Existing law requires the court, in a case involving a conviction of a serious or violent felony resulting in a sentence of 15 years or more, to order that the defendant be provided reasonable access to discovery materials upon the prosecution of a postconviction writ of habeas corpus or a motion to vacate judgment and a showing that good faith efforts to obtain discovery materials from trial counsel were made and were unsuccessful. Existing law defines "discovery materials" as materials in the possession of the prosecution and law enforcement authorities that the defendant would have been entitled to at the time of trial. Existing law requires trial counsel to retain copies of files for criminal convictions of serious or violent felonies resulting in a sentence greater than 15 years for the duration of the client's imprisonment. Existing law authorizes trial counsel to retain those copies digitally, if every item is preserved. This bill would authorize reasonable access, except as specified, to discovery materials for felonies resulting in a sentence of incarceration in the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The bill would broaden the definition of "discovery materials" to include, among other things, materials from any prosecutor who tried or worked on the case that tend to negate guilt, or mitigate the sentence or offense. The bill would clarify the definition of "the prosecution" to include the prosecuting agency and counsel for the respondent to a habeas corpus petition. The bill would require the prosecutor, in order to shield jury selection notes from disclosure, to make a foundational proffer describing how information in their file would bear on their case strategy. The bill would require the court, upon a showing of good cause by the prosecutor, to conduct an in camera review and order necessary redactions. The bill would clarify that good cause to shield jury selection notes from disclosure is shown when the prosecution did not exercise any peremptory challenges during jury selection. The bill would additionally require trial counsel, for all criminal convictions on or after July 1, 2026, that result in a sentence of incarceration in the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to retain digital color copies of every item in the file. By increasing the duties of public defenders, this bill would create 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 specifies the officers of a county, including, but not limited to, the coroner. Existing law authorizes the board of supervisors of a county to consolidate the duties of various county offices in various combinations, including combining the duties of the sheriff and the coroner. Existing law defines a "forensic autopsy" as an examination of a body of a decedent to generate medical evidence for which the cause of death is determined. In cases in which a forensic autopsy is performed, existing law requires the manner of death to be determined by the coroner or medical examiner of a county. This bill would enact the Forensic Accountability, Custodial Transparency, and Safety (FACTS) Act of 2025. The bill would, commencing January 1, 2027, in any county in which the offices of the sheriff and the coroner are combined, prohibit the sheriff-coroner from determining the circumstances, manner, and cause of death, as provided, for an in-custody death, as defined. The bill, instead, would require the sheriff-coroner to contract with one or more counties that have a coroner's office that operates independently from the office of the sheriff, or that have established an office of medical examiner, as specified, or with one or more private third-party medical examination providers that are separate and independent from the office of the sheriff-coroner and that meet certain physician qualification requirements, as specified, to determine the circumstances, manner, and cause of death. The bill would require the county board of supervisors to annually enter into a service agreement or service agreements with those medical examiners, independent coroner offices, or private third-party medical examination providers, or with any combination thereof. The bill would prohibit a private third-party medical examination provider that has entered into a service agreement from, during the term of the service agreement, being contracted by the county or the sheriff-coroner of that county to provide medical examination for any cases that do not involve in-custody deaths. The bill would define "in-custody death" for purposes of the bill to include, among other things, the death of a person who is detained, under arrest, or is in the process of being detained or arrested, is en route to be incarcerated, or is incarcerated at a municipal or county jail or state prison, or who is en route to be detained, or is detained, at a federal correctional facility or immigration detention facility, as provided. This bill would except an independent medical examination performed pursuant to those provisions from the provisions described above that require, in the case of a forensic autopsy, the manner of death to be determined by the coroner or medical examiner of a county. By imposing new duties on certain counties, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern and, therefore, apply to all counties, including charter counties. 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 authorizes, until January 1, 2026, the Counties of Alameda, Butte, Nevada, and Santa Clara to establish a pilot program to operate a deferred entry of judgment pilot program for eligible defendants who are 18 years of age or older, but under 21 years of age, on the date the offense was committed, as specified. Existing law requires a probation department to submit data relating to the effectiveness of the pilot program to the Division of Recidivism Reduction and Re-Entry, within the Department of Justice. Existing law requires a participating county to submit an evaluation of its pilot program's impact and effectiveness to the Assembly and Senate Committees on Public Safety, no later than December 31, 2024. This bill would extend the pilot program, for the Counties of Butte, Nevada, and Santa Clara, to January 1, 2029, and would require an evaluation to be submitted to the Assembly and Senate Committees on Public Safety no later than December 31, 2027. Existing law requires the Board of State and Community Corrections to review a county's pilot program to ensure compliance with specific federal law. This bill would instead require the Office of Youth and Community Restoration to review a county's pilot program for compliance and would require the office to report findings from the review to the board.
