Existing law authorizes the Department of Motor Vehicles to establish contracts for electronic programs that allow qualified private industry partners to join the department in providing services that include processing and payment programs for vehicle registration and titling transactions. Under existing law, a dealer is authorized to charge the purchaser or lessee of a vehicle certain charges, including an electronic filing charge, not to exceed the actual amount the dealer is charged by a first-line service provider, for providing license plate processing, postage, and other specified fees and services relating to first-line service providers. This bill would prohibit the electronic filing charge from being used to pay for additional fees, goods, or services not directly related to the electronic registration of a motor vehicle. Because a violation of these provisions would constitute an infraction, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Sponsored bills
Existing law defines a transfer fee as a fee payment requirement imposed in any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other document affecting the transfer or sale of real property that requires a fee be paid upon transfer of the real property, with specified exceptions. Existing law, with regard to a transfer fee imposed upon real property on or after January 1, 2008, requires the person or entity imposing the transfer fee, as a condition of payment of the fee, to record a specified document describing the transfer fee concurrently with the instrument creating the transfer fee requirement. Existing law requires these recorded documents to include information on the amount of the fee and actual dollar examples of the fee for a residential property, among other things. Existing law requires a transferor of residential real property subject to transfer fees to make a specified disclosure regarding those fees. This bill would specify that the required information on the recorded document include the method for calculating the amount of the transfer fee, if not a flat amount or a percentage of the sales price, and include the actual dollar examples of the fee for a residential property if the amount of the fee is based on the price of the real property. The bill would also require the transferor of residential real property subject to transfer fees to make the specified disclosure regarding those fees if the recorded document describing the transfer fees has not already been provided. The bill would also clarify the definition of a transfer fee. Existing law excludes from the definition of a transfer fee any fee reflected in a document recorded against the property on or before December 31, 2007, that is separate from any covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and that provides a prospective transferee notice of specified information, including the amount or method of calculation of the fee. This bill would specify that the information shall be set forth in a single document and may not be incorporated by reference from any other document. This bill would provide that a fee reflected in a document recorded against the property on or before December 31, 2007, that is not separate from any covenants, conditions, and restrictions, or that incorporates by reference from another document, constitutes a transfer fee for the purposes of requirements relating to these fees. The bill would make unenforceable a transfer fee recorded against the property on or before December 31, 2007, that complies with the provisions described above and that incorporates by reference from another document unless it is recorded against the property on or before December 31, 2016, in a single document that complies with the provisions described above. This bill would also make a legislative finding that certain changes made by this bill are clarifying and declaratory of existing law.
Existing law establishes various plans and programs intended to preserve, protect, and rehabilitate lands adjacent to rivers in the state. Existing law provides that a conservation easement, as defined, is an interest in real property voluntarily created and freely transferable for specified purposes and provides for the creation and transfer of conservation easements. Existing law authorizes certain tax exempt nonprofit organizations, state or local governmental entities, and California Native American tribes to acquire and hold conservation easements if those entities meet specified criteria. This bill would enact the Greenway Development and Sustainment Act and would apply to greenway easements certain creation and transfer provisions similar to those of conservation easements. The bill would define greenway as a pedestrian and bicycle, nonmotorized vehicle transportation, and recreational travel corridor that meets specified requirements. The bill would also include greenways in the definition of "open-space land" for local planning purposes. The California Constitution provides that, unless otherwise provided in the Constitution or by federal law, all property in the state is taxable and is assessed at its fair market value. Existing law requires the county assessor to consider, when valuing real property for property taxation purposes, the effect of any enforceable restrictions, including recorded conservation easements, to which the use of the land may be subjected. This bill would provide that a recorded greenway easement constitutes an enforceable restriction for purposes of these tax provisions. By changing the manner in which county assessors assess property for property taxation purposes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would make findings with regard to the development of a greenway along the Los Angeles River and its tributaries. This bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 402.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, proposed by AB 668, to be operative only if AB 668 and this bill are both chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2016, and this bill is chaptered 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 these statutory provisions.
Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to look through a hole or opening, into, or to view, by means of any instrumentality, the interior of an area in which an occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy with the intent to invade the privacy of that person. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to record another person under or through the clothing worn by that person, without the consent or knowledge of the person, under circumstances in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to secretly record another person in a state of full or partial undress without the consent or knowledge of that person, in an area in which that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to intentionally distribute an image of the intimate body part or parts of another person, or an image of the person depicted engaging in specified sexual acts, under circumstances in which the persons agree or understand that the image remain private, the person distributing the image knows or should know that distribution of the image will cause serious emotional distress, and the person depicted suffers that distress. Existing law establishes the proper jurisdictions of a criminal action for unauthorized use, retention, or transfer of personal identifying information to include the county where the theft occurred, the county in which the victim resided at the time of the offense, or the county where the information was used for an illegal purpose. This bill would apply those jurisdictional provisions to the misdemeanors described above. Existing law details procedures for a governmental entity to gather specified records from a provider of electronic communication service or a remote computing service by search warrant. Existing law specifies that no notice is required to be given to a subscriber or customer by a governmental entity receiving records pursuant to these procedures. This bill would additionally authorize a governmental entity to use those procedures to gather the contents of communications between the subscriber and the service provider. The bill would require a search warrant used under those procedures to be limited to only that information necessary to achieve the objective of the warrant, as specified. The bill would require information obtained through the execution of a search warrant pursuant that is unrelated to the objective of the warrant to be sealed and not be subject to further review without an order from the court. The bill would require the governmental entity to provide a specified notice to the customer or subscriber upon receipt of the requested records. The bill would authorize a delay of that notice in 90-day increments if there is reason to believe notification would may have an adverse effect, as defined.
(1) Existing law provides that a search warrant may only be issued upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, naming or describing the person to be searched or searched for, and particularly describing the property, thing, or things and the place to be searched. Existing law also states the grounds upon which a search warrant may be issued, including, among other grounds, when the property or things to be seized consist of any item or constitute any evidence that tends to show a felony has been committed, or tends to show that a particular person has committed a felony, or when there is a warrant to arrest a person. This bill would prohibit a government entity from compelling the production of or access to electronic communication information or electronic device information, as defined, without a search warrant, wiretap order, order for electronic reader records, or subpoena issued pursuant under specified conditions, except for emergency situations, as defined. The bill would also specify the conditions under which a government entity may access electronic device information by means of physical interaction or electronic communication with the device, such as pursuant to a search warrant, wiretap order, or consent of the owner of the device. The bill would define a number of terms for those purposes, including, among others, "electronic communication information" and "electronic device information," which the bill defines collectively as "electronic information." The bill would require a search warrant for electronic information to describe with particularity the information to be seized and would impose other conditions on the use of the search warrant or wiretap order and the information obtained, including retention, sealing, and disclosure. The bill would require a warrant directed to a service provider to be accompanied by an order requiring the service provider to verify by affidavit the authenticity of electronic information that it produces, as specified. The bill would authorize a service provider to voluntarily disclose, when not otherwise prohibited by state or federal law, electronic communication information or subscriber information, and would require a government entity to destroy information so provided within 90 days, subject to specified exceptions. The bill would, subject to exceptions, require a government entity that executes a search warrant pursuant to these provisions to contemporaneously provide notice, as specified, to the identified target, that informs the recipient that information about the recipient has been compelled or requested, and that states the nature of the government investigation under which the information is sought. The bill would authorize a delay of 90 days, subject to renewal, for providing the notice under specified conditions that constitute an emergency. The bill would require the notice to include a copy of the warrant or statement describing the emergency under which the notice was delayed. The bill would provide that any person in a trial, hearing, or proceeding may move to suppress any electronic information obtained or retained in violation of its provisions, according to specified procedures. The bill would provide that a California or foreign corporation, and its officers, employees, and agents, are not subject to any cause of action for providing records, information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a warrant, wiretap order, or other order issued pursuant to these provisions. (2) The California Constitution provides for the Right to Truth in Evidence, which requires a 23 vote of the Legislature to exclude any relevant evidence from any criminal proceeding, as specified. Because this bill would exclude evidence obtained or retained in violation of its provisions in a criminal proceeding, it requires a 23 vote of the Legislature.
