(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.
Under existing law, a grand jury is a body of the required number of persons chosen from the citizens of the county to serve before a court of competent jurisdiction, and sworn to inquire of public offenses that are committed or triable within the county. Existing law requires each grand jury, no later than the end of each fiscal or calendar year, to submit to the presiding judge of the superior court a final report of its findings and recommendations that pertain to county government matters. Existing law requires one copy of each final report and its responses to be placed on file with the clerk of the court who shall immediately forward the report and responses to the State Archivist. This bill would instead require the clerk to compile all final reports and responses issued during the grand jury's term of service and to transfer the reports and responses to the State Archivist within 6 months of the end of the grand jury's term of service, as specified. The bill would specify that the clerk is not required to create new or consolidated documents.
Existing law, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, authorizes specified adult persons to petition a civil court to create a voluntary CARE agreement or a court-ordered CARE plan and implement services, to be provided by county behavioral health agencies, to provide behavioral health care, including stabilization medication, housing, and other enumerated services, to adults who are currently experiencing a severe mental illness and have a diagnosis identified in the disorder class schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, and who meet other specified criteria. Existing law authorizes specified individuals to file a petition to commence the CARE process, including, but not limited to, a spouse, parent, sibling, child, grandparent, or an individual who stands in loco parentis to the respondent. Existing law requires the court to issue an order relieving the original petitioner if the petitioner is someone other than the director of a county behavioral health agency or their designee and appoint the director or their designee as the successor petitioner. Existing law requires the original petitioner to have specified rights to notice of proceedings if the petitioner is a parent or specified family member or the person with whom the respondent resides. Existing law authorizes the court to allow the original petitioner to participate in the respondent's CARE proceedings to the extent the respondent consents. This bill would authorize the original petitioner to provide specified information regarding the respondent, including the respondent's condition, treatment history, and housing status. The bill would require the CARE team to review specified parts of the provided information, including that relevant to the respondent's care and treatment, and would authorize the court to consider that information in evaluating the respondent's progress and compliance, among other things. The bill would specify that the respondent's consent is not required to receive this information from the original petitioner and that submission of this information does not confer party status on the original petitioner or create a right to direct treatment decisions, obtain discovery, access confidential records, receive protected health information, attend confidential proceedings, or otherwise participate in the proceedings without the respondent's consent, except as expressly provided by law.
(1) Existing law requires the Board of Parole Hearings to meet with each indeterminately sentenced inmate during the 6th year before the inmate's minimum eligible parole date for the purpose of reviewing and documenting the inmate's activities and conduct pertinent to parole eligibility. One year before the inmate's minimum eligible parole date, existing law requires a panel of the board to meet with the inmate and to grant parole unless the panel or board sitting en banc determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for the inmate. In certain circumstances, the board will conduct an en banc review and existing law specifies how the en banc review is required to be conducted. Existing law requires a decision of the board to become final unless the board finds that the panel made an error of law, or that the panel's decision was based on an error of fact, or that new information should be presented to the board, and that, when corrected or considered by the board, has a substantial likelihood of resulting in a substantially different decision upon a rehearing. Existing law authorizes the Governor to request a review of a decision by the board to grant or deny parole and, if a request has been made, existing law requires the request to be reviewed by a majority of commissioners, as specified. This bill would instead require a decision by the board to become final unless the board finds an error of law or fact or new information should be presented to the board and that, when corrected or considered by the board, has a substantial likelihood of resulting in a different decision upon a rehearing. The bill would also make the decision and vote of each commissioner of the board in an en banc review a public record. The bill would require the board, when reviewing decisions referred en banc based on review of a panel's decision, to determine if there was a material error of law or fact, or new information that, when corrected or considered by the board, has a substantial likelihood of resulting in a different decision upon a rehearing, and would require the board to vote to either affirm the decision or vacate the decision and