Existing law makes it a crime to knowingly and maliciously prevent or dissuade, or attempt to prevent or dissuade, a witness or victim from causing a complaint, indictment, information, or probation or parole violation to be sought and prosecuted, and assisting in the prosecution thereof. This bill would clarify that it is a violation of the offense described above to prevent or dissuade, or attempt to prevent or dissuade, a witness or victim from either causing a complaint, indictment, information, or probation or parole violation to be sought and prosecuted, or assisting in the prosecution thereof. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would also make other technical, nonsubstantive changes. 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 provides that a county jail is kept by the sheriff of the county in which the jail is situated and is to be used for specified purposes, including for the confinement of persons sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail upon a criminal conviction. Existing law authorizes the board of supervisors to credit each prisoner confined in or committed to county jail up to $2 for each 8 hours of work performed in jail. This bill would instead authorize the board to credit each prisoner with a sum of money to be determined by the board.
Existing law requires notice of, and the opportunity for an incarcerated parent to be physically present in, proceedings terminating their parental rights or seeking to adjudicate the child of a prisoner a dependent child of the court. Existing law prohibits these proceedings from being adjudicated without the physical presence of the parent unless the court receives a knowing waiver from the parent of their right to be physically present at the proceedings, or an affidavit signed by a person in charge of the incarcerating institution that the prisoner does not intend to appear at the proceeding. Existing law authorizes, in the court's discretion, an incarcerated parent who has waived the right to be physically present at those proceedings to be given the opportunity to participate in the proceeding by videoconference, if that technology is available. Existing law authorizes, if videoconferencing technology is not available, the use of teleconferencing. This bill would also require notice of, and the opportunity for an incarcerated parent to be physically present in, specified additional dependency hearings relating to their child. The bill would additionally require an incarcerated parent who has waived the right to be physically present to be given the opportunity to participate in those proceedings by videoconference, and, if videoconferencing technology is not available, require the use of teleconferencing. By increasing the duties of local county jail officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law entitles a minor who is the subject of a juvenile court hearing to be present at that hearing and specifies that the minor has the right to be represented at the hearing by counsel of their choice. Existing law requires the court to inform the minor, if the minor is present at the hearing, of their right to address the court and participate in the hearing. Existing law requires the court, if the minor is 10 years of age or older and not present at the hearing, to determine whether the minor was properly notified of their right to attend the hearing and inquire whether they were given an opportunity to attend. Existing law generally requires the court to continue the hearing to allow the minor to be present, if they were not properly notified or if they wished to present, but were not given the opportunity. Existing law requires the court to continue the hearing only for the period of time necessary to provide the child notice and secure their presence. This bill would expand the above provisions to include nonminor dependents. 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, the Uniform Civil Fees and Standard Fee Schedule Act of 2005, establishes a set fee schedule for courts to implement for, among other things, filings, service, and changes of venue. Existing law authorizes the court to charge a reasonable fee that does not exceed the costs of providing the service or product, if the Judicial Council approves the fee, as specified. The bill would instead prohibit the court from charging a fee that exceeds the cost to the court of providing the service or product. The bill would require any fee not explicitly authorized by statute or rule to be approved by the Judicial Council. The bill would also require the Judicial Council, by December 1, 2027, to report to the Legislature, as specified, regarding each fee charged by a superior court in the 2026–27 fiscal year for which the revenue collected by and distributed to the court as a result of the fee exceeds the court's cost of providing the service or product. The bill would also require the Judicial Council, by December 1, 2028, and December 1, 2029, to report certain data to the Legislature, as specified, regarding the 2027–28 and 2028–29 fiscal years, respectively. Existing law authorizes trial court records to be created, maintained, and preserved in any form of communication or representation, including paper, optical, electronic, magnetic, micrographic, or photographic media or other technology. Existing law requires those court records be made reasonably accessible to the public for viewing and duplication, with a reasonable provision controlling for the costs of duplication, as specified. This bill would require court records maintained in electronic form to be viewable at the court and be available for duplication at a cost, as specified. The bill would allow a member of the public to request to view or duplicate accessible records, on the premises of the court and with the requester's equipment in a manner that does not make physical contact with the record, without being charged any fees or costs to reproduce the record, unless reproduction would result in, among other things, damage to the record or unauthorized access to the court's computer systems or networks, as specified. The bill would authorize the court to impose reasonable limits on the use of the requester's equipment that are necessary to protect the safety of the records or prevent the copying of the records from being an unreasonable burden, as specified.
