Existing law authorizes the court to grant pretrial diversion to a defendant diagnosed with a mental disorder if the defendant satisfies certain eligibility requirements and if the court determines that the defendant is suitable for diversion. Existing law provides that a defendant is eligible for diversion if they have been diagnosed with certain mental disorders and the court finds that the mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense, unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the disorder was not a motivating, causal, or contributing factor to the defendant's involvement in the alleged offense. Existing law excludes a defendant from diversion for specified charged offenses, including, among others, murder, voluntary manslaughter, rape, or continuous sexual abuse of a child, as specified. Existing law prohibits a person from being tried or adjudged to punishment while that person is mentally incompetent, establishes a process by which a defendant's mental competency is evaluated, and requires a court, before ordering a defendant to be committed to the State Department of State Hospitals or other treatment facility, to hear and determine whether the defendant lacks the capacity to make decisions regarding the administration of antipsychotic medication, as specified. This bill would revise the eligibility requirement by prohibiting the court from finding the defendant eligible solely based on the defendant's diagnosis of a mental disorder and would additionally require the court to find that the defendant is not mentally incompetent. The bill would require the defendant, in order to be eligible, to provide a written diagnosis of a mental disorder, from within the preceding 2 years, to the court and the prosecution, as specified. The bill would additionally exclude a defendant from diversion if they were charged with theft or an attempted theft offense, if the crime was carried out in a manner demonstrating planning, sophistication, or professionalism. The bill would also, unless the parties stipulate to defendant's placement in diversion, prohibit placement if the defendant has been charged with a violent felony, as specified, or certain felony offenses involving domestic violence. The bill would remove the court's authority to grant diversion or other forms of treatment when a defendant is mentally incompetent. Existing law prohibits a person subject to specified protective orders from owning a firearm or ammunition. Existing law requires a person subject to those orders to relinquish any firearms or ammunition they own. This bill would authorize the court, for a defendant charged with a crime involving domestic violence that has completed mental health diversion, to issue an order, for up to 10 years, restraining the defendant from contact with the victim, as specified. The bill would additionally require an individual subject to a protective order through the above-described provisions to relinquish their firearms or ammunition. The California Constitution entitles the victim of a crime to restitution. Existing law requires the court in each criminal case to order a convicted defendant to pay full restitution to the victim and a separate restitution fine, as specified. This bill would require that the court order restitution to the victim or victims if a defendant participates in a diversion program. This bill would make other conforming changes.
Under existing law, a person who willfully inflicts corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon specified persons, including, among others, the offender's spouse or former spouse, is guilty of a crime, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 2, 3, or 4 years, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of up to $6,000. This bill would additionally make it a crime for a person to knowingly impede the normal breathing or bloodflow of one of those persons by applying pressure on the throat, neck, or chest of the person, or by obstructing the nose or mouth of the person. The bill would make this crime punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 2, 3, or 4 years, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of up to $6,000. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law 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 establishes the Domestic Violence Prevention Act for the purpose of preventing acts of domestic violence, abuse, and sexual abuse and providing for a separation of the persons involved in the domestic violence for a period sufficient to enable those persons to seek a resolution of the causes of the violence. Existing law authorizes a court to issue an ex parte protective order enjoining a party from, among other things, disturbing the peace of the other party. Existing law provides that disturbing the peace of the other party refers to conduct that includes coercive control, as defined, which includes unreasonably engaging in specified actions, including isolating the other party from friends, relatives, or other sources of support. Existing law makes an intentional and knowing violation of a protective order punishable as a misdemeanor. This bill would include forced marriage for purposes of the act. The bill would define "forced marriage" as a spousal relationship in which one or both parties do not or cannot consent and one or both parties are compelled, through force, fraud, coercion, duress, abuse of power, or coercive control, to enter, attempt to enter, or maintain, a marriage, regardless of whether the marriage is legally valid. If a protective order is sought to protect against a forced marriage, the bill would authorize all persons engaged in conduct to arrange, officiate, finance, or facilitate a forced marriage or attempted forced marriage to be included in one action as respondents. The bill would provide that coercive control, for purposes of the act, includes interfering with, threatening, or attempting to prevent a party or witness from participating in a court proceeding. The bill would provide that conduct undertaken to compel, attempt to compel, prepare for, or facilitate a forced marriage constitutes disturbing the peace of the other party, as specified. The bill would require the provisions of the act to be liberally construed. The bill would authorize a court to grant relief regardless of whether a marriage has occurred or whether a purported marriage would be legally valid in this state or any other jurisdiction. Because a violation of a protective order is punishable as a crime, by expanding the bases for the issuance of these orders, the bill would expand an existing crime, thereby imposing 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 provides for the prosecution of crimes by the district attorney of each county. Existing law establishes procedures for litigating claims of factual innocence based on newly discovered evidence, including a motion for a new trial or a writ of habeas corpus. This bill would, if the district attorney accepts a case for postconviction review, as defined, authorize the district attorney to file a notice with the court notifying the court of the intent to investigate a claim of factual innocence. The bill would, upon the filing of the above-described notice, deem the case to be treated as if it were an open case for the purposes of investigating a claim of factual innocence. The bill would provide the district attorney with the power to issue subpoenas, compel the production of document and testimony, and file necessary motions to investigate claims, as specified. The bill would also require all materials obtained by the district attorney to be subject to a protective order, as specified, and to be disclosed to the petitioner or the petitioner's counsel within 60 days of the termination of the investigation.