set a new hearing. The bill would require the board, when reviewing a parole decision referred en banc by the Governor, to address the Governor's stated reason or reasons for the requested review, and would require the board to either affirm the decision, refer for a recision hearing for lack of substantial evidence, or, in the case of a denial, vacate the decision and set a new hearing. The bill would also make nonsubstantive changes throughout these provisions. (2) Existing law defines a sexually violent predator to mean a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense against one or more victims and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that the person will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior. For purposes of this definition, a conviction for a sexually violent offense includes convictions that resulted in either a determinate or an indeterminate prison sentence, as specified. Existing law requires the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to refer a person who is in custody under that department's jurisdiction, and who is serving a determinate sentence or whose parole has been revoked, for evaluation by the State Department of State Hospitals at least 6 months prior to that individual's scheduled date for release from prison if the secretary determines that the person may be a sexually violent predator. Existing law requires a petition for commitment as a sexually violent predator to be filed in the county in which the person was convicted of the sexual offense for which the person was committed to the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. This bill would authorize the Executive Officer of the Board of Parole Hearings to refer individuals for evaluation as a sexually violent predator pursuant to these provisions. The bill would authorize the secretary or executive officer of the board to refer the person for evaluation if the incarcerated person is determinately sentenced and is scheduled for a parole hearing in the next 6 months. The bill would additionally authorize the secretary or executive officer of the board to refer an individual who is serving an indeterminate term or whose parole was revoked who meets certain criteria for evaluation at least 6 months before the individual's scheduled release date or if the person is scheduled for a parole hearing within the next 6 months, as specified. By imposing additional duties on counties regarding commitment of persons as sexually violent predators, 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 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 prohibits a person from being tried or adjudged to punishment while that person is mentally incompetent. Existing law requires the court to, for a person found mentally incompetent and not charged with certain felony offenses, among other things, determine whether restoring the person to mental competence is in the interests of justice. Existing law requires the court to, if restoring the person to mental competence is not in the interests of justice, conduct a hearing, as specified, and determine the person's eligibility for diversion. Under existing law, if the court determines that the person is ineligible or unsuitable for diversion, the court is authorized to hold a hearing to determine the person's other options, including referral to assisted outpatient treatment, county conservatorship, and the CARE program. Existing law requires a person's charges to be dismissed if the person is accepted into assisted outpatient treatment or the CARE program or upon a filing of either a temporary or permanent conservatorship petition. This bill would authorize a county behavioral health agency to report to the court regarding relevant confidential medical information for the purpose of determining eligibility for behavioral health services pursuant to the above provisions. The bill would exempt from the requirement to dismiss charges instances where the person's case has been referred back to the court within certain time periods. Existing law, when a defendant is returned to court after specified proceedings to restore competency and it appears the defendant is gravely disabled, requires the court to initiate specified conservatorship proceedings. Existing law defines gravely disabled for these purposes as meaning a condition in which a person, as a result of specified disorders, is unable to provide for their basic personal needs for food, clothing, shelter, personal safety, or necessary medical care, or a condition in which the person has been found mentally incompetent and specified facts exist, including that the person is unable to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings taken against them and to assist counsel in the conduct of their defense in a rational manner. This bill would clarify that gravely disabled includes meeting either or both of these definitions of gravely disabled. Existing law, in the case of a misdemeanor charge in which the defendant is found incompetent, requires the court to hold a hearing to determine whether the defendant is eligible for both diversion and the CARE program. Under existing law, if the defendant is not eligible or suitable for diversion, the court is required to hold another hearing to decide if the defendant should be referred for, among other things, county conservatorship. Existing law only allows a referral for county conservatorship if, based on the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant appears to be gravely disabled, as defined. This bill would also allow a referral for county conservatorship if, in the opinion of the court, the defendant appears to be gravely disabled.
