Existing law establishes the Civil Rights Department to administer and enforce various laws relating to civil rights, including the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Existing law requires certain private employers to annually submit a pay data report to the department that includes, among other information, the number of employees by race, ethnicity, and sex, as specified, and, within each job category, for each combination of race, ethnicity, and sex, the median and mean hourly rate. Upon request from the Civil Rights Department, existing law requires a court to impose a civil penalty not to exceed $100 per employee upon any employer who fails to file the required report and not to exceed $200 per employee upon any employer for a subsequent failure to file the required report. This bill would increase the penalty for subsequent failures to file the report described above to an amount not to exceed $1,000 per employee. Existing law authorizes the department to develop, publish on an annual basis, and publicize aggregate reports based on the data obtained pursuant to their authority under this section, provided that the aggregate reports are reasonably calculated to prevent the association of any data with any individual business or person. This bill would require the department to annually publish the number of total pay data reports submitted, as provided and specified.
Existing law allows a person who is unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty to prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of their imprisonment or restraint. Existing law allows a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on several bases, including on the basis of false evidence that is material on the issue of guilt or punishment, as specified, or the discovery of new evidence that exists that is presented without substantial delay, is admissible, and that has not been previously presented and heard at trial and has been discovered after trial. Existing law creates a presumption in favor of granting relief through habeas when the district attorney in the county of the conviction or the Attorney General concedes or stipulates to a legal or factual basis for habeas relief. This bill would revise the above-described standards to no longer require false evidence to be material and would instead require that the evidence create any reasonable likelihood it could have affected the outcome of the case. The bill would also change the new evidence standard to instead require that there be a reasonable probability it would have produced a different result sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the case. The bill would revise the presumption in favor of granting relief to instead make a stipulation binding on the parties, if certain conditions are met, unless the moving party proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the other party violated the terms or the state withheld evidence, as specified. The bill would also revise the process for a concession and instead prohibit a party from withdrawing a concession if the concession is contained in a return or other written filing signed by counsel for respondent, as specified. Existing law allows a person who is no longer unlawfully imprisoned or restrained to prosecute a motion to vacate a judgment on the basis of newly discovered evidence of fraud by a government official that completely undermines the prosecution's case, is conclusive, and points unerringly to their innocence, newly discovered evidence that a government official testified falsely at trial that resulted in the conviction and that the testimony was substantially probative on the issue of guilt or punishment, or newly discovered evidence of misconduct by a government official committed in the underlying case that resulted in fabrication of evidence that was substantially material and probative on the issue of guilt or punishment. The bill would revise the above-described standards to instead require a demonstration that there is a reasonable probability the evidence would have produced a different result sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the case, as specified. The bill would make other conforming changes. The bill would make related findings and declarations.
Existing law prohibits the use of kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents by any law enforcement agency to disperse any assembly, protest, or demonstration, except in compliance with specified standards. Existing law requires kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents only to be deployed by a peace officer that has received proper training for crowd control, as specified, or to bring an objectively dangerous and unlawful situation safely and effectively under control and only in accordance with certain requirements, including that de-escalation techniques have been attempted and have failed, kinetic energy projectiles are not aimed at the head, neck, or any other vital organs, and, if the chemical agent to be deployed is tear gas, only a commanding officer at the scene of the assembly, protest, or demonstration may authorize the use of tear gas. This bill would expand the above prohibition and exception to include flash-bang grenades, as defined. The bill would define law enforcement agency as any department or agency of the state or any local government, special district, or other political subdivision thereof, that employs any peace officer, as defined, or any federal law enforcement agency. The bill would prohibit the use of flash-bang grenades by any law enforcement agency for the purposes of immigration enforcement, except as specified. The bill would also only allow a commanding officer at the scene to authorize the use of flash-bang grenades. Existing law requires each law enforcement agency to publish specified use of force incidents to the Department of Justice and requires the Department of Justice to publish those reports, as specified. This bill would additionally require law enforcement agencies to report the use of flash-bang grenades. By imposing new duties on local law enforcement agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law prohibits the possession of any destructive device and makes a violation of this prohibition punishable as a misdemeanor or felony. Existing law exempts specified peace officers from this prohibition. This bill would prohibit a peace officer, as defined, from using an explosive breaching charge, as defined, for the purpose of immigration enforcement, except as specified. 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. The bill would declare the severability of its provisions.
