Existing law, the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act, requires the State Department of Developmental Services to contract with regional centers for the provision of services and supports for persons with developmental disabilities and their families. Existing law, until July 1, 2026, creates the Advisory Council on Improving Interactions between People with Intellectual and Development Disabilities and Law Enforcement, under the Department of Justice, to, among other things, evaluate existing training for peace officers specific to interactions between law enforcement and individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Existing law requires the council to submit a report including recommendations to the Legislature for improving outcomes of interactions with both individuals who have an intellectual or developmental disability and mental health conditions, as specified. This bill would require the State Department of Developmental Services to conduct a statewide evaluation of safety training services provided by regional centers, as specified. The bill would require the department, by July 1, 2028, to submit a report to the Legislature summarizing its findings and recommendations and would require the recommendations to address specified topics, including, among others, recommendations for establishing standardized, statewide protocols for responding to crises involving individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature to consider, upon receipt and consideration of that report, providing funding to the department for the purpose of developing, implementing, and sustaining safety training services statewide.
Existing law requires a person arrested to be taken before a magistrate without delay and, in any event, within 48 hours after arrest, not including weekends and holidays, as specified. Existing law allows an attorney to visit a prisoner after their arrest, as specified. Under existing law, an officer in charge of the prisoner who willfully refuses or neglects to allow an attorney to visit that prisoner is liable for criminal and civil penalties, as provided. This bill would clarify that the above provisions regarding criminal and civil penalties for officers apply if a prisoner is in a jail, prison, or medical setting. The bill would make other technical changes, as provided.
Existing law authorizes a county to use a children's advocacy center to implement a coordinated multidisciplinary response to investigate reports involving child physical or sexual abuse, exploitation, or maltreatment. Existing law requires a county that utilizes a child advocacy center to meet specified standards, including, among other things, that the children's advocacy center must verify that interviews conducted in the course of investigations are conducted in a forensically sound manner and occur in a child-focused setting designed to provide a safe, comfortable, and dedicated place for children and families. Existing law requires the children's advocacy center or other identified multidisciplinary team member custodian to ensure that all recordings of child forensic interviews be released only in response to a court order, or, upon request, to law enforcement agencies authorized to investigate child abuse or agencies authorized to prosecute juvenile or criminal conduct described in the forensic interview, or to county counsel evaluating an allegation of child abuse. Existing law requires files, reports, records, communications, and working papers used or developed in providing services through a children's advocacy center to be confidential and not public records. Existing law authorizes the members of a multidisciplinary team associated with a children's advocacy center to share with other multidisciplinary team members any information or records concerning the child and family and the person who is the subject of the investigation of suspected child abuse or neglect for the sole purpose of facilitating a forensic interview, case discussion, or providing services to the child or family, as specified. This bill would additionally authorize the members of a multidisciplinary team associated with a children's advocacy center to share with child welfare agencies authorized to investigate child abuse and neglect any information or records, as specified, for the purposes mentioned above.
Existing law requires that the terms of probation granted to a person who has been convicted of domestic violence include, among other things, successful completion of a batterer's program or, if a batterer's program is not available, another appropriate counseling program, as specified. Existing law requires the probation department to design and implement an approval and renewal process for batterer's programs and prescribes the requirements of a batterer's program. Existing law, until July 1, 2026, authorizes the Counties of Napa, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Yolo to offer an alternative program for individuals convicted of domestic violence if the program meets specified conditions. This bill would additionally authorize the County of Sacramento to offer an alternative program for individuals convicted of domestic violence. The bill would extend the repeal date of these provisions to July 1, 2030. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law authorizes a court to grant pretrial diversion to a defendant suffering from a mental disorder, on an accusatory pleading alleging the commission of a misdemeanor or felony offense, in order to allow the defendant to undergo mental health treatment. Existing law provides that a defendant is eligible for diversion if they have been diagnosed with certain mental disorders and the court finds that the mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense, unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the disorder was not a motivating, causal, or contributing factor to the defendant's involvement in the alleged offense. Existing law prohibits defendants charged with specified offenses, including murder, from being placed in this diversion program. This bill would require that the diagnosis or rediagnosis with a mental disorder be within 5 years before the alleged offense. Existing law makes a defendant suitable for this diversion program if, among other criteria, a qualified mental health expert opines that the defendant's symptoms of the mental disorder that caused, contributed to, or motivated the criminal behavior, would respond to mental health treatment and the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community, as specified. The bill would revise that standard and instead require the court to find that the defendant will not pose a substantial and undue risk to the physical safety of another person if treated in the community. The bill would require the mental health expert's opinion to include that the proposed mental health diversion plan is clinically appropriate to address the symptoms of the defendant's mental disorder, as specified. The bill would require the court to state the reasons for denial on the record.