Existing law authorizes only a juvenile court judicial officer to make orders regarding the administration of psychotropic medications for a dependent child or a ward of the court who has been removed from the physical custody of his or her parent, as specified. Existing law requires court authorization for the administration of psychotropic medication to be based on a request from a physician, indicating the reasons for the request, a description of the child's or ward's diagnosis and behavior, the expected results of the medication, and a description of any side effects of the medication. Existing law requires the officer to approve or deny the request for authorization to administer psychotropic medication, or set the matter for hearing, as specified, within 7 court days. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to adopt rules of court and develop appropriate forms for the implementation of these provisions. This bill would require the Judicial Council, on or before July 1, 2016, to amend and adopt rules of court and develop appropriate forms for the implementation of these provisions, in consultation with the State Department of Social Services, the State Department of Health Care Services, and specified stakeholders. The bill would require the rules of court and forms to address, among other things, that the child or ward and his or her caregiver and court-appointed special advocate, if any, have an opportunity to provide input on the medications being prescribed, and would require the rules of court and forms to include a process for periodic oversight by the court of orders regarding the administration of psychotropic medications. The bill would also require a county child welfare department, probation agency, or other person who requests authorization for the administration of psychotropic medication to provide the child's caregiver with a copy of the resulting court order, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. This bill would also require the State Department of Social Services, in consultation with specified parties, to develop and distribute a monthly report to each county placing agency that is a signatory to a specified data sharing agreement, and would require this report to include specified information regarding each child for whom one or more psychotropic medications have been paid for under Medi-Cal, including, among others things, the psychotropic medications that have been authorized for the child. The bill would also require a county placing agency to share information pertaining to the child with the juvenile court, the child's attorney, the county department of behavioral health, and the child's court-appointed special advocate, if one has been appointed. By imposing additional duties on county employees, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires certain individuals involved in the care and oversight of children in foster care, including group home administrators, foster parents, relative caregivers, nonrelative extended family member caregivers, social workers, judges, and attorneys, to receive training on various topics. This bill would require the training to include training developed by the State Department of Social Services, in consultation with specified parties, regarding the authorization, uses, risks, benefits, assistance with self-administration, oversight, and monitoring of psychotropic medications, trauma, and substance use disorder and mental health treatments for those children. The bill would also require foster care public health nurses to receive this training. By imposing additional training requirements on social workers and public health nurses, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes proposed by AB 224, AB 403, SB 319, and SB 794, which would become operative only if this bill is chaptered 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.
Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services to establish a program of public health nursing in the child welfare services program, and requires counties to use the services of the foster care public health nurse under this program. Existing law requires the foster care public health nurse to perform specified duties, including participating in medical care planning and coordinating for a child in foster care. This bill would authorize a foster care public health nurse, as part of his or her requirement to participate in medical care planning and coordinating for a child, to monitor and oversee the child's use of psychotropic medications. The bill would also require a foster care public health nurse to assist a nonminor dependent to make informed decisions about his or her health care. By imposing this additional duty on foster care public health nurses, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law restricts the disclosure of medical and mental health information by providers of health care and mental health care services, but authorizes disclosure of this information to county social workers, probation officers, or any other person who is legally authorized to have custody and care of a minor who is in temporary custody or subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, for the purpose of coordinating medical treatment and health care, mental health, and developmental disability services for the minor. This bill would authorize the disclosure of this health care and mental health care information to a foster care public health nurse, as specified. This bill would incorporate changes to Section 16501.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code proposed by both this bill and SB 238, which would become operative only if both bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2016, and this bill is chaptered 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(1) Existing law authorizes the Department of the California Highway Patrol to retain license plate data captured by license plate recognition (LPR) technology, also referred to as an automated license plate recognition (ALPR) system, for not more than 60 days unless the data is being used as evidence or for the investigation of felonies. Existing law prohibits the department from selling the data or from making the data available to an agency that is not a law enforcement agency or an individual that is not a law enforcement officer. Existing law authorizes the department to use LPR data for the purpose of locating vehicles or persons reasonably suspected of being involved in the commission of a public offense, and requires the department to monitor the internal use of the data to prevent unauthorized use and to submit to the Legislature, as a part of the annual automobile theft report, information on the department's LPR practices and usage. This bill would impose specified requirements on an "ALPR operator" as