I. Sex Offenders Legislation
The most significant crime bill to be enacted into law in 2010 was AB 1844 (Fletcher) – Chelsea’s Law. Chelsea King was a 17-year-old Poway High School student who disappeared February 25, 2010, after a run in a Rancho Bernardo park. Law enforcement and volunteers searched for days, until they found her body near Lake Hodges in San Diego. On April 16, 2010, registered sex offender John Gardner pled guilty to the murders of Chelsea King and Amber Dubois, a 14-year-old Escondido girl abducted on her way to school in February 2009, with the special circumstance of murder during the course of rape in each case. He also pled guilty to assault with intent to rape a third victim. The parties stipulated that the maximum punishment allowed by law, other than death, will be imposed for these crimes. On May 31, 2010, Gardner was convicted of two counts of lewd and lascivious acts against a child under 14 years old, and one count of false imprisonment. Additional charges of a forcible lewd act against a child under 14 years old, and a misdemeanor count of annoying or molesting a child under 18 years old, were dismissed as part of a plea bargain. AB 1844 strengthens the sex offenders’ crime laws by enacting a one-strike, life without parole sentencing option for the most dangerous sexual offenders; increases sentences for juvenile sex crimes; increases parole terms for those who target children under the age of 14, including lifetime parole; restricts sex offenders from entering parks; requires sex offenders’ risk assessment scores be made through the Megan’s Law Internet Web site; revises California mentally disordered offender laws to provide for continual detention of offenders where evaluation and assessment deem necessary; and requires the state to implement a first-in-the-nation containment model and dynamic risk assessment structure.
In March 2010, there was controversy over the release of the sex offender parole records of John Gardner. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), after being requested by the Associated Press to disclose documents concerning John Gardner’s parole on March 5, 2010, indicated the documents had been destroyed. Gardner had pleaded guilty in 2000 to committing lewd and lascivious acts on a 13-year-old girl. Officials said his parole file was destroyed in Fall 2009, just a year after he completed three years of parole supervision. Assemblymember Fletcher asked the Inspector General to investigate whether records were improperly destroyed. The CDCR spokesperson said 10,000 ex-convicts, each month, are released from parole and the system would be overwhelmed by paper records if it did not destroy full notes kept by agents. However, he did disclose on March 8, 2010, that portions of parole files, including those of Gardner, are transferred to central files and retained for 30 years. Release of information of those files is governed by privacy laws and, in Gardner’s case, by an ongoing investigation and a gag order that was imposed by a San Diego County Superior Court judge. On March 9th, Governor Schwarzenegger ordered California Corrections officials to make available to the public as much information as legally possible and ordered CDCR to keep sex offender’s parole records indefinitely. On March 17th, CDCR released the central file of John Gardner redacting information that could not be waived due to federal and state laws. On April 30th, the Governor directed the Sex Offender’s Management Board to review the Gardner case to determine where systematic changes or improvements could be made to better protect the public and immediately directed CDCR to obtain all files on sex offender parolees going forward and to make as much information as possible available to the public. The Legislature, in response to the file controversy, passed AB 2295 (De La Torre) which would have required CDCR to retain all files or electronic files of those sex offenders for 75 years from the date of release. The Governor, however, vetoed the bill indicating that CDCR’s current policy concerning the retention of the records exceeds what the bill would have required.
In a related matter, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed SB 5 (Hollingsworth) which enacts the Deceased Child Victims’ Protection and Privacy Act requiring, upon the request of a biological or adoptive parent, spouse, or legal guardian of a deceased minor, the sealing of the autopsy report and evidence associated with the examination of that minor victim when the minor was a victim of a crime that caused his/her death and a person been convicted and sentenced for committing that crime. SB 5, sponsored by the San Diego County District Attorney, was prompted by the Chelsea King case where 22 Public Record Act (PRA) requests were made for her autopsy report. The sponsor indicated that those PRA requests were denied under existing provisions of the PRA which allow for nondisclosure of investigative files. SB 5, instead, provides that autopsy reports and associated evidence in the possession of a public agency would, upon the request of certain family members, be sealed and not disclosed in certain instances. In short, while existing law gives an investigating agency sufficient discretionary power to deny a public record request for a minor’s autopsy report within one of the existing exemptions under PRA, SB 5 ensures that such reports, subject to conditions specified in the bill, will not be released if a “qualified family member”, defined as the biological or adoptive parent, spouse, or legal guardian, had requested sealing under the provisions of this bill. According to the author, this bill will protect the privacy of the families of murder victims by allowing them to request that autopsy reports not be subject to PRA requests. This Act is intended to limit the unnecessary dissemination of autopsy and private medical information and allows families to request that the autopsy report of the victim be sealed from public inspection. The author also noted that the bill provides reasonable exceptions for release of information to law enforcement or when needed as evidence in a court proceeding.