Existing law authorizes an employer or collective bargaining representative of an employee who has suffered harassment, unlawful violence, or a credible threat of violence from any individual, to seek a workplace violence restraining order on behalf of the employee and, at the discretion of the court, any number of other employees at the workplace or at other workplaces of the employer. Existing law authorizes one or more representative parties to bring suit for the benefit of a class of parties if the question is one of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties are numerous, and it is impracticable to bring them all before the court. This bill would authorize an employer to seek a workplace violence restraining order on behalf of all employees at the employer's workplace or a location at which a group of employees perform their primary job duties if harassment, unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence is directed at that workplace or location. The bill would not require an employer to name any individual employee as a protected party if the employer seeks a workplace violence restraining order on behalf of all employees at the employer's workplace or a location at which a group of employees perform their primary job duties. This bill would require the Judicial Council, on or before January 1, 2028, to adopt or modify its forms, as specified. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 527.8 of the Code of Civil Procedure proposed by AB 2179 to be operative only if this bill and AB 2179 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 527.8 of the Code of Civil Procedure proposed by AB 1753 to be operative only if (1) this bill and AB 1753 are both enacted, (2) AB 2179 is not enacted or as enacted does not amend Section 527.8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and (3) this bill is enacted last.
Existing law authorizes any employer or authorized bargaining representative, as specified, whose employee has suffered unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence that can reasonably be construed to be carried out or to have been carried out at the workplace, to seek a temporary restraining order and an order after hearing on behalf of the employee and other employees at the workplace, as described. This bill would, beginning on January 1, 2028, allow any party or witness to a petition for a restraining order to appear remotely at a hearing and would prohibit any fee for appearing remotely. The bill would require the court of each county to develop rules and instructions for such remote appearances and post them on its website. The bill would also, commencing on January 1, 2028, require courts to allow filings related to such protective orders to be submitted electronically, as specified. The bill would make conforming changes. 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.
(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 establishes the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, and requires the commission to, among other things, establish a certification program for peace officers, as defined. Existing law requires the commission, in consultation with specified subject matter experts, to develop guidelines and a course of instruction and training for law enforcement officers, including, but not limited to, hate crimes, elder and dependent abuse, and stalking. This bill would require peace officers assigned primarily to traffic enforcement to complete a National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) -approved standard field sobriety testing course of a minimum of 16 hours within one year of their assignment and, if an officer leaves employment with a law enforcement agency and does not become employed by a law enforcement agency within 2 years of their departure date, would require the officer to complete any of several specified commission-certified training courses, including a NHTSA refresher course if they are assigned to traffic enforcement. Because this bill would require additional training for local peace officers, 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, 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 generally punishes the willful disobedience of a court order as contempt of court by imprisonment in a county jail for a term not exceeding 6 months, a fine not exceeding $1,000, or both that imprisonment and fine. Existing law makes the willful and knowing violation of specified protective orders or stay-away court orders punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by both that imprisonment and fine for a first offense, and makes a 2nd or subsequent conviction for a violation of these specified protective orders or stay-away court orders occurring within 7 years of a prior conviction and involving an act of violence or credible threat of violence punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony. If a violation of specified protective orders or stay-away court orders results in a physical injury, the individual is required to be in a county jail for at least 48 hours, whether a fine or imprisonment is imposed, or the sentence suspended. This bill would make a willful and knowing violation of specified criminal protective orders or stay-away orders punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony if the subject of the criminal protective order was charged with, or convicted of, a felony for the conduct upon which the criminal protective order was based. The bill would make a second or subsequent conviction for a violation of specified protective orders or stay-away orders a felony. If a violation of specified protective orders or stay-away orders alleges a physical injury, the bill would require the court to consider the violation of the protective order or stay-away order and alleged injury when considering the seriousness of the offense charged and the protection of the public for purposes of setting, reducing, or denying bail. By increasing the punishment for 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