Existing law authorizes a chief administrative officer of a postsecondary educational institution, as defined, or an officer or employee designated by the chief administrative officer to maintain order on the school campus or facility, that has a student who has suffered unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence from any individual which can reasonably be construed to be carried out or to have been carried out at the school campus or facility, to seek a temporary restraining order and an injunction on behalf of the student and, at the discretion of the court, any number of other students at the campus or facility, as specified. This bill would also authorize a chief administrative officer of the postsecondary educational institution or an officer or employee designated by the chief administrative officer to maintain order on the school campus or facility to seek a temporary restraining order and an injunction on behalf of the postsecondary educational institution, upon becoming aware of unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence directed towards the postsecondary educational institution. The bill would require the Judicial Council, on or before January 1, 2028, to adopt or modify forms, as specified. The bill would also expand the course of conduct, as defined, for which a temporary restraining order can be sought to include making telephone calls or sending correspondence, including, but not limited to, email correspondence, to the postsecondary educational institution or its employees or students, or sending correspondence to the chief administrative officer. These provisions would become operative on July 1, 2029. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 527.85 of the Code of Civil Procedure proposed by AB 1753 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1753 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
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, the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, establishes procedures for the reporting, investigation, and prosecution of elder and dependent adult abuse. Existing law requires a mandated reporter of suspected financial abuse of an elder or dependent adult, as defined, to report financial abuse in a specified manner, including by telephone or through a confidential internet reporting tool, as specified, immediately, or as soon as practicably possible. If reported by telephone, existing law requires a written report to be sent, or an internet report to be made through the internet reporting tool, to the local adult protective services agency or the local law enforcement agency within 2 working days. Existing law deems all officers and employees of a financial institution to be mandated reporters of suspected financial abuse of an elder or dependent adult. A mandated reporter who fails to report financial abuse of an elder or dependent adult is liable for civil penalties, as specified. If a report of financial abuse is made by a mandated reporter, as described above, this bill would also require a report to be made to the Federal Bureau of Investigation Internet Crime Complaint Center within 2 working days. Within 48 hours of filing a report, the bill would require a financial institution to notify the elder or dependent adult identified in the report, as specified, and provide additional required information. The bill would require a financial institution to provide annual training to its mandated reporters on how to escalate internally and report suspected financial abuse of an elder or a dependent adult to both local and federal authorities, as specified. The bill would specify that violations of these provisions would not incur the above-described liability for civil penalties. The bill would make its provisions operative on January 1, 2028.
Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of adult alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facilities by the State Department of Public Health and prohibits the operation of one of those facilities without a current valid license. Existing law requires the department, if a facility is alleged to be in violation of that prohibition, to conduct a site visit to investigate the allegation. Existing law requires, if the department's employee or agent finds evidence that the facility is providing services without a license, the employee or agent to take specified actions, including, among others, submitting the findings of the investigation to the department and issuing a written notice to the facility that includes the date by which the facility is required to cease providing services. Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services and under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services, through fee-for-service or managed care delivery systems. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. Existing law establishes the Drug Medi-Cal Treatment Program (Drug Medi-Cal) and authorizes the department to enter into a Drug Medi-Cal contract with each county for the provision of alcohol and drug use services within the county service area. This bill would require the department, if it determines it has jurisdiction over the allegation, to assign the complaint to an analyst within 10 days of receiving the allegation and, except as specified, complete the investigation within 120 days of assigning the complaint. The bill would require the department, if it receives a complaint that does not fall under its jurisdiction, to notify, to the extent feasible, the complainant that it does not investigate that type of complaint. The bill would require the employee or agent to provide their findings to the department and would require the department to issue the notice described above within 10 days of the employee or agency submitting their findings and to conduct a followup site visit to determine whether the facility has ceased providing services as required. The bill would authorize, in counties that elect to administer the Drug Medi-Cal organized delivery system and that provide optional recovery housing services, the county behavioral health agency to request approval from the department to conduct a site visit of a recovery residence that the county contracts with that is alleged to be operating without a license. The bill would permit the department to approve that request in certain circumstances, including that the department has sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. Existing law requires licensed adult alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facilities and certified alcohol or other drug programs to disclose to the department whether any of its agents, partners, directors, officers, or owners has a specified interest in a recovery residence and requires the department to take action against an unlicensed facility that is disclosed as a recovery residence. This bill would require the department, if it takes action against a recovery residence pursuant to that provision, to conduct a site visit of a certified program or licensed facility that has disclosed the specified interest in the recovery residence. The bill would also require, no later than July 15, 2027, and by July 15 each year thereafter, that all programs certified or facilities licensed by the department submit to the department a report of all money transfers between the program or facility and a recovery residence during the previous fiscal year, in order to detect patient brokering, illicit kickbacks, or unethical inducements that harm patients. The bill would require the department to analyze that data and develop guidelines for permissible and impermissible transfers.