In its January 2010 report, the Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) strongly recommended that the sex offender management strategies which have been developed since 2006 (collectively known as the ‘Containment Model’) be implemented statewide. The Containment Model has been identified by CASOMB as the best practice for community supervision of sex offenders. While the Governor’s High-Risk Sex Offender Task Force and CASOMB have endorsed implementation of the Containment Model, it has not been implemented in any uniform or continuous manner. A few counties have their own version of the Containment Model; most counties do not, nor does CDCR use this model. The Containment Model calls for a collaborative effort of sex offender specific treatment providers, law enforcement supervising agents such as probation officers or parole agents, polygraphists providing specialized testing as both a treatment and monitoring tool and victim advocacy participants whenever possible. The offender is supervised and overseen within this context. If these aspects of containment are not in place, efficacy is reduced.
Other Sexual Offenders/Child Abuse legislation that was enacted included SB 834 (Florez) allowing courts, upon convictions in a case where the victim was a minor, to prohibit the defendant from harassing, intimidating, or threatening the victim, or victim’s family members or spouse, for up to 10 years; SB 1201 (DeSaulnier) requiring CDCR to assess every parolee transferred from another state or by the federal government to California that is convicted of an offense punishable as a registered sex offender here under the California State Authorized Risk Assessment Tool for Sex Offenders; SB 1253 (Strickland) prohibiting the narrow category of sex offenders currently eligible for probation from being placed or residing, for the duration of the probation term, within one-half mile of the child victim’s residence, as specified; SB 1279 (Pavley) allowing the Los Angeles County District Attorney to develop, in collaboration with county and community-based agencies, protocols for identifying and assessing minors who may be victims of commercial sexual exploitation upon their arrest or detention by law enforcement; AB 1280 (Villines) punishing any person who, having care or custody of a child under eight years of age, assaults the child with force that to a reasonable person is likely to produce great bodily injury, resulting in the child becoming comatose due to brain injury or suffering paralysis of a permanent nature, be imprisoned in state prison for 25-years-to-life; AB 1714 (Fuentes) providing $20 million to pay the settlement to Jaycee Dugard who was kidnapped in 1991 by Phillip and Nancy Garrido, and who was repeatedly raped over the course of 18 years; AB 2229 (Brownley) revising and recasting provisions of law relating to multidisciplinary personnel teams engaged in the investigation of suspected child abuse or neglect; and AB 2380 (Lowenthal) providing that a “reasonable suspicion” that a child has been a victim of child abuse or neglect does not require certainty that a child has been abused, nor does it require a specific medical condition for the purpose of making a report under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act.
The Governor vetoed AB 558 (Portantino) which would have required law enforcement agencies that take or possess rape kit evidence to report specified information concerning the treating and destruction of that evidence to the Department of Justice.
On February 1, 2010, a California State Superior Court upheld the 2,000-feet living requirement restriction for sex offenders imposed by Jessica’s Law who were paroled after the date the law passed. The decision, however made it possible for registered sex offenders to challenge the law’s residency requirement when they are paroled to places where it is impossible to avoid living near parks and schools.
