Existing law, the Pharmacy Law, provides for the licensure and regulation of pharmacists and pharmacies by the California State Board of Pharmacy. Existing law, until January 1, 2026, authorizes a physician or pharmacist to, without a prescription or permit, furnish hypodermic needles and syringes for human use to a person 18 years of age or older, and authorizes a person 18 years of age or older to, without a prescription or license, obtain hypodermic needles and syringes solely for personal use from a physician or pharmacist, as a public health measure, as specified. Existing law, until January 1, 2026, requires a pharmacy that furnishes nonprescription syringes to provide written information or verbal counseling to consumers, as specified, at the time of furnishing or sale of nonprescription hypodermic needles or syringes. Existing law, when no other penalty is provided, makes a knowing violation of the Pharmacy Law a misdemeanor and, in all other instances, makes a violation punishable as an infraction. This bill would delete the January 1, 2026, repeal date, thereby extending those provisions indefinitely, and would make other conforming changes. By indefinitely extending an existing requirement under the Pharmacy Law, the violation of which is a crime, 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 revives certain claims seeking to recover damages suffered as a result of a sexual assault that occurred on or after the plaintiff's 18th birthday when one or more entities are legally responsible for damages and the entity or their agents engaged in a cover up, as defined, that would otherwise be barred prior to January 1, 2023, solely because the applicable statute of limitations has or had expired. Existing law authorizes a cause of action for any such claim to proceed if already pending in court on January 1, 2023, or, if not filed by that date, to be commenced between January 1, 2023, and December 31, 2023. Existing law revives such claims brought by a plaintiff who alleges all of the following: (1) the plaintiff was sexually assaulted, (2) one or more entities are legally responsible for damages arising out of the assault, and (3) the entity or entities engaged in a cover up or attempted cover up, as defined, of a previous instance or allegations of sexual assault. This bill would extend the eligibility period for revival of claims of the type described above to include claims that would otherwise be barred prior to January 1, 2026, because the applicable statute of limitations has or had expired. The bill would instead require a revived claim against an entity, as defined, to allege that the plaintiff was sexually assaulted and that (1) one or more entities or persons are legally responsible for damages arising out of sexual assault by an alleged perpetrator against the plaintiff, and (2) an entity or entities, including their specified representatives, engaged in a cover up or attempted a cover up of a previous instance or allegations of sexual assault by an alleged perpetrator. The bill would additionally revive a claim against the person who committed the sexual assault brought by a plaintiff who alleges, among other things, that one or more entities or persons are legally responsible for damages arising out of the sexual assault. The bill would specify that failure to allege a cover up as to one entity does not affect revival of a claim or claims against any other entity or person, including the perpetrator. The bill would permit a cause of action for any such claim to proceed if already pending in court on the effective date of the bill or, if not filed by that date, to be commenced between January 1, 2026, and December 31, 2027. The bill would exempt public entities from these provisions and would provide that public entities are not required to indemnify perpetrators of sexual assault, as specified. The bill would make conforming changes.
Existing law prohibits the state from seeking, obtaining, or imposing a criminal conviction or sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. Under existing law, a defendant may pursue relief for a violation of this prohibition by filing a motion pursuant to the provisions that prohibit this conduct, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, or a motion to vacate a conviction or sentence. This bill would authorize the defendant in these proceedings to file a motion for disclosure of all relevant evidence related to a potential violation of the prohibition on the state seeking, obtaining, or imposing a criminal conviction or sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin, as specified. The bill would also authorize the court to remedy a violation of these provisions with any other remedy not prohibited by another law. The bill would make other technical changes. This bill makes legislative findings and declarations in support of its provisions. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 745, 1473, and 1473.7 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 734 to be operative only if this bill and SB 734 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law requires the court, prior to the acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, to advise the defendant that if they are not a citizen, conviction of the crime charged may result in deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization. After January 1, 1978, if the court fails to advise the defendant, as required, and the defendant shows that conviction of the offense to which the defendant pleaded guilty or nolo contendere may have the consequences for the defendant of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States, the court, on the defendant's motion, is required to vacate the judgment and permit the defendant to withdraw the plea of guilty or nolo contendere, and enter a plea of not guilty. This bill would require the court to give the above-described advisement verbatim and would clarify the advisement to state that if the defendant is not a citizen of the United States, conviction may result in the specified immigration consequences. The bill would state that for a plea accepted prior to January 1, 2026, it is not the intent of the Legislature that a court's failure to provide the advisement verbatim requires vacation of judgment and withdrawal of the plea or constitutes grounds for finding a prior conviction invalid, as specified.
