Existing law establishes the Domestic Violence Prevention Act for the purpose of preventing acts of domestic violence, abuse, and sexual abuse and providing for a separation of the persons involved in the domestic violence for a period sufficient to enable those persons to seek a resolution of the causes of the violence. Existing law authorizes a court to issue an ex parte protective order enjoining a party from, among other things, disturbing the peace of the other party. Existing law provides that disturbing the peace of the other party refers to conduct that includes coercive control, as defined, which includes unreasonably engaging in specified actions, including isolating the other party from friends, relatives, or other sources of support. Existing law makes an intentional and knowing violation of a protective order punishable as a misdemeanor. This bill would include forced marriage for purposes of the act. The bill would define "forced marriage" as a spousal relationship in which one or both parties do not or cannot consent and one or both parties are compelled, through force, fraud, coercion, duress, abuse of power, or coercive control, to enter, attempt to enter, or maintain, a marriage, regardless of whether the marriage is legally valid. If a protective order is sought to protect against a forced marriage, the bill would authorize all persons engaged in conduct to arrange, officiate, finance, or facilitate a forced marriage or attempted forced marriage to be included in one action as respondents. The bill would provide that coercive control, for purposes of the act, includes interfering with, threatening, or attempting to prevent a party or witness from participating in a court proceeding. The bill would provide that conduct undertaken to compel, attempt to compel, prepare for, or facilitate a forced marriage constitutes disturbing the peace of the other party, as specified. The bill would require the provisions of the act to be liberally construed. The bill would authorize a court to grant relief regardless of whether a marriage has occurred or whether a purported marriage would be legally valid in this state or any other jurisdiction. Because a violation of a protective order is punishable as a crime, by expanding the bases for the issuance of these orders, the bill would expand an existing crime, thereby imposing 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 the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to prescribe and amend rules and regulations for the administration of prisons and requires regulations, which are adopted by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, to recognize and consider the value of incarcerated person visitation as a means of increasing safety in prisons, maintaining family and community connections, and preparing incarcerated persons for successful release and rehabilitation. Existing regulations create the framework for establishing a visitation process in prisons that is conducted in as accommodating a manner as possible, subject to the need to maintain order, the safety of persons, the security of institutions and facilities, and required prison activities and operations. This bill, the Humanizing and Uniting Generations Safely Act of 2026, would additionally require those regulations pertaining to incarcerated person visits to recognize and consider the importance of physical contact in incarcerated person visitation. The bill would prohibit the department from unreasonably restricting the ability of incarcerated persons or their visitors to engage in certain types of nonsexual physical contact throughout the visit, as provided. The bill would prohibit the department from taking disciplinary action based on alleged inappropriate physical contact, without first providing a warning and a reasonable opportunity to immediately correct the conduct.
Existing law makes a person who deprives or violates the personal liberty of another with the intent to obtain forced labor or services, or to effect or maintain a violation of various felony or misdemeanor offenses, including offenses relating to prostitution, child pornography, as specified, or extortion, as defined, guilty of human trafficking. Existing law makes a person who causes, induces, or persuades, or attempts to cause, induce, or persuade, a person who is a minor at the time of commission of the offense to engage in a commercial sex act, with the intent to effect or maintain a violation of various felony or misdemeanor offenses, also guilty of human trafficking. Existing law establishes the requirements for a continuance to be granted in a criminal case, including a showing of good cause. Existing law defines "good cause" for this purpose to include, but not be limited to, cases involving specified crimes, including murder and domestic violence, and to apply when the prosecuting attorney assigned to the case has another trial, preliminary hearing, or motion to suppress in progress in that court or another court. This bill would, in a case involving human trafficking, require the court, in determining if good cause for a continuance exists, to give great weight to the fact that the prosecuting attorney assigned to the case has another trial, preliminary hearing, or motion to suppress in progress in that court or another court. The bill would authorize the court to grant only one continuance for a maximum of 10 additional court days for that reason. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1050 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 2052 to be operative only if this bill and AB 2052 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law authorizes a court to issue an ex parte restraining order to prevent abuse based on reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse. Existing law authorizes the order to be issued solely on the affidavit or testimony of the person requesting the ex parte restraining order. Existing law requires the ex parte order to be issued or denied on the same day the application is submitted to the court, except as specified. Existing law prohibits an ex parte restraining order from being denied solely because the other party was not provided with notice. This bill would instead prohibit a court from requiring that notice be provided to the party to be restrained in advance of accepting a filing for, or deciding, an application for an ex parte restraining order. The bill would also prohibit a court from requiring an explanation or declaration for not providing notice in advance of accepting a filing for, or deciding, an application for an ex parte restraining order. The bill would prohibit a court from adopting or maintaining any rule, form, or practice that is inconsistent with these provisions.
