Under existing law, a court is authorized to suspend the driving privilege of a licensed driver convicted of a violation relating to the speed of vehicles or reckless driving for a period not to exceed 30 days for a first conviction, for a period not to exceed 60 days upon a 2nd conviction, and for a period not to exceed 6 months upon a 3rd or any subsequent conviction. This bill would, commencing on January 1, 2028, authorize a court, for a conviction of reckless driving, to suspend the driving privilege for a period not to exceed 60 days, and for a period of not less than 30 days and not to exceed 6 months when the offense occurred within 10 years of a separate reckless driving violation. The bill would require a court to suspend the driving privilege for a period of not less than 90 days and not to exceed one year if the offense occurred within 10 years of 2 or more separate reckless driving violations. Existing law authorizes a peace officer to arrest a person and seize the motor vehicle of the person if a peace officer determines that the person was engaged in a motor vehicle speed contest, reckless driving, or an exhibition of speed on a highway or in an offstreet parking facility. Existing law allows a vehicle seized under this provision to be impounded for up to 30 days. Existing law requires an impounding agency to release a motor vehicle to the registered owner or their agent prior to the conclusion of the impoundment period if, among other reasons, the person alleged to have been engaged in the motor vehicle speed contest was not authorized by the registered owner to operate the motor vehicle at the time of the commission of the offense, or if the registered owner was neither the driver nor a passenger of the motor vehicle or was unaware that the driver was using the motor vehicle to engage in the prohibited activities. If an impounding agency releases a motor vehicle to the registered owner or agent prior to the conclusion of the impoundment period, this bill would require the registered owner to provide evidence that the driver did not have authorization from the registered owner to operate the motor vehicle, as specified, or require the registered owner to submit a written, signed statement attesting that the registered owner was unaware that the driver was using the vehicle to engage in reckless driving. The bill would allow a registered owner or their agent to obtain their vehicle prior to the conclusion of the impoundment period based on the reason that the registered owner was not the driver or passenger of the motor vehicle or was unaware that the driver was engaging in reckless driving 3 times. The bill would prohibit a registered owner from using this reason to obtain the motor vehicle prior to the conclusion of the impoundment period for a 4th or any subsequent arrest that involves the same driver and vehicle. Existing law requires an impounding agency to release an impounded vehicle before the conclusion of the impound period if the charges against the driver are dismissed. This bill would prohibit the registered owner or driver of the vehicle from being charged any towing or storage fees if the vehicle is released for this reason.
Existing law makes it a crime to operate a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and sets forth the penalties for a violation of these provisions. Under existing law, if a person is convicted of a driving under the influence violation and the offense occurs within 10 years of one or more separate driving under the influence violations that resulted in convictions, the offense is subject to escalating fines, suspensions, and other sanctions. This bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles, upon an appropriation from the Legislature, to provide, as appropriate, a summary of the penalties for specified violations involving alcohol or drugs on specified vehicle registration materials and with each driver's license, and license renewal, as specified. The bill would require the department's summary to include, among other things, the financial consequences of driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol or drugs, and annual updates to DUI-related statutes.
Existing law generally provides for the regulation of law enforcement agencies. Existing law establishes the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) and charges it with, among other duties, developing and disseminating guidelines and training for all peace officers in this state. Existing law requires POST to develop and implement a course of instruction for the training of law enforcement officers on the handling of human trafficking complaints, as specified. This bill would require each law enforcement agency, as defined, to designate at least one human trafficking victim support coordinator by January 1, 2028. The bill would require the coordinator to take the above-described course of instruction no later than 6 months after designation, except as specified, and, upon completion of the course, serve as a liaison between the law enforcement agency, trusted community-based organizations, and victims. The bill would require each law enforcement agency to, by July 1, 2028, display specified information on their internet website, including specified contact information of any human trafficking victim support coordinators. By imposing new requirements on local law enforcement agencies, 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, 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 requires the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to evaluate a person who is newly committed to a state prison and classify incarcerated persons based on the evaluations, and, when reasonable, assign or reassign an incarcerated person to the institution of the appropriate security level and gender population nearest the incarcerated person's home, unless other classification factors make that placement unreasonable. This bill would require the department to contract with an independent research entity to conduct a study to reassess the entire security classification system, as specified. The bill would require the study to contain policy recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of the classification system, as specified. The bill would require the selected research entity to perform the study according to specified criteria, including, among others, that the entity is governed by the University of California Board of Regents and has demonstrated expertise on Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation policy and data. The bill would require the report to be published on or before January 1, 2030, and would repeal the provisions as of January 1, 2031.
Existing law that governs the labor relations of public employees and employers, including, among others, the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, the Ralph C. Dills Act, provisions relating to public schools, and provisions relating to higher education prohibits employers from taking certain actions relating to employee organization, including imposing or threatening to impose reprisals on employees, discriminating or threatening to discriminate against employees, or otherwise interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees because of their exercise of their guaranteed rights. Those provisions of existing law further prohibit denying to employee organizations the rights guaranteed to them by existing law. This bill would prohibit a public employer from questioning a public employee, a representative of a recognized employee organization, or an exclusive representative regarding communications made in confidence between an employee and an employee representative in connection with representation relating to any matter within the scope of the recognized employee organization's representation. The bill would also prohibit a public employer from compelling a public employee, a representative of a recognized employee organization, or an exclusive representative to disclose those confidential communications to a third party. The bill would not apply to a criminal investigation or when a public safety officer is under investigation and certain circumstances exist.