II. Missing Children
Another issue closely connected to sex offenders was missing children. It was reported that every year an estimated 800,000 children are reported missing – more than 105,000 in California alone. This equates to more than 2,000 children each day. A large proportion of those children are abducted by non-family members under suspicious or unknown circumstances. A number of high-profile missing children cases within the last decade have brought to light the need to bring California’s laws and processes for missing person response and recovery into the 21st century. In 2009, in California, 105,171 children were reported missing, according to the Department of Justice. Of that number:
• 47,407 were male;
• 57,764 were female;
• 100,043 were determined to be runaways;
• 268 were reported “lost”;
• 12 went missing as a result of catastrophe;
• 45 were abducted by strangers;
• 1,210 went missing at the hands of a family member;
• 349 were abducted under suspicious circumstances; and
• 3,244 went missing under unknown circumstances.
In 1983, federal law was amended to require law enforcement agencies to notify the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) of missing children within four hours of a report being filed. According to a 1997 study, Case Management for Missing Children Homicide Investigation, the murder of an abducted child is a rare event, yet 76.2% of abducted children who are murdered are dead within three hours of the abduction. House Resolution 4472, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, signed into law in 2006 by President George W. Bush, provided additional missing children funds to states that implemented a number of new mandates – one of which was an updated, two-hour NCIC notification timeframe. To date, only Ohio has complied with the Act due to complexities in meeting mandates. In 2008, Florida separately acted, as part of the Jennifer Kesse and Tiffany Sessions Missing Persons Act, to require a two-hour NCIC notification timeframe for state law enforcement agencies.
Under federal law, information on missing persons may also be disclosed to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. In recent years, however, a number of nonprofit organizations have been created, including Klaas Kids, for purposes of raising awareness about missing children, educating parents and families about safe child practices (i.e. “Stranger Danger”), and for assisting law enforcement agencies in their searches for missing children.
To help coordinate state and local resources to help find missing children programs, the following were enacted into law: AB 33 (Nava and Cook) requiring law enforcement agencies to adopt a checklist document for missing persons investigations, establish guidelines on missing persons investigations, and utilize a missing person reporting form by January 1, 2012, and also requiring the California Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission to update their “Guidelines For Handling Missing Persons Investigations” and ensure its distribution as well as directing the Department of Justice to create a list of possible suspects and provide that list to law enforcement, in the event of a suspected stranger abduction of a child; AB 34 (Nava) requiring the law enforcement agency receiving a credible police report that an adult or child is missing to send the report for inclusion within the California Violent Crime Information Center and the NCIC databases within two hours after the receipt of the report, and also allowing the State to provide information about missing children to the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System; and AB 1022 (Nava and Cook) creating the position of Missing Persons Coordinator in the Department of Justice to assist law enforcement agencies with the timely search and recovery of at-risk abducted children using existing resources and expertise in the Department of Justice.
The major piece of Corrections legislation enacted into law was SB 1399 (Leno) allowing CDCR to medically parole certain state prison inmates with physical incapacitating conditions if the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) determines that the conditions of release would not reasonably pose a threat to public safety. This does not apply to offenders that are sentenced to death or life without the possibility of parole and will not be eligible for medical parole. Offenders that receive the medical parole would only qualify if they require 24-hour care and would remain under parole supervision. Medical paroles could also be returned to prison in the event their medical condition improves. In 1997, California first authorized the CDCR Secretary or the BPH to recommend to the sentencing judge that an inmate’s sentence be recalled due to terminal illness. Ten years later, that authority was extended to cover cases of medical incapacitation. Across the country, 36 states have implemented some form of medical release. This movement was to help relieve them of the financial burden of keeping inmates in prison whose medical condition has rendered their incarceration no longer necessary. SB 1399, according to the author, addresses some of the issues that have been identified as problematic in the current law. Rather than requiring a sentence recall, it creates an alternative procedure that permits these inmates to be placed on parole supervision under conditions determined by the BPH, and allows the parole to be revoked if for any reason the parolee’s condition changes and creates a danger to the public. It is estimated the net annual General Fund savings would be in the low tens of millions of dollars, as a result of eliminating costly security for incapacitated inmates and making these inmates eligible for Medi-Cal, for which the federal government pays 50%.
