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. Existing law requires the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury or death to a person, other than that driver, to immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident and provide specified personal information to the injured person or the occupants of the other vehicle and to any traffic or police officer at the scene of the accident. Existing law makes failing to comply with these requirements a crime, punishable as a misdemeanor for an accident resulting in injury and punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony for an accident resulting in death or serious injury, as defined. This bill would make the above-described violation for an accident resulting injury punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony and would impose an increased felony penalty for the above-described violation for an accident resulting in death or serious injury, if either of those violations occurred within 10 years of a separate driving under the influence, reckless driving, or gross vehicular manslaughter violation, as specified. By increasing the potential time of imprisonment, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires a person who is convicted of specified crimes related to driving under the influence to be advised by the court of the dangerousness of their actions and that if that behavior in the future results in a person's death, they may be charged with murder. This bill would additionally require this advisement to be given if a person enters a plea to a different or lesser offense, as described. 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. By imposing an increased term of imprisonment, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires each state or local agency, upon a request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, to make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering direct costs of duplication, or a statutory fee if applicable, except with respect to public records exempt from disclosure by express provisions of law. Existing law requires, upon request, an exact copy to be provided unless it is impracticable to do so. This bill would specify that a recording of a call or a written communication that is maintained by a state or local agency that reports or describes an incident, as defined, occurring at a private detention facility, and specified records relating to that call or communication in the possession of a law enforcement agency, are not confidential, and would require an agency to disclose those records upon request to any member of the public. By requiring agencies to disclose certain records to the public, the bill would increase the duties of local officials and create a state-mandated local program. Existing law specifies that, except as provided, the act does not require the disclosure of records of complaints to, or investigations conducted by, or records of intelligence information or security procedures of, the office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, the Office of Emergency Services and any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes. This bill would also except the above-described requirements relating to records relating to private detention facilities from that provision, but would specify that those requirements do not apply to the office of the Attorney General, the Department of Justice, the Department of Consumer Affairs, or any state entity within the Department of Consumer Affairs, as specified. The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. 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 prohibits a state or local law enforcement agency or officer from knowingly arresting or knowingly participating in the arrest of any person for performing, supporting, or aiding in the performance of a legally protected health care activity, as defined, or for obtaining a legally protected health care activity, if the legally protected health care activity is lawful in this state. Existing law prohibits a state or local public agency from cooperating with or providing information to an individual or agency from another state or a federal law enforcement agency, as specified, regarding a legally protected health care activity. Existing law prohibits specified persons, including a judicial officer, a court employee, or an authorized attorney, among others, from issuing a subpoena in connection with a proceeding in another state regarding an individual performing, supporting, or aiding in the performance of a legally protected health care activity in this state, or an individual obtaining a legally protected health care activity in this state, if the legally protected health care activity is lawful in this state. This bill would make those provisions apply regardless of the patient's location. Existing law authorizes the Governor to surrender, on demand of the executive authority of any other state, any person in this state charged in the other state with committing an act in this state, or in a 3rd state, intentionally resulting in a crime in the state whose executive authority is making the demand. This bill would additionally prohibit a state or local law enforcement agency or officer from knowingly arresting or participating in the arrest of any person who the Governor has declined to surrender. Existing law requires any out-of-state subpoena, warrant, wiretap order, pen register trap and trace order, or other legal process to include an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury that the discovery request is not in connection with an out-of-state proceeding relating to a legally protected health care activity, except as specified. Existing law prohibits a California corporation that provides electronic communication services or remote computing services to the general public from complying with an out-of-state subpoena, warrant, wiretap order, pen register trap