Existing law requires the Department of Justice to keep a centralized list of all persons who are licensed firearms dealers and satisfy certain requirements, including having a valid federal firearms license and a regulatory or business license required by local government. Existing law requires the department to remove a person from the list if the person's federal license has expired or been revoked. Existing law, beginning on January 1, 2024, requires the department to conduct inspections of firearms dealers at least every 3 years, except as provided, to ensure compliance with specified requirements. As part of the department's inspections of firearms dealers, existing law requires the department to audit a dealer's records that includes a sampling of at least 25% but no more than 50% of each record type. Existing law requires the department to assess annual fees not to exceed specified amounts to cover the reasonable costs of inspecting and maintaining this list and other similar centralized lists. This bill would require the department to remove from the list a person who fails to comply with the requirements to be on the list and authorize the department to remove a person from the list who fails to remedy specified violations discovered as a result of the above-described inspections. The bill would subject a person removed from the list for failure to remedy specified violations to a fine and would authorize that person to be ineligible to be placed on the list for a period of 2 years. The bill would require the department to conduct a yearly inspection of the 10 firearm dealer locations with the highest percentage of firearms that were recovered by law enforcement and found to be illegally possessed, used in a crime, or suspected to have been used in a crime, as specified, pursuant to a certain yearly report. The bill would, for the fees charged for inspecting and maintaining the above-described lists, instead require the department to assess a reasonable annual fee. The bill would prohibit a fee adjustment from exceeding 15% over the previous year and exceeding the amount necessary to cover the costs described above.
Existing law, until January 1, 2031, authorizes a city or county prosecuting attorney or county probation department to create a diversion or deferred entry of judgment program for persons who commit a theft offense or repeat theft offenses. Existing law requires the prosecuting attorney in a participating county to either refer the case to the county probation department to conduct a prefiling investigation report and determine the appropriateness of program placement or, if the prosecuting attorney's office operates the program, determine if the case is appropriate for referral. Existing law requires the county probation department or prosecuting attorney's office to consider certain factors for referral, including, among others, whether the person has a violent or serious prior criminal record or has previously been referred to a diversion program and failed that program. This bill would require the prosecutor or county probation department, for certain theft offenses, including shoplifting and vandalism, to determine whether, based on certain criteria, specified defendants are eligible for a theft diversion program. The bill would require the prosecuting attorney to review their file for certain factors, including whether the offense charged involved a crime of violence or threatened violence and, if the defendant is eligible, would require the attorney to file a declaration or state for the record the grounds for the determination of the defendant's eligibility. The bill would require the court to dismiss the action against the defendant at the end of the period of diversion if the defendant has complied with the imposed terms and conditions of diversion. By increasing the duties on local officials, 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.
Under existing law, a person who willfully inflicts corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon specified persons, including, among others, the offender's spouse or former spouse, is guilty of a crime, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 2, 3, or 4 years, or in a county jail for not more than 1 year, or by a fine of up to $6,000. Existing law also provides conditions for probation for a violation of these provisions if the person has a previous conviction of certain assault and battery offenses, as specified. This bill would make this crime punishable by imprisonment in state prison for 2, 4, or 5 years, or by imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000 if a person is convicted for violating these provisions within 7 years of a previous felony conviction under these provisions. The bill would also, if a person has one prior felony conviction under these provisions, require that the defendant be imprisoned in a county jail for not less than 60 days as a condition of probation. By increasing the penalty for existing crimes, the 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.
Existing law prohibits the state from seeking or obtaining a criminal conviction or sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin, as specified. Existing law allows a defendant to establish a violation of these provisions under specified circumstances, including when a longer or more severe sentence was imposed on the defendant than was imposed on other similarly situated individuals convicted of the same offense and other specified conditions are met. This bill would instead compare the defendant to similarly situated individuals who have engaged in similar conduct, as specified. The bill would make these provisions apply to disparities in plea negotiating and diversion, among other things. Existing law authorizes a defendant in these cases to file a motion requesting disclosure to the defense of all evidence relevant to a potential violation of these provisions, as specified. This bill would additionally authorize a defendant to request any data that has been previously disclosed pursuant to those provisions in another criminal case, and require the court to grant that request, unless the data has no relevance to the current charges. The bill would also revise and recast definitions for these provisions.