Existing law, the Sex Offender Registration Act, requires a person convicted of one of certain crimes, as specified, to register with law enforcement as a sex offender while residing in California or while attending school or working in California, as specified. Existing law, on and after July 1, 2021, authorizes a person to file a petition in the superior court in the county in which they are registered for termination from the sex offender registry on or after their next birthday following the expiration of the mandated minimum registration period. If the district attorney requests a hearing regarding the above-described petition, under existing law, the district attorney is entitled to present evidence regarding whether community safety would be significantly enhanced by requiring continued registration. Existing law requires the court, in determining whether to order continued registration pursuant to the hearing, to consider specified information, including the person's current risk of reoffense as indicated on the State-Authorized Risk Assessment Tool for Sex Offenders (SARATSO) , as specified. This bill would authorize the court to order the petitioner to be present at the hearing described above, as specified. The bill would require the hearing to be heard in the county in which the person is registered. The bill would additionally require the court to consider whether the offender was in a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim and proof of participation in or successful completion of sex offender-specific treatment by the offender in the above-described determination. The bill would require the court to verify, as specified, participation in or completion of treatment. The bill would make other clarifying changes.
Existing law establishes various privacy protections relating to the collection, use, sale, or distribution of personal information, images, or video recordings, including restrictions relating to the retention, access, use, sale, or sharing of images or video recordings collected through the operation of an in-vehicle camera. This bill would prohibit a security surveillance company, as defined, from distributing, selling, or otherwise authorizing a third party to access, use, or distribute content obtained from a consumer's security surveillance system without first obtaining the express consent of the consumer and the adult residents of a residential rental property or upon receipt of an order of a court or arbitrator.
This bill designates the week of April 19 to April 25, 2026, as Crime Victims' Rights Week. The primary purpose is to formally recognize and highlight the rights and needs of individuals who have been affected by crime. It does not create new laws or alter existing legal procedures but serves as a commemorative resolution to raise awareness during a specific time period.
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 prohibits a public agency, which includes the state, a city, a county, a city and county, or any agency or political subdivision of the state, a city, a county, or a city and county, including, but not limited to, a law enforcement agency, from selling, sharing, or transferring automated license plate recognition (ALPR) information, except to another public agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law. Existing law defines ALPR information as information or data collected through the use of an ALPR system. This bill would provide that "public agency" does not include a transportation agency, a public transit operator, or a local department of transportation or public works department, as specified. The bill would, beginning January 1, 2026, require new, updated, expansions of, or addendums of contractual agreements with ALPR vendors, manufacturers, or suppliers to mandate that no default access is provided to any national ALPR database and that an agency's collected scans are by default not accessible to any other agency, and would impose new requirements on sharing between California state law enforcement agencies. The bill would authorize a law enforcement agency to use ALPR information only for purposes of locating vehicles or persons when either are reasonably suspected of being involved in the commission of a public offense. The bill would prohibit a public agency from retaining ALPR information for more than 60 days after the date of collection if it does not match information on an authorized hot list, as defined, and as of January 1, 2026, would require a public agency to delete all ALPR information that has been held for more than 60 days and does not match information on an authorized hot list within 14 days. By imposing new requirements on public agencies, which include local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law defines an ALPR operator as a person that operates an ALPR system, which does not include a transportation agency. Existing law defines an ALPR end-user a person that accesses or uses an ALPR system, which does not include, among other things, a transportation agency. This bill would additionally exclude from the definitions of "ALPR operator" and "ALPR end-user" a public transit operator, a local department of transportation or public works department, or an airport or airport operator, as provided. Existing law requires an ALPR operator and ALPR end-user to maintain reasonable security procedures and practices, including operational, administrative, technical, and physical safeguards, to protect ALPR information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure. This bill would require those security procedures and practices to include safeguards for managing which employees can see the data from their systems, as specified, and requiring data security training and data privacy training for all employees that access ALPR information. Existing law requires an ALPR operator and ALPR end-user to implement a usage and privacy policy that includes, among other things, a description of the job title or other designation of the employees and independent contractors who are authorized to access and use ALPR information. This bill would require the usage and privacy policy to identify what purpose employees and independent contractors access and use ALPR information for. The bill would also require the Department of Justice to, contingent upon an appropriation of sufficient funds, conduct annual random audits on a public agency that is an ALPR operator or ALPR end-user to determine whether they have implemented and are adhering to that usage and privacy policy. Existing law requires an ALPR operator that accesses or provides access to ALPR information to require that ALPR information only be used for the authorized purposes described in the usage and privacy policy and to maintain a record of that access that includes, among other things, the purpose for accessing the information. This bill would instead require that record of access maintained by the ALPR operator to include the case file number or task force name, as applicable, that justifies the search query, and would provide that no queries shall be allowed without a log entry with a valid and current case file number or task force name from the agency conducting the query. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. 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.