Existing law authorizes a judge in a case where a misdemeanor is being prosecuted, over the objection of the prosecuting attorney, to offer diversion to the defendant. Existing law prohibits this type of diversion when, among other things, the current charged offense is willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following or willfully and maliciously harassing another person while making a credible threat toward that person, as specified. Existing law requires the clerk of a court, in which a person was convicted of a violation of the Vehicle Code or other specified provisions, to prepare within 5 days after conviction and immediately forward to the Department of Motor Vehicles an abstract of the record of the court covering the case in which the person was convicted. This bill would require the court, if the court grants diversion to a defendant who, if they had been convicted, would have had an abstract of record forwarded to the department pursuant to the above provisions, to instead direct that the prosecuting attorney ensure notice of the arrest or incident is provided to the department, as specified. 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.
Existing law requires a contract entered into by any state agency for the procurement or laundering of apparel, garments, or corresponding accessories, or the procurement of equipment, materials, or supplies, other than procurement related to a public works contract, to require that a contractor certify that nothing furnished to the state pursuant to the contract has been laundered or produced by certain types of labor, including forced labor, as defined. Existing law makes any person who falsely certifies pursuant to these provisions guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill would, for a contract entered into or renewed on or after January 1, 2027, with an estimated value that exceeds $550,000, revise the above contracting requirements to also require a contractor to certify that the contract complies with specified requirements relating to human trafficking, including certain prohibitions on contractors, contractor employees, subcontractors, subcontractor employees, and their agents. The bill would revise the definition of forced labor to mean knowingly providing or obtaining labor or services of a person by, among other things, threats of serious harm to, or physical restraint against, that person or another person. This bill would require contractors and subcontractors to notify employees of specified prohibited activities and the actions that may be taken against them for violations. The bill would provide that a contractor is ineligible for, and shall not bid on, or submit a proposal for, a contract under these provisions if the contractor has failed to certify its compliance. The bill would also require a contractor to exercise due diligence in ensuring that its subcontractors comply with those requirements, including requiring each subcontractor to sign a certification. By expanding the scope of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would, for a contract that has an estimated value that exceeds $550,000, require, before a contract or subcontract is awarded, a proposed contractor or proposed subcontractor to provide a certification to the contracting officer or contractor, as applicable, that states the contractor or subcontractor has implemented a compliance plan, as specified, and has conducted due diligence that either (1) to the best of the contractor's or subcontractor's knowledge and belief, certain parties have not engaged in any specified prohibited activities or (2) if the contractor or subcontractor is aware of abuses relating to the specified prohibited activities, then certain parties have taken the appropriate remedial and referral actions. This bill would require a contractor or subcontractor to take specified actions to ensure compliance with the above-described provisions, including requiring the contractor or subcontractor to disclose to the contracting officer and the state agency with oversight information sufficient to identify the nature and extent of a violation of a prohibited activity. The bill would specify certain actions a contractor would be required to take if a contractor, contractor employee, subcontractor, subcontractor employee, or agent violates these provisions or specified provisions, including, among others, notifying its employees of the actions that will be taken against the employee or agent for violations. Existing law authorizes certain sanctions to be imposed if a contractor knew or should have known that the apparel, garments, corresponding accessories, equipment, materials, or supplies furnished to the state were laundered or produced in violation of specified conditions, including, among others, voiding the contract under which the prohibited apparel, garments, or corresponding accessories, equipment, materials, or supplies were laundered or provided at the option of the state agency and removing the contractor from the bidder's list for a period not to exceed 360 days. This bill would, for a contract entered into or renewed on or after January 1, 2027, with an estimated value that exceeds $550,000, authorize additional sanctions, including, among others, requiring a contractor to remove a contractor employee from the performance of the contract, requiring the contractor to terminate a subcontractor, and suspending contract payments until the contractor has taken appropriate remedial action. The bill would also specify that these requirements govern contracts and subcontracts entered into by a state agency, regardless of place of performance. Existing law authorizes a contractor to request a hearing before an administrative law judge when sanctions are imposed. Existing law requires the administrative law judge to consider any measures the contractor has taken to ensure compliance with the above-described provisions and authorizes the administrative law judge to waive any or all sanctions if it is determined that the contractor has acted in good faith. This bill would, for a contract entered into or renewed on or after January 1, 2027, with an estimated value that exceeds $550,000, authorize the administrative law judge to additionally consider mitigating factors and aggravating factors, as specified. Existing law authorizes a state agency that investigates a complaint against a contractor for violation of the above-described provisions to limit its investigation to evaluating the information provided by the person or entity submitting the complaint and information provided by the contractor. This bill would, for a contract entered into or renewed on or after January 1, 2027, with an estimated value that exceeds $550,000, authorize the state agency to limit its investigation to credible information. The bill would require the contracting officer, upon receipt of credible information regarding a violation of specified provisions, to promptly notify the state agency with oversight, the agency debarring and suspending official, and law enforcement officials with jurisdiction over the alleged offense, as specified. The bill would authorize the contracting officer to direct the contractor to take specific steps to abate the alleged violation or enforcement of the requirements of its compliance plan. 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, 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 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.
