement void and unenforceable if it waives a party's right to testify in an administrative, legislative, or judicial proceeding concerning alleged criminal conduct or sexual harassment.