The State Bar Act establishes the State Bar of California (State Bar) as a public corporation and assigns to the State Bar various duties with respect to the licensing and regulations of attorneys in the state. The Supreme Court of California issued an administrative order on June 17, 2026, directing the State Bar to circulate for public comment a proposed rule of court that, if adopted, would establish a community justice worker program, as specified. This bill would require the State Bar, after it solicits public comment on the proposed rule, at the time it resubmits the proposal to the Supreme Court of California, to transmit to the Assembly and Senate Committees on Judiciary a report specifying any statutory changes the State Bar believes are necessary to implement the community justice worker program. The bill would repeal those provisions on January 1, 2031.
Existing law makes it a felony to knowingly procure or offer a false or forged instrument to be filed, registered, or recorded in a public office in this state, which, if genuine, might be filed, registered, or recorded under any law of this state or the United States. After a person is convicted of that crime or a specified waiver is obtained, and upon written motion of the prosecuting agency, existing law requires the court to issue a written order that the false or forged instrument be adjudged void ab initio. Existing law prescribes procedures for a prosecuting agency to file that motion. 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. This bill would authorize a defendant who is granted diversion to stipulate to the voiding of the false or forged instrument. The bill would authorize a court in those circumstances, upon a motion by the prosecution, to issue a written order that the false or forged instrument be adjudged void ab initio. The bill would, if the defendant withdraws from diversion or fails to complete the terms of diversion and criminal proceedings are reinstated, prohibit the stipulation from being used in connection with any civil or criminal proceeding without the defendant's consent. Because that prohibition would affect the admissibility of relevant evidence in criminal proceedings, the bill would require a 23 vote of the Legislature.
Existing law authorizes a judge of the juvenile court in which a petition was filed to dismiss the petition, or set aside the findings and dismiss the petition, if the court finds that the interests of justice and the welfare of the minor require that dismissal, or if the court finds that the minor is not in need of treatment or rehabilitation, regardless of whether the minor is, at the time of the order, a ward or dependent child of the court. This bill would clarify that an adjudication dismissed pursuant to that provision be deemed to have not occurred and prohibit a person from suffering any future adverse questions based on an adjudication dismissed pursuant to that provision. The bill would specify that a dismissal of a sustained petition pursuant to that provision is deemed to include both dismissal of a petition and a setting aside of any findings.
Existing law provides for the prosecution of crimes by the district attorney of each county. Existing law establishes procedures for litigating claims of factual innocence based on newly discovered evidence, including a motion for a new trial or a writ of habeas corpus. This bill would, if the district attorney accepts a case for postconviction review, as defined, authorize the district attorney to file a notice with the court notifying the court of the intent to investigate a claim of factual innocence. The bill would, upon the filing of the above-described notice, deem the case to be treated as if it were an open case for the purposes of investigating a claim of factual innocence. The bill would provide the district attorney with the power to issue subpoenas, compel the production of document and testimony, and file necessary motions to investigate claims, as specified. The bill would also require all materials obtained by the district attorney to be subject to a protective order, as specified, and to be disclosed to the petitioner or the petitioner's counsel within 60 days of the termination of the investigation.
California Assembly Resolution 86 proclaims the week of September 1 through 7, 2026, as Canine "K-9" Appreciation Week to honor police dogs and their handlers. The resolution cites the historical growth of canine units in California and highlights their contributions to law enforcement, such as apprehending suspects, detecting narcotics, and locating missing persons. It also notes that these teams often reduce the need for lethal force and engage with the public through community demonstrations.
(1) Existing law makes it unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage, has 0.08 or 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in their blood, as specified, is addicted to the use of any drug, is under the influence of any drug, or is under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug to drive a vehicle. Existing law prohibits a person from driving a vehicle under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug and concurrently do an act forbidden by law, or neglect a duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, which act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to a person other than the driver. Existing law, until January 1, 2033, requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to immediately suspend or revoke the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle upon the receipt of an abstract of the record of a court showing that the person has been convicted of driving a vehicle under the circumstances above as well as for engaging in a motor vehicle speed contest for specified periods of time, depending on the statute under which the driving violation was punished, and prohibits the reinstatement of the driving privilege until the person gives proof of financial responsibility and proof satisfactory to the department of successful completion of a driving-under-the-influence (DUI) program, as specified. Existing law requires the department to advise the person that they may apply for a restricted driver's license if the person meets certain requirements, including, among others, satisfactorily providing proof of enrollment in a certain DUI program and the installment of a functioning, certified ignition interlock device (IID) . Existing law allows, for certain violations, a person who has had their driver's license suspended to apply to the department for a restricted license, subject to certain requirements. For specified violations, existing law requires the department to issue a restricted driver's license if the person has met certain requirements, including proof satisfactory to the department of enrollment in, or completion of, a DUI program, proof of financial responsibility, and the payment of all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees, among other fees, required by the department. