Sen. Nancy Skinner

Existing law, the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) , enacted by the voters at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, regulates the cultivation, distribution, and use of cannabis for nonmedical purposes by individuals 21 years of age and older. Under AUMA, a person 21 years of age or older may, among other things, possess, process, transport, purchase, obtain, or give away, as specified, up to 28.5 grams of cannabis and up to 8 grams of concentrated cannabis. Existing law authorizes a person to petition for the recall or dismissal of a sentence, dismissal and sealing of a conviction, or redesignation of a conviction of an offense for which a lesser offense or no offense would be imposed under AUMA. This bill would require the Department of Justice, before July 1, 2019, to review the records in the state summary criminal history information database and to identify past convictions that are potentially eligible for recall or dismissal of sentence, dismissal and sealing, or redesignation pursuant to AUMA. The bill would require the department to notify the prosecution of all cases in their jurisdiction that are eligible for recall or dismissal of a sentence, dismissal and sealing, or redesignation. The bill would require the prosecution to, on or before July 1, 2020, review all cases and determine whether to challenge the resentencing, dismissal and sealing, or redesignation. The bill would authorize the prosecution to challenge the resentencing, dismissal and sealing, or redesignation if the person does not meet the eligibility requirements or presents an unreasonable risk to public safety. The bill would require the prosecution to notify the public defender and the court when they are challenging a particular resentencing, dismissal and sealing, or redesignation, and would require the prosecution to notify the court if they are not challenging a particular resentencing, dismissal and sealing, or redesignation. By imposing additional duties on local entities, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the court to automatically reduce or dismiss the conviction pursuant to AUMA if there is no challenge by July 1, 2020. The bill would require the department to modify the state summary criminal history information database in conformance with the recall or dismissal of sentence, dismissal and sealing, or redesignation within 30 days and to post specified information on its Internet Web site. 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 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 declares that timely DNA analysis of rape kit evidence is a core public safety issue affecting men, women, and children in the State of California. Existing law encourages law enforcement agencies to either submit sexual assault forensic evidence received on or after January 1, 2016, to a crime lab within 20 days after it is booked into evidence or to ensure that a rapid turnaround DNA program is in place, as specified. Existing law also encourages a crime lab that receives sexual assault forensic evidence on or after January 1, 2016, to either process the evidence, create DNA profiles when able, and upload qualifying DNA profiles into the Combined DNA Index System, as specified, or transmit the sexual assault forensic evidence to another crime lab as soon as practically possible, but no later than 30 days after receiving the evidence, for processing of the evidence for the presence of DNA. This bill would instead require a law enforcement agency to either submit sexual assault forensic evidence to a crime lab or ensure that a rapid turnaround DNA program is in place, as specified, and require a crime lab to either process the evidence or transmit the evidence to another crime lab for processing, as specified. Because this bill would impose a higher level of service on local law enforcement agencies in processing that evidence, it would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 680 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 1494 to be operative only if this bill and SB 1494 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, 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 defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought. Existing law defines malice for this purpose as either express or implied and defines those terms. This bill would require a principal in a crime to act with malice aforethought to be convicted of murder except when the person was a participant in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a specified felony in which a death occurred and the person was the actual killer, was not the actual killer but, with the intent to kill, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or assisted the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree, or the person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life. Existing law defines first degree murder, in part, as all murder that is committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, specified felonies, including arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem, and kidnapping. Existing law, as enacted by Proposition 7, approved by the voters at the November 7, 1978, statewide general election, prescribes a penalty for that crime of death, imprisonment in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole, or imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 25 years to life. Existing law defines 2nd degree murder as all murder that is not in the first degree and imposes a penalty of imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 15 years to life. This bill would prohibit a participant in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of one of the specified first degree murder felonies in which a death occurs from being liable for murder, unless the person was the actual killer or the person was not the actual killer but, with the intent to kill, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or assisted the actual killer, or the person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life, unless the victim was a peace officer who was killed in the course of performing his or her duties where the defendant knew or should reasonably have known the victim was a peace officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties. This bill would provide a means of vacating the conviction and resentencing a defendant when a complaint, information, or indictment was filed against the defendant that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of first degree felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, the defendant was sentenced for first degree or 2nd degree murder or accepted a plea offer in lieu of a trial at which the defendant could be convicted for first degree or 2nd degree murder, and the defendant could not be charged with murder after the enactment of this bill. By requiring the participation of district attorneys and public defenders in the resentencing process, 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.

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.