Other Corrections legislation of interest that was signed into law included SB 76 (Senate Public Safety Committee) reducing the good-time/work-time credits from one-half to one-third for persons convicted of misdemeanors while confined in a county jail. Basically, it restores the jail inmate credits that existed before the enactment of the prison reform bill passed in 2009; SB 18 X3 (Ducheny) increasing these jail credits to make them consistent with the credit rules for state prison inmates; SB 76 does not affect the prison inmate credit reforms; SB 962 (Liu) allowing for the use of video or teleconference technology for prisoners to participate in judicial proceedings involving their parental rights or a dependency petition for their child; SB 1266 (Liu) authorizing the CDCR Secretary to create alternative custody programs for specified inmates, including female inmates, pregnant inmates, or inmates who were the primary caregiver immediately prior to incarceration; SB 1447 (Padilla) requiring that, in accordance with the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002, the Corrections Standards Authority shall inspect and collect relevant data from any facility that may be used for the secure detention of minors; AB 552 (Solorio) implementing the CDCR and the Prison Court Receiver plan regarding the appropriate number of new medical and mental health beds needed in our state’s adult prison system; AB 1985 (Galgiani) requiring CDCR, by January 1, 2011, to adopt industry standard claim forms for use by contract health care providers, to be able to accept electronic submissions of claims from contract health care providers, to perform periodic audits of claims paid to contract health care providers, and to provide remote electronic access to claim status information to contract health care providers in order to keep inmate medical costs down; and AB 2218 (Fuentes) providing that an inmate who commits a crime involving a direct victim shall receive priority placement in a restitution center and expanding the eligibility criteria for the placement of an inmate into a restitution center.
Vetoed Corrections legislation of interest included SB 525 (Padilla) which would have created a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not to exceed $5,000 per device, for possession of a cell phone or wireless communication device or component with the intent to deliver that item to a CDCR inmate or ward (the Governor, in his veto message, wanted to sign a stronger deterrence bill); SB 1066 (Oropeza) which would have required that CDCR oversee and conduct periodic and random searches of employees and vendors entering the secure perimeter of state prisons under CDCR’s jurisdiction for contraband (the Governor felt that was already being done); AB 633 (Ammiano) which would have revised the risk factors when assessing inmates and wards for risk of sexual victimization or risk of abuse; AB 1239 (Solorio) which would have required CDCR to implement any funding adjustments to inmates academic and vocational education programs, as specified; AB 1369 (Davis) which would have allowed the board of supervisors of any county to authorize the correctional administrator to offer a program under which bailable inmates may be placed in an electronic monitoring program; AB 1817 (Arambula) which would have required CDCR to maintain a statewide utilization management program, ensured that each adult prison employ the same program, and annually report to the Legislature, as specified; AB 1900 (Skinner) which would have extended the current prohibitions on shackling pregnant inmates during labor and childbirth to also limit the use of restraints on pregnant inmates while they are being transferred; AB 2290 (Bradford) which would have required CDCR to give notice to local law enforcement prior to the release of parolees released on non-revocable parole and would have encouraged local jurisdictions to provide them with services; AB 2326 (Bass) which would have extended the sunset date of the Reentry Advisory Committee to January 1, 2016; and AB 2747 (Lowenthal) which would have required CDCR to maintain and operate a pharmacy services program, as specified, and would have authorized CDCR to operate and maintain a centralized pharmacy distribution center.
As described in the 2009 Digest of Legislation, in December 2006, plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against the Department of Corrections sought a court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a federal three-judge panel issued an order requiring the State to reduce its inmate population to 137.5% of design capacity – a reduction of about 40,000 inmates within two years. The court stayed implementation of its January 12, 2010 ruling pending the State’s appeal of the decision to the United States Supreme Court. On June 14, 2010, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the state’s appeal in this case.
Federal Law. Federal laws classify marijuana as an illegal substance and provide criminal penalties for various activities relating to its use. These laws are enforced by federal agencies that may act independently or in cooperation with state and local law enforcement agencies.
State Law and Proposition 215. Under current state law, the possession, cultivation, or distribution of marijuana generally is illegal in California. Penalties for marijuana-related activities vary depending on the offense. For example, possession of less than one ounce of marijuana is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, while selling marijuana is a felony and may result in a prison sentence.
