Existing law defines an in-custody informant to mean a person, other than a codefendant, percipient witness, accomplice, or coconspirator whose testimony is based upon statements made by the defendant while both the defendant and the informant are held within a correctional institution. Existing law prohibits a law enforcement or correctional official from giving, offering, or promising to give any monetary payment in excess of $50 in return for an in-custody informant's testimony in any criminal proceeding, as specified. Existing law requires the prosecution to file with the court a written statement prior to trial setting out any and all consideration, as defined, promised to, or received by, the in-custody informant when the prosecution calls an in-custody informant as a witness in any criminal trial. This bill would revise the definition of an in-custody informant to refer to a person, other than a codefendant, percipient witness, accomplice, or coconspirator who provides testimony or information for use in the investigation or prosecution of a defendant based upon statements made by the defendant while both the defendant and the informant are housed within a correctional institution. The bill would require the prosecutor, when the prosecution intends to use information or testimony from an in-custody informant in any criminal prosecution, to file with the court a written statement setting out the substance of all communications between the informant and any member of the prosecution, or a law enforcement or correctional agency, regarding the informant's possible testimony or participation in information gathering, and setting out any and all consideration impliedly or expressly offered or promised to, or requested or received by, the in-custody informant. The bill would require the statement to contain specified information, including the informant's complete criminal history, including pending criminal charges or investigations in which the informant is a suspect. The bill would authorize disclosure of the statement to the defense to be denied, restricted, or deferred upon a showing of good cause, as defined. The bill would also revise the definition of consideration for purposes of these provisions. This bill would expand the scope of the prohibition against a law enforcement or correctional official giving, offering, or promising to give a monetary payment to make it applicable to a member of a prosecutorial entity, among other changes. The bill would also make the provision applicable to property and gifts, among other benefits, and would limit the combined value of those benefits to $100. The bill would also make technical changes.
Sponsored bills
(1) Existing law requires a peace officer to take temporary custody of any firearm or other deadly weapon discovered at the scene of a domestic violence incident involving a threat to human life or physical assault, when serving a protective order, or when serving a gun violence restraining order. Existing law requires the officer taking custody of the firearm to give the owner a receipt indicating where the firearm or other deadly weapon can be recovered, the time limit for recovery, and the date after which the owner can recover the firearm or other deadly weapon. This bill would require the receipt to include the name and residential mailing address of the owner of the firearm or other deadly weapon. Because this bill would increase the duties of local law enforcement, it would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law prohibits the sale of tear gas or a tear gas weapon to a minor. Notwithstanding this law, existing law allows a minor who has attained 16 years of age to purchase and possess tear gas or a tear gas weapon if the minor is accompanied by a parent or guardian, or has the written consent of a parent or guardian. Existing law requires any civil liability of a minor arising out of the minor's use of tear gas or a tear gas weapon other than for self-defense to be imposed upon the person, parent, or guardian who signed the statement of consent. This bill would impose that civil liability on the parent, guardian, or other person who authorized the provision of tear gas to a minor by signing a statement of consent or accompanying the minor. (3) This bill would make various technical, nonsubstantive changes. (4) 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 authorizes a peace officer to make an arrest pursuant to a warrant or based upon probable cause, as specified. Under existing law, an arrest is made by the actual restraint of the person or by submission to the custody of the arresting officer. Existing law authorizes a peace officer to use reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape, or to overcome resistance. Existing law does not require an officer to retreat or desist from an attempt to make an arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance of the person being arrested. This bill would, as of January 1, 2020, require peace officers to attempt to control an incident by using time, distance, communications, and available resources in an effort to deescalate a situation whenever it is safe, feasible, and reasonable to do so. Under existing law, the use of deadly force resulting in the death of a person is justified when it was necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to an arrest, when it was necessarily committed in apprehending a felon who had escaped from custody, or when it was necessarily committed in arresting a person charged with a felony and who was fleeing from justice or resisting arrest. Existing case law prohibits the use of deadly force by a peace officer unless, among other criteria, there is a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or another. This bill would limit the use of deadly force, as defined, by a peace officer to those situations where it is necessary, as defined, to defend against a threat of imminent and serious bodily injury or death to the officer or to another person, as specified. The bill would prohibit the use of deadly force by a peace officer in a situation where an individual poses a risk only to himself or herself. The bill would also limit the use of deadly force by a peace officer against a person fleeing from arrest or imprisonment to only those situations in which the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed, or intends to commit, a felony involving serious bodily injury or death, and there is a threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person if the subject is not immediately apprehended. The bill would make these provisions operative as of January 1, 2020.
This measure would encourage the federal government to maintain or restore full funding to integral international exchange programs, such as the Fulbright U.S. Student Program.
This measure would recognize the month of June 2018 as California's Alzheimer's and Brain Awareness Month and Thursday, June 21, 2018, as The Longest Day in California, and would urge all Californians to wear purple on this day to help spread global awareness of the Alzheimer's Association's vision of a world without Alzheimer's disease.
Existing law establishes various prohibitions against eavesdropping and recording or intercepting certain communications. Violations of these prohibitions are crimes. Under existing law, specified law enforcement officers are not prohibited by those provisions from overhearing or recording any communication that they could lawfully overhear or record prior to January 1, 1968. This bill would add peace officers of the Office of Internal Affairs of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to the list of law enforcement officers to whom the prohibitions described above do not apply.