Existing law requires any manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer, or other person in this state who sells, transfers, or otherwise furnishes any of a list of specified chemical substances, including gamma-butyrolactone (GBL) , to take specified actions, including to apply to and obtain a permit from the Department of Justice in order to sell, transfer, or otherwise furnish the substances specified above and to submit specified reports to the department, including if the entity obtains any of the substances specified above from a source outside of this state or if a permittee described above discovers the theft or loss of any of the substances specified above. Existing law makes failure to submit a report described above, and selling, transferring, or otherwise furnishing or obtaining any of the specified substances without a permit, a misdemeanor or a felony. This bill would exempt specified chemical mixtures that contain GBL that are obtained or received from a source within or outside this state or are obtained, received, sold, transferred, exported, or otherwise furnished to any person or entity in this state or any other state from the requirements described above. Existing law requires any manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer, or other person that sells to any person or entity in this state or any other state, any chemical reagent or solvent of a value greater than $100 to take specified actions, including to prepare and sign a bill of sale with specified information and to retain the bill of sale for a specified period of time. Existing law makes a violation of this requirement a misdemeanor. This bill would exempt specified chemical mixtures that contain GBL that are obtained or received from a source within or outside this state or are obtained, received, sold, transferred, exported, or otherwise furnished to any person or entity in this state or any other state from the requirements described above if the requirements would be imposed solely due to the presence of GBL in the mixtures. This bill would make related findings and declarations.
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 Existing law requires the department to remove a person from the list if the person's federal license has expired or been revoked.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 requires law enforcement and state and local governments to interact with and report on federal action against individuals based on their perceived or actual immigration status in various specified manners. Under existing law, for example, a local governing body of any county, city, or city and county in which a local law enforcement agency has provided access to an individual during the last year by the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is required to hold at least one community forum, as specified, to provide public information about ICE's access to individuals and to receive and consider public comment. This bill would establish within the Department of Justice on July 1, 2027, the Working Group on Civil Rights Accountability, consisting of 12 appointed members, to develop and maintain a statewide reporting dashboard with specific data fields to document and categorize alleged constitutional or civil rights violations arising from federal immigration enforcement activities within the state. The bill would require a nonprofit organization, if eligible as specified, to be authorized to submit reports to the dashboard. The bill would require the department to establish specific standards, protocols, and procedures for a nonprofit organization to submit reports to the dashboard, including establishing data verification procedures. The bill would require the working group, beginning January 1, 2028, and on each January 1 thereafter, to submit a report of specific information and policy recommendations to the Legislature and make that annual report publicly available. This bill would also exempt the reports required pursuant to the above-described provisions from the disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The bill would make legislative findings and declarations in support of its provisions. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
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.
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.
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, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, except as specified, makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer with 5 or more employees to include on any application for employment, before the employer makes a conditional offer of employment to the applicant, any question that seeks the disclosure of an applicant's conviction history, to consider the conviction history of the applicant until after the employer has made a conditional offer of employment to the applicant, or to distribute information about an arrest not followed by conviction, referral to or participation in a pretrial or posttrial diversion program, or convictions that have been sealed, dismissed, expunged, or statutorily eradicated or any conviction for which the convicted person has received a full pardon or has been issued a certificate of rehabilitation while conducting a conviction history background check in connection with an application for employment, as specified. This bill would define the term "conviction or arrest record," for these purposes. The bill would include among those things that it is unlawful for an employer with 5 or more employees to do while conducting a conviction history background check in connection with an application for employment, asking any question that directly or indirectly seeks consent for a conviction history background check or requesting consent for or beginning a conviction history background check before providing the applicant with a list of all essential job duties, requiring a job applicant to cover the cost of a conviction history background check, or requiring any time before or after the conditional job offer, that an applicant self-disclose conviction history or provide the employer with any documentary evidence related to conviction history or rehabilitation, as specified. Existing law requires an employer that intends to deny an applicant a position of employment solely or in part because of the applicant's conviction history to make an individualized assessment of whether the applicant's conviction history has a direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of the job that justify denying the applicant the position considering specified factors. This bill, instead, would prohibit an employer from denying an applicant a position of employment or taking any other adverse action solely or in part because of the applicant's conviction history unless the employer first, reasonably and in good faith, demonstrates via an individualized assessment, that the applicant's conviction history has a direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of the job that justifies denying the applicant the position and it complies with a specified process. The bill would require the employer to commit the results of the individualized assessment to writing if it makes a decision to deny a position of employment or takes any adverse action. The bill would specify that it is not an adverse action for an employer to temporarily suspend an employee, with pay and for a reasonable amount of time, while the employer complies with the requirements of these provisions. Existing law makes these provisions inapplicable to a position as a farm labor contractor, as specified or to a position where an employer or agent thereof is required by any state, federal, or local law to conduct criminal background checks for employment purposes or to restrict employment based on criminal history. This bill would remove the exemption for farm labor contractors.
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, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, provides that all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to full and equal accommodations in all business establishments regardless of their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status. This bill would add criminal history, as defined, to the list of protected characteristics under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, declares the public policy of the state to be that it is necessary to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination or abridgment on account of race, religious creed, or color, among other characteristics. The act declares discrimination in housing accommodations because of race, color, or religion, among other characteristics, to be against public policy. In that regard, the act prohibits various forms of employment and housing discrimination, including various types of discrimination because of a person's race, color, or national origin, among other characteristics. This bill would add criminal history, as defined, to the list of protected characteristics under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
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.
