Sen. Mark Leno

Existing law declares the official state animal, rock, mineral, grass, insect, bird, and marine fish, among other things. This bill would make denim the official state fabric.

Existing law authorizes a peace officer to take a minor into temporary custody when that officer has reasonable cause to believe that the minor has committed a crime or violated an order of the juvenile court. In these circumstances, existing law requires the peace officer to advise the minor that anything he or she says can be used against him or her, that he or she has the right to remain silent, that he or she has a right to have counsel present during any interrogation, and that he or she has a right to have counsel appointed if he or she is unable to afford counsel. This bill would require that a youth under 18 years of age consult with legal counsel in person, by telephone, or by video conference prior to a custodial interrogation and before waiving any of the above-specified rights. The bill would provide that consultation with legal counsel cannot be waived. The bill would require the court to consider the effect of the failure to comply with the above-specified requirement in adjudicating the admissibility of statements of a youth under 18 years of age made during or after a custodial interrogation. The bill also clarifies that these provisions do not apply to the admissibility of statements of a youth under 18 years of age if certain criteria are met.

Existing law defines rape and spousal rape as an act of sexual intercourse accomplished under specified circumstances indicating a lack of consent, force, or duress, as specified. Existing law additionally makes various acts, including sodomy and oral copulation without consent or sexual intercourse with a minor, unlawful as sexual assault. This bill would state the findings of the Legislature that all forms of nonconsensual sexual assault may be considered rape for purposes of the gravity of the offense and the support of survivors and would state that this is declarative of existing law.

Existing law requires a public agency, as defined, that serves the public or is open to the public and maintains toilet facilities to make those facilities available to the public free of charge. Existing law requires publicly and privately owned facilities where the public congregates, as defined, to maintain a sufficient number of temporary or permanent toilet facilities to meet the needs of the public at peak hours. Existing law also requires each business establishment to provide, within reasonable access, a sufficient number of toilet facilities for the use of the employees. This bill would, commencing March 1, 2017, require all single-user toilet facilities in any business establishment, place of public accommodation, or government agency to be identified as all-gender toilet facilities, as specified. The bill would authorize inspectors, building officials, or other local officials responsible for code enforcement to inspect for compliance with these provisions during any inspection.

Existing federal law provides for tax-qualified retirement plans and individual retirement accounts or individual retirement annuities by which private citizens may save money for retirement. Existing law, the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Trust Act, establishes the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program, administered by the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Investment Board, contingent on specified funding and interest criteria being met. Existing law prescribes the composition of the board and its duties and provides that it acts as trustee in entering contracts and accepting moneys, among other things. Existing law prohibits the board from permitting enrollment in the program until enactment of a statute expressing legislative approval of program implementation. The program requires specified eligible employers, as defined, to offer a payroll deposit retirement savings arrangement and requires eligible employees, as defined, who do not opt out of the program, to contribute a portion of their salary or wages to a retirement savings account in the program, as specified. Existing law requires contributions from the wages of employees participating in the program to be deposited in the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Trust, which is continuously appropriated and administered by the board. Existing law authorizes the board to adjust the employee contribution amount between 2% and 4%, inclusive, of the employee's annual salary or wages, as specified. This bill would express legislative approval of the program and its implementation on January 1, 2017. The bill would require the board, prior to opening the program for enrollment, to make a report to the Governor and Legislature affirming that certain requirements have been met, including that the program is structured to meet a United States Department of Labor regulation, as specified. The bill would require the board to design and implement the program and would prescribe certain parameters that the board is to consider and utilize in establishing the design. The bill would require the board, for up to 3 years following implementation, to establish managed accounts invested in United States Treasury securities, in myRAs, as defined, or in similar investments and would make conforming changes in this connection in provisions related to mitigating risk in the investment portfolio and payment of the costs of administration. The bill would require the board, after this period, to annually prepare and adopt a written statement of investment policy containing specified elements. The bill would require the board to consider the statement and any changes in the investment policy at a public hearing. The bill would specify that funding and first year administrative costs may be appropriated in the annual budget from the General Fund and would require the board to repay the amount appropriated, plus interest, as specified. On and after 6 years from the date the program is implemented, the bill would prohibit expenditures for the purpose of paying operative costs and administering the trust from exceeding 1% of the total program fund. The bill would revise the purposes for which administrative and program funds may be expended. The bill would provide that investment policy decisions, including asset allocation and investment options, are entrusted to the board as a fiduciary, and would revise certain principles that the board is to consider in connection with investment policy. The bill would exempt the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Trust from specified provisions regarding the qualification of securities for sale. The bill would make various changes to existing duties of the board, including those regarding dissemination of information and the entities with which the board is to collaborate and cooperate. The bill would require the Treasurer to appoint an executive director of the board, to serve at its pleasure, and to determine the duties of the office and its compensation. The bill would eliminate the duty of the board to ensure that insurance or some other mechanism is in place to protect the value of individual accounts and would eliminate the requirement to secure private underwriting and reinsurance, as specified. The bill would repeal the duty of the board to conduct an initial market analysis to determine if the condition for the implementation of the program can be met and associated provisions. The bill would eliminate the authority of the board to establish certain investment options. This bill would require eligible employers that do not offer specified retirement plans or accounts to have a payroll deposit retirement savings arrangement so that employees may participate in the program within specified time periods based on the number of eligible employees that the employer has, and the bill would authorize the board to extend these time periods. The bill would provide that employers retain the right at all times to set up and offer their own qualified retirement plans. The bill would define an employer of a provider of in-home supportive services as an employer if a specified determination and certification are made and would require the state or a county that makes a direct payment to a provider to assume obligations regarding retirement savings accounts, including payroll deposit IRA arrangements offered under the program. The bill would authorize the board to adjust the employee contribution amount described above up to 5% and would prescribe other limits on increasing employee contributions. The bill would authorize the board to make annual, automatic escalations of employee contributions subject to certain limitations, including that the employee may opt out, as specified. By authorizing the board to increase moneys that are deposited into the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Trust, which is continuously appropriated, the bill would make an appropriation. The bill would authorize the board to adopt regulations to implement the program and would provide that the adoption, amendment, repeal, or readoption of a regulation authorized by this section is deemed to address an emergency. The bill would make various conforming changes.