Existing law makes a person who, with the intent to cause cruel or extreme pain and suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or for any sadistic purpose, inflicts great bodily injury upon the person of another guilty of torture, and makes the crime punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of life. Existing law specifies that an inmate imprisoned under a life sentence shall not be paroled until they have served a term of at least 7 years or as established pursuant to a law that establishes a minimum term. This bill would prohibit a person imprisoned for committing the crime of torture from being eligible for parole until they have served at least 10 years, if the defendant is an adult who had care or custody of the victim and the victim was 14 years of age or younger at the time of the crime. By creating a new sentencing enhancement, 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 Public Records Act, generally requires public records to be open for inspection by the public. Existing law provides numerous exceptions to this requirement. Under existing law, the personnel records of peace officers and custodial officers are confidential and not subject to public inspection. Existing law provides certain exemptions to this confidentiality, including the reports, investigations, and findings of certain incidents involving the use of force by a peace officer. Existing law authorizes an agency to redact the records disclosed for specified purposes including, among others, to remove personal data or information, as specified, and where there is a specific, articulable, and particularized reason to believe that disclosure of the record would pose a significant danger to the physical safety of the peace officer, custodial officer, or another person. This bill would require a court in an action to compel disclosure pursuant to specified provisions, in determining whether there is a specific, articulable, and particularized reason to believe that disclosure of the record would pose a significant danger to the physical safety of a person, to consider whether a particular peace officer is currently operating undercover and their duties demand anonymity. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 832.7 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 847 and AB 1388, to be operative only if this bill and AB 847 or AB 1388 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law makes it a crime for a person to manufacture or cause to be manufactured specified firearms. Existing law prohibits a person, other than a state-licensed firearms manufacturer, from using a computer numerical control (CNC) milling machine or three-dimensional printer to manufacture a firearm. This bill would prohibit a person from knowingly or willfully causing another person to engage in the unlawful manufacture of firearms or knowingly or willfully aiding, abetting, prompting, or facilitating the unlawful manufacture of firearms, including the manufacture of assault weapons or .50 BMG rifles or the manufacture of any firearm using a three-dimensional printer or CNC milling machine, as specified. The bill would make a violation of these provisions a misdemeanor. By creating a new crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. Existing law authorizes a civil action against a person who knowingly distributes or causes to be distributed any digital firearm manufacturing code to any person, except as specified. For these purposes, existing law defines "digital firearm manufacturing code" to mean any digital instructions in the form of computer-aided design files or other code or instructions that may be used to program a CNC milling machine, a three-dimensional printer, or a similar machine to manufacture or produce a firearm, including a completed frame or receiver or a firearm precursor part. Existing law authorizes the Attorney General, county counsel, or city attorney to bring an action against this person and seek a civil penalty, as specified, for each violation, as well as injunctive relief. This bill would include computer-aided manufacturing files as a digital instruction and include the manufacture or production of a machinegun and specified firearm components, including large-capacity magazines, as part of the definition of digital firearm manufacturing code. The bill would also authorize a person who has suffered harm in California as a result of a violation of these provisions to seek compensatory damages and injunctive relief. The bill would create a rebuttable presumption that a person violated the provision of unlawfully distributing or causing to be distributed any digital firearm manufacturing code if the person owns or participates in the management of an internet website that makes digital firearm manufacturing code available for purchase, download, or other distribution to individuals, and the internet website, under the totality of the circumstances, encourages individuals to upload, disseminate, or use digital firearm manufacturing code to manufacture firearms, as specified. Existing law establishes a firearm industry standard of conduct, which requires a firearm industry member, as defined, to establish, implement, and enforce reasonable controls, as defined, and to take reasonable precautions to ensure that the member does not sell, distribute, or provide a firearm-related product, as defined, to a downstream distributor or retailer of firearm-related products who fails to establish, implement, and enforce reasonable controls. For these purposes, existing law defines firearm accessory and firearm manufacturing machine. This bill would require, prior to completing the sale or delivery in California or to a California resident of a firearm barrel that is unattached to a firearm, firearm accessory, or a firearm manufacturing machine, a firearm industry member to comply with specified requirements, including providing a prospective purchaser with clear and conspicuous notice that specified conduct is generally a crime in California, including manufacturing firearms to be sold or transferred to an individual without a license to manufacture firearms. Existing law, subject to exceptions, provides that any person who has been convicted of certain misdemeanors may not, within 10 years of the conviction, own, purchase, receive, possess, or have under their custody or control any firearm and makes a violation of that prohibition a crime. This bill would also prohibit any person convicted of specified misdemeanor violations, including manufacturing an undetectable firearm or knowingly or willfully causing another person to engage in the unlawful manufacture of firearms, on or after January 1, 2026, from owning, purchasing, or receiving any firearm within 10 years of the conviction, and makes a violation of that prohibition a public offense punishable by imprisonment in a county jail, a fine, or by both the fine and imprisonment. Because this bill would expand the application of a crime to a larger class of potential offenders, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would make these provisions severable. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 3273.50 of the Civil Code proposed by AB 1127 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1127 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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 a court to issue a gun violence restraining order to prohibit a person from purchasing or possessing a firearm or ammunition for a period of one to 5 years, subject to renewal for additional one- to 5-year periods, if the subject of the petition poses a significant danger of self-harm or harm to another in the near future by having a firearm and the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to the subject of the petition or another. Existing law also allows a gun violence restraining order to be issued on an ex parte basis for up to 21 days. Existing law allows a petition for these gun violence restraining orders to be made by a law enforcement officer, or an immediate family member, employer, coworker, or teacher, as specified, of the subject of the petition. This bill would authorize the Counties of Alameda, El Dorado, Santa Clara, and Ventura to establish, until January 1, 2032, a pilot program to additionally authorize a district attorney to request that the court issue a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order, as specified. The bill would require the district attorney of a county that establishes a pilot program, commencing April 1, 2027, to annually submit specified data to the California Firearm Violence Research Center at UC Davis, and would authorize the center, commencing July 1, 2027, to conduct an evaluation of the pilot program and annually report that evaluation to the Legislature, as specified. The bill would require the district attorney of a county that establishes a pilot program, commencing April 1, 2027, to make the data described above available upon request to the Department of Justice and the Judicial Council. The bill would make related findings and declarations.