and trace order, other legal process, or request by a law enforcement agent or entity seeking records that would reveal the identity of the customers using those services, data stored by, or on behalf of, the customer, the customer's usage of those services, the recipient or destination of communications sent to or from those customers, or the content of those communications, unless the out-of-state subpoena, warrant, wiretap order, pen register trap and trace order, other legal process, or request from law enforcement includes the affidavit or declaration described above. This bill would extend those provisions to also apply to a California corporation that provides financial services, as defined, to the general public. By expanding the situations in which a declaration under penalty of perjury is required, this bill would expand the scope of the crime of perjury and impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize the Attorney General to commence an action to enforce these provisions, as specified, and would authorize the court to assess a statutory penalty of $10,000 for a first violation, and $15,000 for a 2nd or subsequent violation, against any person or entity found to have intentionally, knowingly, willingly, or recklessly complied with or provided information in response to an inquiry, investigation, subpoena, or summons regarding legally protected health care activity in violation of these provisions. 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 generally provides for the regulation of law enforcement agencies and requires specified law enforcement agencies to maintain policies on, among other things, use of force, hate crimes, and gun violence restraining orders. Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to establish and keep updated a field training officer course relating to competencies of the field training program and police training program that addresses how to interact with persons with certain conditions. This bill would make it unlawful for a law enforcement officer to deny, delay, obstruct, or fail to facilitate access to medical evaluation or treatment for an individual under law enforcement control, but who is not in the custody of, or detained by, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, if it is safe and reasonable to provide access to treatment and a medical professional has been requested or is present and is willing to render care to the individual. If access to medical evaluation or treatment is denied or delayed when a medical professional is present and is willing to assist, the bill would require law enforcement to document the basis of the denial within 72 hours of the incident, as specified. The bill would authorize administrative discipline, including suspension or termination, against a law enforcement officer who violates those provisions. By creating a new crime and by increasing the duties on local law enforcement relating to reporting, 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law requires law enforcement agencies to enter each firearm into the Department of Justice Automated Firearms System that has been reported stolen, lost, found, recovered, held for safekeeping, surrendered, relinquished, or under observation. Existing law requires these law enforcement agencies to report to the Department of Justice all available information necessary to identify and trace the history of all recovered firearms that are illegally possessed, have been used in a crime, or are suspected of having been used in a crime, within 7 calendar days of obtaining the information. Existing law requires that the information collected be maintained by the department for a period of not less than 10 years, and to be available, under guidelines set forth by the Attorney General, for academic and policy research purposes. Existing law also requires the department to, on an ongoing basis, analyze the information collected for patterns and trends relating to recovered firearms that have been illegally possessed, used in a crime, or suspected to have been used in a crime, including the leading sources and origins of those firearms. This bill would clarify that the information relied on by the department for its analysis of patterns and trends be available, upon request, to any California town, city, county, or state government agency, the California State University, the University of California, or specified private postsecondary educational institutions in California, under conditions and format options set forth by the Attorney General, as specified.
Existing law grants a defendant the right to counsel in a noncapital case, and requires a defendant to be represented by counsel in a capital case. Existing law requires specified assigned counsel to receive a reasonable sum for compensation and for necessary expenses, as determined by the court, to be paid out of the general fund of the county. This bill would, commencing with contracts or memoranda of understanding for indigent defense services entered into after January 1, 2028, revise the process and require a county or court, when contracting for the provision or administration of indigent defense services, to include certain elements in the contract or other agreement for indigent services, as specified. The bill would prohibit a county or court from entering into flat fee contracts, as defined, or per case compensation contracts in cases involving the death penalty or the potential sentence of life without the possibility of parole. The bill would require the structure of the contract for indigent defense services to ensure that attorneys have the resources and time necessary to provide competent legal representation. The bill would require counties that contract with a private entity or law firm to provide indigent defense services to provide all those contracts to the Office of the State Public Defender every 2 years. The bill would make related findings and declarations.