(1) Existing law authorizes a person who has suffered harassment, as defined, to seek a temporary restraining order and an order prohibiting harassment. Existing law prohibits a filing fee for, and a fee for the service of process by a sheriff or marshal of, a protective or restraining order if the order is based upon stalking, unlawful violence, or a credible threat of violence. This bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would authorize a petition prohibiting harassment and any related filings to be submitted electronically, as specified. The bill would require the request, notice of the court date, copies of the request to serve on the respondent, and the temporary restraining order, if granted, to be provided to a petitioner who filed electronically to be provided to the petitioner electronically, unless the petitioner notes, at the time of electronic filing, that these documents will be picked up from the court. The bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would authorize a party or witness to appear remotely at the hearing on the petition for a protective order, and prohibit the superior court from charging a fee for the remote appearance. As of January 1, 2027, the bill would require the superior court of each county to develop, and post on its internet website, local rules and instructions regarding remote appearances for protective orders. The bill would make a conforming change. (2) Existing law requires a court or court facility that receives petitions for domestic violence restraining orders to permit the petitions and related filings to be submitted electronically, as specified, and prohibits a filing fee for an application, responsive pleading, or an order to show cause that seeks to obtain, modify, or enforce a domestic violence restraining order, as specified. Existing law requires the request, notice of the court date, copies of the request to serve on the respondent, and the temporary restraining order, if granted, to be provided to the petitioner electronically, unless the petitioner notes, at the time of electronic filing, that these documents will be picked up from the court or court facility. Existing law authorizes a party, support person, or witness to appear remotely at a domestic violence restraining order hearing. Existing law requires the superior court of each county to develop local rules and instructions for remote appearances and requires them to be posted on the court's internet website. This bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would require a court or court facility that receives petitions for domestic violence restraining orders to accept electronic filings at no charge to the petitioner, and would prohibit a superior court from charging a fee for a party, support person, or witness to appear remotely at a domestic violence restraining order hearing. (3) Existing law authorizes an elder or dependent adult who has suffered abuse to seek a protective order and prohibits a filing fee for a petition, response, or paper seeking the reissuance, modification, or enforcement of a protective order. This bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would require a court or court facility that receives petitions for protective orders for elder or dependent adults to permit those petitions and any related filings to be submitted electronically, as specified, at no charge to the petitioner. As of that date, the bill would require the request, notice of the court date, copies of the request to serve on the respondent, and the temporary restraining order, if granted, to be provided to a petitioner who filed electronically, unless the petitioner notes, at the time of electronic filing, that these documents will be picked up from the court. The bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would authorize a party, representative of the county adult protective services agency, or witness to appear remotely at the hearing on a petition for a protective order for an elder or dependent adult, and prohibit the superior court from charging a fee for the remote appearance. The bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would require the superior court of each county to develop, and post on its internet website, local rules and instructions regarding remote appearances for protective orders for elder or dependent adults. As of that date, the bill also would require information regarding electronic filing and access to the court's self-help center to be prominently displayed on each superior court's home page, and require each self-help center to maintain and make available information related to elder abuse restraining orders. Existing law, upon the filing of a petition for protective orders for an elder or dependent adult, requires the respondent to be personally served with a copy of the petition, notice of the hearing or order to show cause, temporary restraining order, if any, and any declarations in support of the petition, at least five days before the hearing. This bill, as of January 1, 2027, would authorize a court to permit an alternative method of service, as specified, if at the time of a hearing with respect to an order issued based on an ex parte temporary protective order, the court determines that, after diligent effort, the petitioner has been unable to accomplish personal service, and that there is reason to believe that the restrained party is evading service or cannot be located.
Existing law prohibits a person from erasing the reflective coating of, painting over the reflective coating of, or altering a license plate to avoid visual or electronic capture of the license plate or its characters by state or local law enforcement. Existing law prohibits a person from installing or affixing on a vehicle a casing, shield, frame, border, product, or other device that obstructs or impairs the reading or recognition of a license plate by an electronic device operated by state or local law enforcement, an electronic device operated in connection with a toll road, high-occupancy toll lane, toll bridge, or other toll facility, or a remote emission sensing device, as specified. Existing law also prohibits the sale of a product or device that obscures, or is intended to obscure, the reading or recognition of a license plate by visual means, or by an electronic device in violation of the above-described provisions. A conviction for a violation of this provision is punishable by a fine of two hundred fifty dollars $250 per item sold or per violation. A violation of the Vehicle Code is a crime. This bill would further prohibit a person from installing or affixing a shade or tint that obstructs the reading or recognition of a license plate by an electronic device operated by state or local law enforcement, an electronic device operated in connection with a toll road, high-occupancy toll lane, toll bridge, or other toll facility, or a remote emission sensing device, as specified. The bill would further prohibit the manufacture of these products and devices in the state and impose a $1,000 fine per item sold or manufactured for a violation of these provisions. The bill would also make clarifying changes. 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 required the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, on or before June 1, 2023, in consultation with specified entities, to develop a modern policing degree program and to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature outlining a plan to implement the program. Existing law establishes the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training within the Department of Justice and requires the commission, within 2 years of the submission of the report, to approve and adopt the education criteria for peace officers, based on the recommendations in the report. This bill would repeal the requirement for the commission to approve and adopt the criteria described above. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