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would reorganize and recast the penalties and sanctions for the alcohol- and drug-related driving offenses described above. The bill would recast violations for driving under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or having 0.08 or 0.04 percent or more, by weight of alcohol in blood (collectively "alcohol-related driving violations") from violations for driving under the influence of any drug or driving while a person is addicted to the use of any drug (collectively "drug-related driving violations") . For convictions of alcohol-related driving violations, the bill would require the department to suspend the privilege to operate a motor vehicle and would allow the suspension to be indefinite. The bill would prohibit the reinstatement of that privilege until the person satisfies certain requirements, including, among others, the person applying for and maintaining a restricted driver's license for certain periods of time depending on the statute under which the driving violation is punished, which includes installing a certified IID on each vehicle operated by the person, providing proof satisfactory to the department of successful completion of a DUI program, as specified, paying all applicable reinstatement and reissue fees required by the department, and providing proof of financial responsibility. For convictions of drug-related driving violations described above, this bill would require the department to suspend the privilege to operate a motor vehicle for specified periods of time, depending on the statute under which the violation was punished. The bill would also prohibit the reinstatement of the privilege until the person satisfies certain requirements described above, but the bill would not require the person to install a certified IID or apply for and maintain a restricted driver's license for a specified period of time. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would authorize a person, whose privilege to operate a motor vehicle is suspended for alcohol-related driving violations, to apply for a restricted license if certain requirements are met, including, among others, installing a certified IID on each vehicle operated by the person, as specified, providing proof of financial responsibility for 3 years, providing satisfactorily proof of enrollment in, or completion of, a DUI program, as specified, and paying a fee that is sufficient to cover the costs of administration of these requirements. The bill would require the department to terminate the restricted driver's license and suspend the privilege to drive if the person fails to comply with the DUI program requirements. The bill would also authorize a person, whose driving privilege was suspended for a conviction of a drug-related driving violation, to apply for a restricted driver's license if similar certain requirements are met, except the person would not be required to install a certified IID but would be required to complete a minimum number of months of a suspension period, as specified. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would require the department to monitor the installation and maintenance of an IID that is installed pursuant to specified provisions. The bill would require the installer of the IID to notify the department if the device is removed or indicates that a person has attempted to remove, bypass, or tamper with the device, or the person fails 3 or more times to comply with these requirements. The bill would require the department to immediately suspend or revoke the privilege to operate a motor vehicle and any restricted driver's license if the person attempts to remove, bypass, or tamper with an IID, has the IID removed prior to the termination date of the restriction, or fails 3 or more times to comply with any requirement for the maintenance or calibration of the IID. The bill would require the department, and manufacturers, installers, and repairers of IIDs, to post information regarding filing complaints against manufacturers, installers, and repairers, as specified. (2) Existing law requires an order of suspension of a person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle for any of specified reasons, including the person was driving a motor vehicle when the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in their blood. Existing law requires the notice to be served on the person by a peace officer under specified conditions where test results show that the person has specified percentages of alcohol in the person's blood or where a person under 21 years of age refuses to take, or fails to complete, a specified test for alcohol in the blood. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would include a person driving a motor vehicle when a passenger for hire was a passenger in the vehicle and the person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in their blood as a reason to immediately suspend the privilege to operate a motor vehicle. The bill would authorize a person, whose driving privilege has been suspended pursuant to the provision above but not suspended or revoked based on the person's refusal to submit to, or failure to complete, a chemical test or tests, to apply for a restricted driver's license if certain requirements are met, including completing 30 days of the suspension period, providing proof of enrollment in a DUI program, installing a functioning, certified IID on any vehicle that they operate, being 21 years of age or older at the time of the offense, giving proof of financial responsibility, and paying all reissue and restriction fees. The bill would require the department to terminate the restricted driver's license and suspend the privilege to operate if the person has failed to comply with the DUI program requirements, or if the person attempts to remove, bypass, or tamper with the IID, removes the IID prior to the termination date of the restriction, or fails 3 or more times to comply with any requirement for the maintenance or calibration of the IID. (3) Existing law requires the department to suspend or revoke a person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle based on a peace officer's sworn statement or report, as specified. Existing law requires the department to review the record to determine whether the suspension or revocation is supported by the record, as specified. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would require the department to review these determinations and consider the sworn report and any other information and evidence, as specified. If, by a preponderance of the evidence, the department determines in the review of a determination certain facts are proven, including, among other facts, that the peace officer had reasonable cause to believe that the person had been driving a motor vehicle in violation of an alcohol- or drug-related driving provision, the bill would require the department to sustain the order of suspension or revocation. If the department determines that any of these certain facts are not proven by a preponderance of the evidence, the bill would require the department to rescind the order of suspension or revocation, as specified. (4) Existing law allows, for certain violations, a person who has had their driver's license suspended to apply to the department for a restricted license, subject to certain requirements as provided above. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would authorize a court to disallow the issuance of the restricted driver's license if the court determines that the person would present a traffic safety or public safety risk if the person were authorized to operate a motor vehicle during the period of suspension. This bill, beginning on January 1, 2031, would make conforming changes to include the provisions above, as applicable, in statutes that generally pertain to the suspension, revocation, or restriction of the privilege to operate a motor vehicle. (5) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