Existing law, as added by the Victims' Bill of Rights, approved as Proposition 8 at the June 8, 1982, statewide primary election, and as amended by the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act of 1998, approved as Proposition 21 at the March 7, 2000, statewide primary election, among other things, defines a serious felony. Existing law prohibits plea bargaining in a case in which a serious felony is charged and imposes a 5-year enhancement for conviction of a serious felony if the person has previously been convicted of a serious felony. This bill would include knowingly furnishing fentanyl and fentanyl analogs to a minor within the definition of a serious felony. By expanding the scope of an enhancement, 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.
Existing law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to immediately revoke the driving privilege of a person upon receipt of a duly certified abstract of the record of a court showing that the person has been convicted of, among other things, certain types of manslaughter. Existing law prohibits the department from reinstating that driving privilege until 3 years after the date of revocation. This bill would additionally prohibit the department from reinstating the driving privilege of a person convicted of those specified crimes and sentenced to incarceration in the state prison or county jail until 3 years after the date of release.
Existing law, the Genetic Information Privacy Act, requires a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company, as defined, to provide a consumer with certain information regarding the company's policies and procedures for the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure, as applicable, of genetic data, and to obtain a consumer's express consent for collection, use, or disclosure of the consumer's genetic data, as specified. Existing law assesses a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000 for a negligent violation of these provisions, and a civil penalty between $1,000 and $10,000, inclusive, for a willful violation of these provisions. This bill would require all local law enforcement agencies in the state to report to the Attorney General starting July 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, the number of reports filed in the past year on the theft of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and the current status of those cases. The bill would require the Attorney General to, on or before January 1, 2028, report to the Legislature, and post on its internet website, the number of police reports filed on the theft of DNA and the current status of those cases. By increasing duties on local law enforcement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law prohibits the touching of an intimate part, as defined, of another person if the touching is against the will of the person touched and is for the specific purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse. Existing law makes a physician and surgeon, psychotherapist, or alcohol and drug abuse counselor who engages in specified sexual acts or sexual contact with a patient or client guilty of sexual exploitation and makes a violation of those provisions a crime, except as specified, punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony. This bill would make a member of the clergy, as defined, who engages in specified sexual acts or contact with a current or former patient, client, or member of the congregation, as specified, guilty of sexual exploitation by a member of the clergy. The bill would specify that consent is not a defense to a violation of that provision and would make the crime punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony. By creating a new crime, 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.
Existing law authorizes every person who is unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty to prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of that imprisonment or restraint. Existing law also authorizes a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on the basis that competent and substantial expert testimony relating to intimate partner battering and its effects was not presented to the trier of fact at the trial court proceedings and is of such substance that, had the competent and substantial expert testimony been presented, there is a reasonable probability, sufficient to undermine confidence in the judgment of conviction or sentence, that the result of the proceedings would have been different. This bill would additionally authorize a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on the basis that evidence or argument likely to trigger gender-based stereotypes was admitted or relied upon by the prosecution at trial in a manner that created a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different if such evidence was not admitted or argument offered. The bill would provide that evidence or argument likely to trigger gender-based stereotypes includes, but is not limited to, information concerning a defendant's sexual activity, sexual orientation, sexual partners, reproductive choices, gender presentation, clothing, or romantic relationships, when offered in a matter that may invoke gender-based stereotypes. 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 may result in the exclusion of evidence that would otherwise be admissible in a criminal proceeding, the bill would require a 23 vote of the Legislature.
Existing law generally authorizes a court to dismiss an action in the furtherance of justice. Existing law requires a court to dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so, except if dismissal of that enhancement is prohibited by any initiative statute. This bill would make the above-described requirement to dismiss an enhancement inapplicable to specified enhancements related to drug possession and trafficking, and would instead authorize the court to dismiss those specified enhancements if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so, except if dismissal of that enhancement is prohibited by any initiative statute.