(1) 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, authorizes a person who obtains a state license under AUMA to engage in commercial adult-use cannabis activity pursuant to that license and applicable local ordinances. The Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) , among other things, consolidates the licensure and regulation of commercial medicinal and adult-use cannabis activities. Existing administrative law prohibits a retailer licensee from providing free cannabis goods to any person or allowing individuals who are not employed by the retailer to provide free cannabis goods to any person on the licensed premises. Existing administrative law provides an exception to this prohibition for specified medicinal retailer and microbusiness licensees to provide access to medicinal cannabis patients who have difficulty accessing medicinal cannabis goods, as specified. This bill would similarly authorize those specified licensees to provide free cannabis or cannabis products to a medical cannabis patient if specified requirements are met, including that the cannabis or cannabis products otherwise meet specified requirements of MAUCRSA. The bill would authorize those specified licensees to contract with an individual or organization to coordinate the provision of free medicinal cannabis and medicinal cannabis products on the retailer's premises. (2) Existing sales and use tax laws impose use taxes on the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of tangible personal property purchased from a retailer for storage, use, or other consumption in this state, presumes tangible personal property purchased outside the state that is stored, used, or consumed in this state is purchased for use in this state, and excludes from use taxes, specified tangible personal property purchased and used for specified purposes. This bill, on or after January 1, 2019, and until January 1, 2024, would exempt from the use tax the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of medicinal cannabis or medicinal cannabis products that are donated, for no consideration, under specified circumstances. The bill would require the exemption to apply only if the donee certifies in writing, as specified, that the medicinal cannabis or medicinal cannabis product will be used as specified. The bill would make a licensee that uses the donated medicinal cannabis or medicinal cannabis product in some other manner, or for some other purpose, liable for the payment of use tax and would make the measure of tax the licensee's purchase price for similar product. The Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law authorizes counties and cities to impose local sales and use taxes in conformity with the Sales and Use Tax Law, and existing laws authorize districts, as specified, to impose transactions and use taxes in accordance with the Transactions and Use Tax Law, which generally conforms to the Sales and Use Tax Law. Amendments to the Sales and Use Tax Law are automatically incorporated into the local tax laws. Existing law requires the state to reimburse counties and cities for revenue losses caused by the enactment of sales and use tax exemptions. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding Section 2230 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, no appropriation is made and the state shall not reimburse any local agencies for sales and use tax revenues lost by them pursuant to this bill. (3) AUMA imposes an excise tax on the purchase of cannabis and cannabis products, as defined, at the rate of 15% of the average market price of any retail sale by a cannabis retailer. The bill would require that these provisions not be construed to impose an excise tax upon medicinal cannabis, or medicinal cannabis products, donated for no consideration to a medicinal cannabis patient, as specified. (4) AUMA imposes a cultivation tax on all harvested cannabis that enters the commercial market upon all cultivators. Existing law defines entering the commercial market to mean cannabis or cannabis products, except for immature cannabis plants and seeds, that complete and comply with specified quality assurance review and testing. This bill would prohibit the cultivation tax from being imposed on medicinal cannabis designated for donation. The bill would make a licensee that certifies in writing that medicinal cannabis or a medicinal cannabis product will be donated to a medicinal cannabis patient and sells or uses the medicinal cannabis or medicinal cannabis product in some manner, or for some purpose other than donation, liable for the cultivation tax. The bill would specify that the certification in writing relieves the cultivator that donates the medicinal cannabis from liability for the cultivation tax and the distributor from liability for collecting the cultivation only if the certification is taken in good faith. The bill would prohibit a distributor or a manufacturer from collecting or remitting the cultivation tax for medicinal cannabis or medicinal cannabis products designated for donation. The bill would require a cultivator to keep records of any medicinal cannabis or medicinal cannabis products designated for donation. The bill would require that the cannabis tax provisions not be construed to impose a cultivation tax upon medicinal cannabis or medicinal cannabis products designated for donation. (5) This bill would provide that the provisions of the act are severable. (6) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 26001 of the Business and Professions Code proposed by AB 2980 to be operative only if this bill and AB 2980 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (7) The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act, an initiative measure, authorizes the Legislature to amend the act to further the purposes and intent of the act with a 23 vote of the membership of both houses of the Legislature, except as provided. This bill would declare that its provisions further specified purposes and intent of the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act. (8) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report (EIR) on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA establishes a procedure by which a person may seek judicial review of the decision of the lead agency made pursuant to CEQA. CEQA requires a court to make specified orders if it finds that any determination, finding, or decision of a public agency has been made without compliance with CEQA. This bill would establish specified procedures for the administrative and judicial review of the environmental review and approvals granted for the Oakland Sports and Mixed-Use Project, as defined, located in the City of Oakland that is certified by the Governor as meeting certain requirements. Because a public agency would be required to comply with those new procedures, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would apply certain rules of court establishing procedures requiring actions or proceedings seeking judicial review pursuant to CEQA or the granting of project approvals, including any appeals therefrom, to be resolved, to the extent feasible, within 270 days of the filing of the certified record of proceedings with the court to an action or proceeding seeking judicial review of the lead agency's action related to the Oakland Sports and Mixed-Use Project under CEQA. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Oakland Sports and Mixed-Use Project. 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.