In November 1996, voters approved Proposition 215, which legalized the cultivation and possession of marijuana in California for medical purposes. The United States Supreme Court ruled in 2005, however, that federal authorities could continue to prosecute California patients and providers engaged in the cultivation and use of marijuana for medical purposes. Despite having this authority, the United States Department of Justice announced in March 2009 that the current Administration would not prosecute marijuana patients and providers whose actions are consistent with state medical marijuana laws.
The Legislature passed and the Governor signed into law two important measures relating to marijuana – SB 1449 (Leno) and AB 2650 (Buchanan). SB 1449 reclassifies possession of not more that 28.5 grams of marijuana and possession of not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana while driving on roads or lands, as specified, as an infraction punishable by a fine of not more than $100. The author indicated in his argument that “Marijuana possession has a unique status under current law, as it is the only misdemeanor that is not punishable by any jail time. Serious unintended consequences have surfaced as a result of this mischaracterization. As the number of misdemeanor marijuana possession arrests have surged in recent years, reaching 61,388 in 2008, the burden placed on the courts by these low-level offenses are just too much to bear at a time when resources are shrinking and caseloads are growing. Defendants may demand an entire jury trial – including the costs of jury selection, defense, and court time – for a penalty of only $100. Given the comparatively light consequences of the punishment and the courts’ limited resources, even the Judicial Council believes that costs associated with appointment of counsel and jury trials should be reserved for defendants who are facing loss of life, liberty, or property, not a fine of $100. Keeping this misclassification in the Penal Code lacks common sense, especially in light of the fact that minor marijuana offenses can be completely expunged from the criminal record just two years after conviction. In light of this and the state’s current budget crisis, SB 1449 has the potential to save precious few resources by imposing the very same financial penalty, while keeping these low-level offenders out of court.” AB 2650 (1) prohibits operation or establishment of a medical marijuana cooperative, collective, dispensary or provider within 600 feet of a school; (2) provides that ordinances adopted prior to the effective date of this bill (January 1, 2011) regulating the location or establishment of such a medical marijuana entity shall not be preempted by this bill; and (3) authorizes a local entity to only adopt an ordinance that restricts the location or establishment of a medical marijuana entity “further” than those entities are restricted by this bill. According to the bill’s author, in January 2010, the Los Angeles City Council passed an ordinance to regulate the collective cultivation of the medical marijuana to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Los Angeles. The cities of Danville, Walnut Creek, and Isleton, passed ordinances to move, restrict or ban marijuana dispensaries within their city limits. As medical marijuana dispensaries are increasing throughout the State, more and more are opening closer to our schools. Currently, there is no guidance as the most appropriate locations for these dispensaries to open. As a result, dispensaries have opened up close to schools and other places where children congregate. As medical marijuana dispensaries continue to open throughout the state, they are increasingly located near schools and parks, public libraries and child care facilities. To keep medical marijuana dispensaries from further encroaching from places where children and families congregate, the author believed there was a need to keep them a measured distance from these locations.
Proposition 19 on the November 2, 2010 General Election ballot, voted down by the voters, would have legalized marijuana under California law. Specifically, it would have:
• Allowed people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use.
• Permitted local governments to regulate and tax commercial production, distribution, and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older.
• Prohibited people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using in public, or smoking it while minors are present.
• Maintained prohibitions against driving while impaired.
• Limited employers’ ability to address marijuana use to situations where job performance is actually impaired.
If the measure had passed, there still would have been the question of whether it violated federal law. The United States Attorney General indicated, before the November vote, that federal authorities would still prosecute persons who violate federal laws concerning marijuana.
V. Death Penalty
In 2006, the United States Ninth District Court held that “California’s lethal-injection protocol – as actually administered in practice – creates an undue and unnecessary risk that an inmate will suffer pain so extreme it offends the Eighth Amendment.” In early 2007, CDCR worked on developing new protocols for lethal injection. On May 15, 2007, CDCR released a report to the Court proposing revisions to lethal injection protocol. In November 2007, the Marin County Supreme Court held that the Administrative Procedure Act required CDCR to promulgate the protocol as a regulation. In April 2009, CDCR submitted draft lethal injection regulations to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and on May 1, 2009, CDCR posted the notice of proposed regulations in the OAL Register and provided public notice on its Internet Web site. On June 30, 2009, CDCR held a public hearing regarding the proposed regulations. In January 2010, CDCR issued a notice of modification to the text of the proposed lethal injection regulations. The changes in the re-notice were in response to comments received regarding the originally proposed regulation text.