The Secretary of State is the chief elections officer of the state, and the Attorney General is the chief law officer of the state. Existing law requires a state or local agency that files or is served with an elections-related claim arising under federal law to provide written notice to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General within 3 court days. Existing law requires a state or local agency that intends to enter into a settlement, consent decree, or other court-approved agreement related to the claim to provide a draft copy of the settlement, consent decree, or agreement to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General at least 14 court days before entering into it. This bill would require a local agency, political subdivision, or elections official to provide notice to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General immediately, but no later than one calendar day, after becoming aware of any warrant, subpoena, or active law enforcement investigation pertaining to any election records or certified voting technology under their custody or control. The bill would authorize the Secretary of State or the Attorney General to intervene in, or initiate, any court proceedings to challenge a warrant or subpoena on any valid grounds or seek any other appropriate relief. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2030. By increasing the duties of local elections officials, 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law prohibits law enforcement officers from employing threats, physical harm, deception, or psychologically manipulative interrogation tactics, as specified, during a custodial interrogation of a person 17 years of age or younger. This bill would prohibit a law enforcement officer from seeking statements or information while working undercover, or by individuals working in collaboration with, or acting as agents of, law enforcement, from a person who was 17 years of age or younger during the commission of crime and who is under 26 years of age while in custody. The bill would direct a court to consider any willful failure of a law enforcement officer in violation of these provisions in determining the credibility of that law enforcement officer. The bill would specify that these provisions do not apply to the admissibility of statements or information provided to an officer or individuals working in collaboration with law enforcement that were sought to protect against an imminent threat to life.
Existing law establishes various benefit programs, including grant programs and loan programs. Existing law, the California Values Act, generally prohibits California law enforcement agencies from using their moneys or personnel for immigration enforcement purposes, except as specified. This bill would prohibit an administrator of a covered program, as those terms are defined, from awarding a grant or issuing a loan from a covered program to a private entity that contracts with United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, except as specified. The bill would require each private entity applying to a covered program to agree to identify to the administrator of that covered program any subcontractors to be used under the contract and to certify to the administrator that the subcontractors do not contract with United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The bill would require an administrator to include in their eligibility requirements for their covered programs that an eligible private entity and its subcontractors for each covered program, if any, shall not contract with United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The bill would make related findings and declarations. 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. By imposing additional duties on local agencies and expanding the scope of a 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 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 the Board of Parole Hearings to conduct a youth offender parole hearing for offenders sentenced to state prison who committed specified crimes when they were under 25 years of age. Existing law makes a person who was convicted of a controlling offense that was committed when the person was under 18 years of age and for which the sentence is life without the possibility of parole eligible for release on parole at a youth offender hearing by the board during the person's 25th year of incarceration. Existing law specifies that these provisions do not alter the rights of a victim at a parole hearing. Under existing law, a murder perpetrated by specified means or under certain circumstances is defined as murder of the first degree. Existing law, as added by Proposition 7, an initiative measure approved by the voters at the November 7, 1978, statewide general election, requires that a person convicted of first-degree murder be subject to death or confinement in prison for a term of life without the possibility of parole in any case in which specified special circumstances are charged and found to be true. Proposition 7 does not provide for amendment by the Legislature. This bill, the Youth Rehabilitation and Opportunity Act, would instead make a person who was convicted of a controlling offense that was committed when the person was 25 years of age or younger and for which they were sentenced to life without the possibility of parole eligible for parole after their 25th year of incarceration, except as specified. The bill would require the board to complete, by January 1, 2028, all hearings for individuals who are or will be entitled to have their parole suitability considered at a youth offender parole hearing by these provisions, as specified.
This measure would strongly condemn and denounce mass immigration raids that target immigrant workers and families in California and the engagement of the military in immigration enforcement operations and in response to community protests. This measure would affirm support for safeguarding the rights and safety of all Californians, regardless of immigration status, and support, among other things, the expansion of legal services and emergency response resources to protect workers, children, and families affected by immigration enforcement.
Existing law, the Pharmacy Law, provides for the licensure and regulation of pharmacists and pharmacies by the California State Board of Pharmacy. Existing law, until January 1, 2026, authorizes a physician or pharmacist to, without a prescription or permit, furnish hypodermic needles and syringes for human use to a person 18 years of age or older, and authorizes a person 18 years of age or older to, without a prescription or license, obtain hypodermic needles and syringes solely for personal use from a physician or pharmacist, as a public health measure, as specified. Existing law, until January 1, 2026, requires a pharmacy that furnishes nonprescription syringes to provide written information or verbal counseling to consumers, as specified, at the time of furnishing or sale of nonprescription hypodermic needles or syringes. Existing law, when no other penalty is provided, makes a knowing violation of the Pharmacy Law a misdemeanor and, in all other instances, makes a violation punishable as an infraction. This bill would delete the January 1, 2026, repeal date, thereby extending those provisions indefinitely, and would make other conforming changes. By indefinitely extending an existing requirement under the Pharmacy Law, the violation of which is a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law authorizes a court, on its own motion within 120 days of the date of the defendant's commitment, or at any time if the applicable sentencing laws have changed or upon a recommendation from the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Board of Parole Hearings, or the district attorney, to recall a defendant's sentence and resentence that defendant to a lesser sentence. Existing law establishes the California Conservation Camps for the purpose of having incarcerated persons work on projects supervised by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Existing law requires the department to utilize incarcerated persons assigned to conservation camps in performing fire prevention, fire control, and other work at the department. This bill would require the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, no later than July 1, 2027, to promulgate regulations, as specified, regarding the referral of participants in the California Conservation Camp program and incarcerated persons working at institutional firehouses for resentencing.