defined, including, among others, maintaining reasonable security procedures and practices to protect ALPR information and implementing a usage and privacy policy with respect to that information, as specified. The bill would impose similar requirements on an "ALPR end-user," as defined. The bill would require an ALPR operator that accesses or provides access to ALPR information to maintain a specified record of that access and require that ALPR information only be used for authorized purposes. The bill would, in addition to any other sanctions, penalties, or remedies provided by law, authorize an individual who has been harmed by a violation of these provisions to bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction against a person who knowingly caused the harm. The bill would require a public agency, as defined, that operates or intends to operate an ALPR system to provide an opportunity for public comment at a regularly scheduled public meeting of the governing body of the public agency before implementing the program. The bill would also prohibit a public agency from selling, sharing, or transferring ALPR information, except to another public agency, as specified. (2) Existing law requires any agency, and any person or business conducting business in California, that owns or licenses computerized data that includes personal information, as defined, to disclose in specified ways, any breach of the security of the system or data, as defined, following discovery or notification of the security breach, to any California resident whose unencrypted personal information was, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person. Existing law defines "personal information" for these purposes to include an individual's first name and last name, or first initial and last name, in combination with one or more designated data elements relating to, among other things, social security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial accounts, and medical information. This bill would include information or data collected through the use or operation of an automated license plate recognition system, when that information is not encrypted and is used in combination with an individual's name, in the definition of "personal information" discussed above. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1798.29 of the Civil Code proposed by SB 570 and AB 964 that would become operative if this bill and one or both of those bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill also would incorporate additional changes to Section 1798.82 of the Civil Code proposed by SB 570 and AB 964 that would become operative if this bill and one or both of those bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law makes it a crime to import into the state for commercial purposes, to possess with intent to sell, or to sell within the state, the dead body, or any part or product thereof, of an elephant. Existing law exempts the possession with intent to sell, or sale of the dead body, or any part or product thereof, of any elephant before June 1, 1977, or the possession with intent to sell or the sale of any such item on or after June 1, 1977, if the item was imported before January 1, 1977. This bill would delete this exemption. By changing the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would make it unlawful to purchase, sell, offer for sale, possess with intent to sell, or import with intent to sell ivory or rhinoceros horn, except as specified, and would make this prohibition enforceable by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The bill would make a violation of this provision or any rule, regulation, or order adopted pursuant to this provision a misdemeanor subject to specified criminal penalties. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. In addition to the specified criminal penalties, the bill would authorize the department to impose an administrative penalty of up to $10,000 for a violation of this provision or any rule, regulation, or order adopted pursuant to this provision. This bill would provide that the provisions of this bill are severable. This bill would make these provisions operative on July 1, 2016. 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, as amended by the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act, Proposition 69, approved by the voters at the November 2, 2004, general election (the DNA Act) requires any adult person who is arrested or charged with any felony offense to provide buccal swab samples, right thumbprints, and a full palm print impression of each hand, and any blood specimens or other biological samples required for law enforcement identification analysis. Existing law requires that blood specimens and buccal swab samples be forwarded promptly to the Department of Justice for analysis. Existing case law, People v. Buza (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1446, for which review has been granted by the California Supreme Court, holds that the DNA Act, to the extent it requires felony arrestees to submit to a DNA sample for law enforcement analysis and inclusion in the state and federal DNA databases, without independent suspicion, a warrant, or a judicial or grand jury determination of probable cause, unreasonably intrudes on the arrestee's expectation of privacy and is invalid under the California Constitution. The DNA Act provides that it may be amended by a statute passed by each house of the Legislature that furthers the purpose of the measure. This bill would state that it is the intention of the Legislature to further the purposes of the DNA Act in light of the above-specified case law. The bill would, if the California Supreme Court rules to uphold People v. Buza, require that a blood specimen or buccal swab sample taken from a person arrested for the commission of a felony be forwarded to the department after a felony arrest warrant has been signed by a judicial officer, a grand jury indictment has been found and issued, or a judicial determination of probable cause to believe the person has committed the offense for which he or she was arrested has been made. (2) Existing law, as amended by the DNA Act, requires that a DNA specimen and sample be destroyed and that a searchable database profile be expunged from that databank program if the person from whom the specimen or sample was collected has no past or present offense or pending charge which qualifies that person for inclusion in the database and if that person submits an application, as specified. Existing law gives the court discretion to grant or deny the application. This bill would, if the California Supreme Court rules to uphold People v. Buza, require the DNA specimen and sample to be destroyed and the searchable database profile expunged from the database without the requirement of an application.