(1) Existing law establishes procedures by which a person may petition the court for certain protective or restraining orders, including civil harassment restraining orders, domestic violence restraining orders, elder or dependent adult abuse restraining orders, gun violence restraining orders, postsecondary school restraining orders, and workplace violence restraining orders, to enjoin a restrained person from taking specified actions. Before a hearing on the issuance or denial of a domestic violence restraining order or gun violence restraining order, existing law requires the court to ensure that a search has been conducted to determine, among other things, if the subject of the proposed order owns or possesses a firearm as reflected in the Department of Justice Automated Firearms System. If after the search, the court finds that the subject of the proposed order owns or possesses a firearm, existing law requires the court to make a written record as to whether the subject has relinquished the firearm and provided proof of the required storage, sale, or relinquishment of the firearm. Upon a court's issuance of such a protective order, existing law requires the restrained person to relinquish any firearm and ammunition in that person's immediate possession or control, according to specified procedures. Existing law prescribes procedures by which the restrained person must certify compliance with the court, and for the court to determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the person has a firearm in violation of the order. This bill would make clarifying and conforming changes to the procedures relating to the protective or restraining orders described above by explicitly requiring the restrained person to relinquish, in addition to any firearm, any ammunition in that person's immediate possession or control. The bill, commencing January 1, 2028, would require courts to permit a party or witness to appear remotely at a hearing for a postsecondary educational institution or workplace violence restraining order at no cost. This bill would also require courts to develop rules and instructions for such remote appearances and to post them on their internet websites. The bill would also, commencing on January 1, 2028, require courts to allow filings related to those protective orders to be submitted electronically, as specified. (2) Existing law prohibits court from granting a temporary restraining order without notice to the respondent, except as specified. Existing law requires a peace officer, upon the request of a petitioner, to serve any civil harassment restraining order, domestic violence restraining order, elder or dependent adult abuse restraining order, gun violence restraining order, postsecondary school restraining order, or workplace violence restraining order on the respondent, whether or not the respondent has been taken into custody. Existing law prescribes procedures that a sheriff or marshal must follow when serving a writ, warrant, summons, order, or other process issued by a superior court in a civil action or proceeding. Existing law requires the Judicial Council, on or before January 1, 2024, to create a statewide form or forms to be used by litigants in civil actions or proceedings to request service of process or notice by a marshal or sheriff. This bill, commencing January 1, 2028, would prohibit a court from requiring notice to 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, as specified, if the applicant or the applicant's attorney certifies to the court under oath that providing notice to the party to be restrained in advance of filing the petition would likely endanger the safety of the petitioner or other persons. The bill, commencing January 1, 2028, would require a peace officer, as defined, to follow the procedures that apply to a sheriff or marshal when serving a writ, warrant, summons, order, or other process issued by a superior court, as described above. The bill would require the Judicial Council, on or before January 1, 2028, to create a statewide form or forms to be used by litigants in civil actions or proceedings to request service of process or notice by a marshal or sheriff, or by a peace officer serving any of the restraining or protective orders described above. By expanding the duties of peace officers, which include officers of local law enforcement agencies, and expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law requires, on any charge involving acts of domestic violence, that the district attorney or prosecuting city attorney conduct a search of certain databases for protective or restraining orders, as specified. This bill would additionally require the district attorney or prosecuting city attorney to conduct a search of the Department of Justice Automated Firearms System. By expanding the duties of the district attorney or prosecuting city attorney, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Under existing law, before a hearing on the issuance or denial of a domestic violence restraining order, the court must ensure that a search is or has been conducted to determine if the subject of the proposed order has, among other things, a prior criminal conviction for a violent or serious felony, owns or possesses a firearm, as reflected in the Department of Justice Automated Firearms System, or has a prior restraining order or violation thereof. Existing law requires this search to be conducted of specified records and databases readily available and reasonably accessible to the court. Existing law requires the court, after issuing its ruling, to advise the parties that they may request the information upon which the court relied to conduct the search and information obtained as a result of the search to be maintained in a confidential case file, except as specified. This bill would authorize a court to order any of the searches described above to be conducted before a hearing on the issuance or denial of a civil harassment restraining order, elder or dependent adult abuse restraining order, gun violence restraining order, postsecondary school restraining order, or workplace violence restraining order. The bill would require the court, after issuing its ruling, to provide the advisement to the parties described above, and to keep the information obtained as a result of any search to be maintained in a confidential case file, except as specified. (4) Existing law requires a court, when issuing a gun violence restraining order, to notify the Department of Justice regarding the order. Existing law requires the court, when issuing protective orders and firearm or ammunition relinquishment orders, to notify the prosecuting agency and law enforcement officials, as specified, in order, to enable the prosecuting agency and law enforcement officials to take necessary actions to obtain any firearms or ammunition owned, possessed, or controlled by the subject of the order. This bill would require local law enforcement agencies and prosecuting agencies, as defined, to designate a person responsible for accessing or receiving notifications from the superior court indicating that a person has violated a protective or restraining orders' firearm relinquishment requirement and to regularly ensure that the clerk of the court has updated contact information for the person designated to receive those notifications on behalf of the agency. This bill would also require each prosecuting agency to ensure that a protected person or protected