Existing law prohibits false imprisonment, defined as the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another. Existing law provides that the measure of damages for the breach of an obligation not arising from a contract is the amount that will compensate for all the detriment proximately caused thereby, whether it could have been anticipated or not, except as expressly provided otherwise. This bill would authorize a prevailing plaintiff in an action based on false imprisonment or false arrest to elect to receive, in lieu of actual damages, $10,000 for each of specified acts committed by the defendant in the perpetration of the false imprisonment or false arrest, as specified. The bill would make defendants liable for the amounts described above for an incident of false imprisonment or false arrest jointly and severally liable and would limit the aggregate award to a person under the above provisions to $250,000 per incident of false imprisonment or false arrest. The bill would exempt causes of action brought against specified parties from the above provisions. The bill would make related findings and declarations and would make its provisions severable.
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.
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, as amended by the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016, enacted by Proposition 57 at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, authorizes the district attorney to make a motion to transfer a minor from juvenile court to a court of criminal jurisdiction in a case in which a minor is alleged to have committed a felony when the minor was 16 years of age or older, or in a case in which a specified serious offense is alleged to have been committed by a minor when the minor was 14 or 15 years of age, but the minor was not apprehended prior to the end of juvenile court jurisdiction. Existing case law prohibits the use of a minor's statements made at a transfer hearing or to a probation officer from being used during a criminal prosecution of the minor transferred to the court of criminal jurisdiction. This bill would codify existing case law to prohibit the use of the minor's statements made during a transfer hearing or to the minor's probation officer for the purposes of preparing a report for a transfer hearing from being used against the minor during subsequent juvenile proceedings or subsequent criminal proceedings, as specified. This bill would state that the provisions of this bill are declaratory of existing law.
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.
(1) Existing law, the Bail Fugitive Recovery Persons Act, regulates bail fugitive recovery agents, defined to mean a licensed individual given written authorization by the bail or depositor of bail and contracted to investigate, surveil, locate, and arrest a bail fugitive, and any person employed to assist the bail or depositor of bail to investigate, surveil, locate, and arrest a bail fugitive. Existing law prohibits a person from performing the activities of a bail fugitive recovery agent unless licensed by the Insurance Commissioner, as provided. Existing law provides for the issuance of bail licenses under the jurisdiction of the commissioner and makes a violation of those provisions a crime. Existing law requires a bail fugitive recovery agent to file certain information with the commissioner, including a policy of liability insurance that provides minimum limits of insurance of $1,000,000 for any one loss or occurrence due to either bodily injury or death, or property damage, or both. This bill, the Bail Fugitive Recovery Agent Reform Act, would require a bail fugitive recovery agent (BFRA) to have on file the above-described policy of liability insurance that complies with various requirements, as specified. The bill would require specified records, documents, and information regarding the BFRA liability insurance policy to be filed in the manner specified by the commissioner no more than 30 days after issuance by the issuing insurance company or placement by the production agency. If a BFRA fails to maintain liability insurance or fails to provide proof of the required insurance policy, the bill would require the commissioner to provide written notice to the BFRA that they have 30 days to provide proof of compliance or the BFRA will be automatically suspended without proceedings after the 30-day period. (2) Existing law requires an applicant for a license to act as a bail agent to file with the commissioner a notice of appointment executed by a surety insurer or its authorized representative authorizing that applicant to execute undertakings of bail and to solicit and negotiate those undertakings on its behalf. Existing law similarly requires an applicant for a BFRA's license to file with the commissioner a notice of appointment executed by a bail agent or surety insurer authorizing that applicant to act on behalf of, and pursuant to, the instructions of the appointing licenseholder. Existing law authorizes these notices of appointment to continue in force until the termination of the agent's license, the end of the license term, or the filing of a notice of termination, as specified. This bill would apply the filing requirement for an applicant for a license to act as a bail agent to every holder of a license to act as a bail agent and would apply the filing requirement for an applicant to act as a BFRA to every holder of a license to act as a BFRA. For an applicant for a license to act as a BFRA or a holder of a license to act as a BFRA, the bill would prohibit the notices of appointment from being considered effective until the notice is formally filed with and acknowledged by the Department of Insurance. (3) Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to establish a certification program for peace officers for the purpose of fostering professionalization, education, and experience necessary to accomplish the general police service duties, as specified. This bill would require a BFRA applicant or licensee who has been issued the above-described certificate for peace officers and has had that certification suspended or revoked by POST, or has voluntarily surrendered that certification, to notify the commissioner, as provided. (4) Existing law authorizes the commissioner to decline to issue a bail license until the commissioner is satisfied that the applicant, among other things, has not willfully misstated any material fact in their application or procured a misstatement in the supporting documents of their application. This bill would revise that condition to authorize the commissioner to decline to issue a bail license until the commissioner is satisfied that the applicant has not willfully or knowingly made a misstatement in the application or has not made a false statement in testimony given under oath before the commissioner or another person acting in the commissioner's stead. The bill would also require any applicant for, or holder of, a BFRA license to be a current resident of this state and have been a continuous resident of this state for at least 2 years before applying for a BFRA license. (5) Existing law generally prescribes the requirements of conduct by a BFRA licensee, including, among other things, prohibitions against any uniform of a BFRA that represents the BFRA as belonging to any part or department of the federal, state, or local government, as specified. Existing law, except under exigent circumstances, requires a BFRA to, prior to and no more than 6 hours before attempting to apprehend the bail fugitive, notify the local police or sheriff's department of the intent to apprehend a bail fugitive in that jurisdiction. If an exigent circumstance arises and prior notification is not given, existing law requires a BFRA to notify the local police or sheriff's department immediately after the apprehension and submit a detailed explanation of those exigent circumstances upon request of the local jurisdiction. This bill would additionally prohibit a BFRA from, among other things, threatening legal action unrelated to the case for which bail was given and loitering on or around a property if the bail subject is not present. The bill would also require a BFRA licensee to affix, type, or print their license number on business cards or other documents produced by the licensee in a specified type size. The bill would require the above-described notice provided to the local police or sheriff's department to be in writing and include specified information. The bill would require any record relating to notice to the local police or sheriff's department to be transcribed in writing and retained by the BFRA for a period of not less than 5 years from the date of notice. The bill would require the BFRA to provide a copy of any notice requested by the commissioner within 21 calendar days of the request and would require specified information to be included in the copy. The bill would prescribe a fine of $4,000 for each offense, as specified. By establishing new requirements for BFRA applicants and licensees, the violation of which is a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (6) This bill would make various conforming changes. The bill would provide that its provisions are severable. 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 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, or a local department of transportation or public works department, as specified. The bill would, beginning January 1, 2026, require new, updated, 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, and would impose new requirements on sharing between California state law enforcement agencies. The 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. The bill would prohibit a public agency from retaining ALPR information for more than 60 days after the date of collection if it does not match information on an authorized hot list, as defined, and as of January 1, 2026, would require a public agency to delete all ALPR information that has been held for more than 60 days and does not match information on an authorized hot list within 14 days. 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 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, a local department of transportation or public works department, or an airport or airport operator, as provided. 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, 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 the case file number or task force name, as applicable, that justifies the search query, and would provide that no queries shall be allowed without a log entry with a valid and current case file number or task force name from the agency conducting the query. 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.