(1) Existing law establishes the Department of Business Oversight as headed by the Commissioner of Business Oversight, who, among other things, generally provides for the licensure and regulation of persons who are engaged in various consumer financial businesses, including, but not limited to, the business of making consumer or commercial loans. This bill would enact the Student Loan Servicing Act providing for the licensure, regulation, and oversight of student loan servicers by the commissioner and would define terms for its purposes. The bill would prohibit a person from engaging in the business of servicing a student loan in this state, directly or indirectly, without a license, unless exempt from the licensing requirement, and would require a licensee to provide specific services to a student loan borrower and comply with reporting, auditing, and other oversight by the commissioner. The bill would require a person applying for a license to, among other things, pay an application fee, sign the application under penalty of perjury, and submit to a criminal background check by the Department of Justice. By expanding the scope of the crime of perjury and increasing who is authorized to receive criminal record information, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require each licensee to, among other things, file reports with the commissioner under oath, pay to the commissioner its pro rata share of all costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the administration of these provisions, as estimated by the commissioner, and would authorize the commissioner to enforce these provisions by, among other things, promulgating regulations, performing investigations, suspending a license, and enforcing the provisions in an administrative hearing or in court, as specified. The bill would prohibit the public disclosure of specific information provided by a licensee to the commissioner. The bill would make the act operative on July 1, 2018, except for specific authorizations to the commissioner which may be exercised on and after January 1, 2017. The bill would make legislative findings in support of its provisions. (2) 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. (3) Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

(1) Existing law provides certain individuals with immunity from civil liability under specific circumstances, including, among others, limiting the civil liability of a person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency medical or nonmedical care at the scene of an emergency, as specified. This bill would further limit the exposure to civil liability of an emergency responder, defined as a paid or an unpaid volunteer or private entity acting within the scope of authority implicitly or expressly provided by a local public entity or a public employee of a local public entity to provide emergency services, for damage to an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the emergency responder was performing specific emergency services and the unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system was interfering with the provision of those emergency services. (2) The Government Claims Act sets forth the general procedure for the presentation of a claim as a prerequisite to the commencement of an action for money or damages against a "public entity," "local public entity," or a "public employee," and defines those terms for its purposes. The act prohibits liability against a public entity or public employee for, among other things, certain acts relating to the provision of fire protection and police and correctional activities, as specified. This bill would further limit the exposure to civil liability of a local public entity or public employee of a local public entity for damage to an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the local public entity or public employee of a local public entity was performing specific emergency services and the unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system was interfering with the provision of those emergency services. The bill would specify that this immunity is in addition to any other immunity provided to a local public entity or public employee of a local public entity under law.

Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge children to be dependents or wards of the court under certain circumstances. Existing law authorizes only a juvenile court judicial officer to make orders regarding the administration of psychotropic medications for a dependent or delinquent child who has been removed from the physical custody of his or her parent. Existing law requires that court authorization for the administration of psychotropic medication to a child be based on a request from a physician, indicating the reasons for the request, a description of the child's diagnosis and behavior, the expected results of the medication, and a description of any side effects of the medication. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to adopt rules of court and develop appropriate forms for the implementation of these provisions, as specified. This bill, commencing January 1, 2018, would require that an order authorizing the administration of psychotropic medications to a dependent child or a delinquent child in foster care be granted only upon the court's determination that the administration of the medication is in the best interest of the child and that specified requirements have been met, including a requirement that the prescribing physician confirms that all appropriate laboratory screenings or tests have been performed or ordered for the child, as specified. Under specified circumstances, the bill would prohibit the court from authorizing the administration of psychotropic medications to a child under those provisions, unless a preauthorization review is obtained from a child psychiatrist or behavioral pediatrician, as specified. The bill would impose additional requirements on the court to implement these provisions and to conduct review hearings, as specified. The bill would require the child's social worker to submit a report to the court prior to any review hearing, to include information from the child, the child's caregiver, the public health nurse, and the court-appointed special advocate. By increasing the duties of county social workers, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize psychotropic medication to be administered in an emergency without court authorization. The bill would require court authorization to be sought as soon as practical thereafter, but in no case more than 2 court days after emergency administration of the psychotropic medication. The bill would require the Judicial Council to adopt rules of court and develop appropriate forms to implement these provisions by January 1, 2018. This bill would also require the State Department of Health Care Services, in collaboration with the Judicial Council, to identify resources to assist courts in securing preauthorization reviews in those counties in which there are fewer than 10 practicing child and adolescent psychiatrists in order to avoid undue delays in the authorization of psychotropic medications. This bill would incorporate changes to Section 4064.5 of the Business and Professions Code proposed by both this bill and SB 999, which would become operative only if both bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2017, and this bill is chaptered last. 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 subjects certain property to forfeiture, such as controlled substances and equipment used to process controlled substances. Existing law allows peace officers, under specified circumstances, to seize property that is subject to forfeiture. Existing law authorizes specified public agencies to bring an action to recover expenses of seizing, eradicating, destroying, or taking remedial action with respect to any controlled substance. In a forfeiture action with regards to cash or negotiable instruments of a value of not less than $25,000, existing law requires the state or local agency to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the property is subject to forfeiture. Existing law requires seized property or the proceeds from the sale of that property to be distributed among specified entities. Existing law requires the Attorney General to publish an annual report on forfeiture within the state. This bill would require a prosecuting agency to seek or obtain a criminal conviction for the unlawful manufacture or cultivation of any controlled substance or its precursors prior to an entry of judgment for recovery of expenses of seizing, eradicating, destroying, or taking remedial action with respect to any controlled substance. The bill would prohibit maintaining an action for recovery of expenses against a person who has been acquitted of the underlying criminal charges. The bill would prohibit state or local law enforcement agencies from transferring seized property to a federal agency seeking adoption by the federal agency of the seized property. The bill would further prohibit state or local agencies from receiving an equitable share from a federal agency of specified seized property if a conviction for the underlying offenses is not obtained, except as specified. The bill would require notices of a forfeiture action to contain additional details, such as the rights of an interested party at a forfeiture hearing. The bill would change the burden of proof that a state or local law enforcement agency must meet to succeed in a forfeiture action with regards to cash or negotiable instruments of a value not less than $25,000, but not more than $40,000, from a clear and convincing standard to beyond a reasonable doubt. The bill would require the Legislative Analyst's Office, on or before December 31, 2019, to submit a report to the Legislature on the economic impact of this change, and the above-described prohibition on receiving an equitable share from a federal agency, on state and local law enforcement budgets. The bill would make other related changes to court forfeiture proceedings. The bill would also require the Attorney General to include additional information on forfeiture actions in the annual report.

Under existing law, a candidate for nonpartisan office who receives votes on the majority of all ballots cast at a primary election is elected to that office, and the office does not appear on the ballot in the ensuing general election. Existing law prescribes which candidates appear on the ballot in the ensuing general election if no candidate has been elected pursuant to this provision, or if the number of candidates elected at the primary election is less than the total number to be elected to that office. Under existing law, these provisions do not apply to elections to fill certain enumerated offices. This bill would apply these provisions, upon approval by a jurisdiction's voters, to the nomination of officers for any jurisdiction not formed for municipal purposes, officers for general law cities, and school district officers, except as specified. Existing law provides procedures for the election of candidates for elective offices in cities, counties, and local educational agencies. Existing law specifies the circumstances in which voters in these jurisdictions may elect officers at large or from or by district. Existing law prescribes the length of various terms of office for locally elected officials. This bill would authorize a city, county, or local educational agency to conduct an election using ranked choice voting, in which voters rank the candidates for office in order of preference, as specified. This bill would specify the procedures for conducting an election using ranked choice voting as it applies to both a single-winner election and a multiple-winner election.