people named in the order are notified about the issuance, terms, and duration of the protective order, except as specified. The bill would require each prosecuting agency to develop, adopt, and implement written policies and standards regarding notification to protected parties on or before January 1, 2028, as specified. By placing new requirements on local law enforcement agencies and prosecuting agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill, commencing January 1, 2028, would authorize a law enforcement agency or officer to seek enforcement of a valid extreme risk protection order issued by another state or jurisdiction. The bill would define an extreme risk protection order as an injunction, restraining order, or other civil or criminal court order issued by another state or jurisdiction that does not name a protected individual, but prohibits the subject of the order from possessing, owning, controlling, purchasing, or receiving firearms for the duration of the order based on evidence that the subject of the order poses a danger to themselves or others. The bill would require a valid extreme risk protection order to be registered with a court in this state if requested by a law enforcement officer or other petitioner. (5) Existing law requires each county to electronically transmit data regarding protective orders through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System of the Department of Justice, as specified. Existing law requires the Department of Justice to maintain the California Restraining and Protective Order System that contains detailed information regarding protective and restraining orders and injunctions, as specified, and to make that information available to court clerks and law enforcement personnel. This bill would extend these reporting requirements to include any protective order or restraining orders issued pursuant to specified sections, including a gun violence restraining order or an extreme risk protection order. (6) Existing law, the Uniform Interstate Enforcement of Domestic Violence Protection Orders Act, authorizes the enforcement of a valid foreign protection order in a tribunal of this state under certain conditions. The bill would expand the definition of a protection order to include any injunction or order under the federal Violence Against Women Act and would extend these provisions to orders issued by any state or other jurisdiction. The bill would make conforming changes. (7) Existing law authorizes the Department of Justice, subject to an appropriation by the Legislature, to establish or contract with a vendor to establish an automated protected person information and notification system, as specified. This bill would authorize the department to establish or contract with a vendor to create the above-described notification system through the availability of necessary funding through grants or other sources. (8) 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 punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony. This bill would prohibit a person, who is convicted on or after January 1, 2027, of specified offenses, including misdemeanor violations of a gun violence restraining order or other protective orders, or violations that constitute a hate crime, from owning, purchasing, receiving, or having in their possession or under their custody or control any firearm within 10 years of the conviction, and would make conforming changes. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. (9) Existing law requires a peace officer who is at the scene of a domestic violence incident or enforcing a domestic violence restraining order or gun violence restraining order to take temporary custody of any firearm or other deadly weapon in plain sight or discovered pursuant to a consensual or otherwise lawful search, as specified. This bill would additionally require a peace officer to take temporary custody of any ammunition in plain sight or discovered pursuant to such a search. By expanding the duties of local law enforcement agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (10) This bill would provide that its provisions are severable. (11) This bill would provide that if AB 2179 is enacted, then the changes made to Section 527.8 of the Code of Civil Procedure by this bill would not be operative. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 527.8 of the Code of Civil Procedure proposed by AB 1961 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1961 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 527.85 of the Code of Civil Procedure proposed by SB 1374 to be operative only if this bill and SB 1374 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 6383 of the Family Code proposed by SB 99 and SB 1395, to be operative only if this bill and either or both of those bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 29805 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 1220 to be operative only if this bill and SB 1220 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (12) 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
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, department of transportation, public works department, or campus transportation agency, as specified, a public agency or contracted parking operator when engaging in specified activities in a parking facility, a state agency operating specified parking facilities, or the State Air Resources Board. The bill would require a public agency that accesses or provides access to ALPR information to maintain a record of that access, as provided. The bill would, beginning January 1, 2027, require new, updated, renewed, extended, 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, except as specified, and would impose new requirements on sharing between California state law enforcement agencies. This 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 or locating an individual who has been reported as missing to a law enforcement agency. The bill, as of January 1, 2028, would require a public agency to archive all ALPR information that has been held for more than 60 days within 14 days, unless that ALPR information is retained in the evidence file of an active investigation or criminal proceeding or matches information on an authorized hot list, as defined, and retain ALPR information that becomes part of an investigation or criminal proceeding in the evidence file as long as the evidence file is required to be held by state law or court order. The bill would prohibit a public agency from querying any archived information except pursuant to a warrant, as specified. 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 as 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, department of transportation, public works department, campus transportation agency, or an airport or airport operator, as provided. The bill would also exclude from the definition of "ALPR operator" the Department of General Services and its operators when engaging in specified activities in a parking facility and would exclude from the definition of "ALPR end-user" a state agency operating specified parking facilities and the State Air Resources Board. 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, beginning October 1, 2029, and 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 a brief, accurate, specific, and plain language statement describing the purpose for accessing ALPR information. 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.