Existing law generally provides for the regulation of law enforcement agencies, including, among other things, requiring each local law enforcement agency to conspicuously post on their internet websites all current standards, policies, practices, operating procedures, and education and training materials that would otherwise be available to the public under specified circumstances. This bill would require each law enforcement agency to maintain a policy to require an official report prepared by a law enforcement officer or any member of a law enforcement agency that is generated using artificial intelligence either fully or partially to include specified information, including a disclosure statement and the signature of the law enforcement officer or member of a law enforcement agency who prepared the official report, as specified. If an officer or any member of an agency uses artificial intelligence to create an official report, the bill would require the first draft created to be retained for as long as the official report is retained. The bill would, except for the official report, prohibit a draft of any report created with the use of artificial intelligence from constituting an officer's statement. The bill would require an agency utilizing artificial intelligence to generate a first draft or official report to maintain an audit trail that identifies, at a minimum, certain things, including the person who used artificial intelligence to create a report. The bill would prohibit a contracted vendor from sharing, selling, or otherwise using information provided by a law enforcement agency to be processed by artificial intelligence, except as provided. The bill would define terms for purposes of these provisions. By requiring local law enforcement agencies to adopt a new policy, 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.
(1) Existing law requires a natural person who, for specific compensation, makes more than 10 services of process within the state in one calendar year, or a corporation or partnership that derives compensation from service of process within the state, to file and maintain a verified certificate of registration as a process server with the county clerk of the county in which the person, corporation, or partnership resides or has its principal place of business, except as specified. Existing law requires each county clerk to maintain a register of process servers and assign a number and issue an identification card to each process server. This bill would, beginning January 1, 2027, require that the register of process servers maintained by a county clerk be publicly available. By imposing a new duty on county clerks, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law provides that a service of a summons in a civil action that complies with specified procedures is not invalid or ineffective solely because it was made by a person in violation of the requirements pertaining to registered process servers. Existing law provides that if a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served, the summons may be served by leaving a copy at the person's dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address, in the presence of a person who is at least 18 years of age, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint as specified. Existing law also authorizes a summons in an action for unlawful detainer to be served by posting if the court is satisfied that the party to be served cannot with reasonable diligence be served in any authorized manner other than publication, and that other specified conditions are met. Existing law requires the proof of service of a summons to contain specified information and documentation. This bill would define "reasonable diligence," for purposes of service of process in specified civil cases, to mean attempting personal delivery of the summons and complaint, in good faith, on at least three occasions on three different days at three different times. The bill would require the proof of service of a summons and complaint, if served personally, by substituted service, or by posting, if the summons is for an action for unlawful detainer of real property, to include at least one photograph, if such can be obtained without compromising the safety of the process server, of the site of the effectuated or attempted service and contain a readable stamp and global positioning system (GPS) coordinates indicating the date, time, and location of service. The bill would require the process server to provide a detailed statement on the proof of service, as specified, if there is no GPS or cellular signal available at the time and place of the effected or attempted service. The bill would make these requirements operative on January 1, 2027. (3) Existing law authorizes a court, on motion of a party and after notice to the other party, to set aside any void judgment or order. This bill would authorize a party that did not receive proper service of the summons and complaint to bring a motion to set aside or vacate a default or default judgment or for leave to defend the action or to move for dismissal. The bill would require a party that files a motion to set aside or vacate a default or default judgment to proffer evidence that service of the summons and complaint was not effected. The bill would provide that the party seeking the default or default judgment has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that service was lawful. The bill would require the court to take evidence and would require the court to conduct a hearing and receive oral testimony if requested by either party. The bill would specify that the above provisions would not limit any other available remedies under the law. The bill would make these provisions operative on January 1, 2027. (4) Existing law prescribes requirements for civil actions for unlawful detainer filed by landlords to remove tenants from their properties. Existing law requires that certain information be included in the complaint for unlawful detainer, including the method used to serve the defendant with the notice of termination of tenancy. This bill would additionally require the complaint to include information describing the date, time, and location of effected service of the termination notice. The bill would make this requirement operative on January 1, 2027. (5) 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.