Existing law authorizes the finder of fact in a criminal prosecution to find the defendant guilty of an offense that is necessarily included in the charged offense. Case law requires the trial court to instruct the jury that it must find the defendant guilty of a necessarily included offense if there is substantial evidence that the defendant is guilty of the necessarily included offense. This bill would require the court, if requested by a defendant, to instruct the jury on a lesser offense, which is closely related to the offense charged, if the court finds that the defendant has relied on a theory of defense consistent with a conviction for the lesser offense, the evidence of the lesser offense is relevant to and admitted for the purpose of establishing guilt of the charged offense, and a basis exists on which the jury could find the offense to be less than charged. The bill would also authorize the judge to find the defendant guilty of the lesser offense if there is no jury. The bill would require the defendant to provide notice to the prosecution of the intent to seek the above-described jury instruction, as specified.
Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to possess nitrous oxide with the intent of inhaling it for specified purposes, including to cause intoxication. Existing law also makes it a misdemeanor to sell nitrous oxide to any person under 18 years of age. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to dispense nitrous oxide to a person and knowing that the person will use it for specified prohibited purposes, if that person then causes death or great bodily injury to themselves or another person. Under existing law, the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Licensing Act of 2003, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) administers and enforces a statewide program to license manufacturers, importers, distributors, wholesalers, and retailers of cigarettes and tobacco products. Existing law specifically requires a retailer, distributor, or wholesaler, as defined, to hold a license from the CDTFA to engage in the sale of cigarettes or tobacco products. Existing law subjects these licenses to suspension or revocation for violations of existing law. Existing law imposes specified noticing and posting requirements for retailer licenses that are revoked. A violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor. This bill would, except as specifically exempted, prohibit the sale and distribution of a nitrous oxide container that is capable of holding more than 8 grams of nitrous oxide or from which an individual may directly inhale nitrous oxide. The bill would also prohibit the sale and distribution of a nitrous oxide that has, or is marketed as having, the taste or smell of any food. The bill would prohibit knowingly selling or distributing a device that allows an individual to inhale nitrous oxide from the container or hold nitrous oxide for the purposes of inhalation. The bill would punish a violation of these provisions as an infraction, as specified. The bill would also authorize a court to suspend a business license if the business has a prior conviction for violating these prohibitions, and to revoke a license to sell tobacco products if the business has 2 prior convictions for violating these prohibitions. The bill would make any person, distributor, or business found to have violated these prohibitions liable for all reasonable costs incurred by a public agency in the investigation, inspection, seizure, storage, transportation, handling, venting, abatement, disposal, or destruction of nitrous oxide products, nitrous oxide containers, inhalation devices, or related materials involved in the violation, as specified. This bill would prohibit a person that is engaged in the business of selling cigarettes or tobacco products in this state from possessing, storing, owning, or selling nitrous oxide, in violation of the criminal provisions outlined above, at any site where cigarettes and tobacco products are stored or sold. The bill would authorize the CDTFA to seize nitrous oxide products, as prescribed. The bill would subject a violator to civil penalties in amounts depending on the aggregate retail value of the seized nitrous oxide and the number of violations within 5 years of the first violation. The bill would require the deposit of collected civil penalties in the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Compliance Fund. The bill would also subject a violator who commits a 2nd violation to license suspension and who commits a 3rd violation to license revocation, as prescribed. This bill would establish procedures for the CDTFA to follow for a court-ordered revocation. The bill would require the CDTFA to assess a $250 civil penalty for each revoked license and to deposit collected civil penalties into the fund, to be made available to the department, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for purposes of administering the bill. The bill would authorize a licensee to apply for a new license at the previously revoked location 6 months after the date of revocation and would authorize the CDTFA, at its discretion, to issue a new license. The bill would apply these noticing and posting requirements to a retailer subject to a court-ordered revocation pursuant to the bill. The California Constitution provides for the establishment of the State Board of Equalization, which, before July 1, 2017, had primary responsibility for most of the state's duties, powers, and responsibilities regarding the administration of taxes and fees. Existing law, on July 1, 2017, transferred to the CDTFA various duties, powers, and responsibilities of the State Board of Equalization, including administration of the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Licensing Act of 2003, as specified. This bill would change references in the provisions of the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Licensing Act of 2003 amended by this bill from the "State Board of Equalization" to the "California Department of Tax and Fee Administration" to reflect the transfer of the board's duties, powers, and responsibilities to the CDTFA. Because this bill would create new crimes, it 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.