On April 29, 2010, CDCR submitted its final rulemaking package for the lethal injection regulations to the OAL. On June 11th, CDCR published a second re-notice to the public addressing the issues raised by the OAL, and after accepting and responding to public comments, re-submitted its regulations on July 6, 2010. On July 30, 2010, the OAL notified CDCR that it had approved and certified, for adoption, the regulations and the rulemaking record was filed with the Secretary of State the same day and August 29, 2010 became the permanent effective date of the regulations.
Once the regulations were in place, a California court lifted an injunction against capitol punishment.
During the period of time the protocol was being established, the prison visitor center at San Quentin was converted in an $853,000 renovation that is four times larger than the old gas chamber. The facility has been set up to use a protocol of a three-drug combination of sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride or a single injection of sodium thiopental.
On September 29, 2010, the first execution was to take place – Albert Greenwood Brown, the inmate to be executed, was directed by United States District Court Jeremy Fogel to select a method of execution which Brown refused and it was halted to permit time to determine whether the new injection procedures addressed defense arguments of cruel and unusual punishment. The appeals court also noted that the prison’s supply of sodium thiopental was expiring on October 1, 2010, and California and other states were running short of the drug due to the inability of the drug’s manufacturer, Hospira, to meet demand until 2011. The State Attorney General recommended halting any further executions until necessary supplies were secured. At the time of this writing, a new supply of the drug has been obtained.
VI. Other Criminal Justice Legislation
Other Criminal Justice legislation of significance enacted included SB 110 (Liu), the Crime Victims with Disabilities Act of 2010, enhancing awareness and training regarding crimes against dependent adults; SB 408 (Padilla) redefining “body armor” as any bullet-resistant material intended to provide ballistic and trauma protection for the person wearing the body armor, for purposes of the prohibition on possession of body armor by persons convicted of a violent felony; SB 677 (Yee) providing that, upon a person being convicted of human trafficking, if real property was used to facilitate the offense, that property could be found to be a public nuisance and the remedies applicable under the nuisance or “red light abatement” statutes; SB 782 (Yee) protecting a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking from being evicted based upon such acts being perpetrated against the victim, and allowing such victims to have the exterior locks changed on their dwelling units; SB 830 (Wright) enhancing piracy laws by expanding the term “recording” to include all newer forms of storage media; SB 839 (Runner) creating a blue alert system similar to the Amber Alert system to notify the public when a law enforcement officer has been attacked; SB 895 (Huff) clarifying SB 598 (Huff), Chapter 193, Statutes of 2009, regarding restricted driver’s license changes; SB 938 (Huff) removing special confidentiality protections for certain individuals who have been convicted of crimes; SB 1032 (Wright) specifying that enforcement provisions of the Peace Officer Bill of Rights, which makes it unlawful for a public safety department to deny a public safety officer specified rights and protections concerning interrogations and investigations, also applies to the Office of the Inspector General; SB 1055 (Ashburn) requiring criminal background checks by the State Chief Information Officer for employees, contractors, volunteers, and vendors; SB 1080 (Senate Public Safety Committee) and SB 1115 (Senate Public Safety Committee) reorganizing without substantive changes, provisions relating to deadly weapons; SB 1087 (Alquist) authorizing restitution for expenses for a time reasonably necessary to make a victim whole to monitor an identity theft victim’s credit report and for the costs to repair the victim’s credit; SB 1265 (Dutton) authorizing the Forensic Conditional Release Program (CONREP), providing outpatient services to judicially committed persons released into the community, to inform local law enforcement agencies of the names and addresses of persons participating in a CONREP program in the agencies jurisdiction; SB 1296 (Correa) providing for education of law enforcement in the areas of traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder; SB 1317 (Leno) enacting a new misdemeanor for parents of K-8 children who are chronically truant; SB 1338 (Harman) providing that, in a grand theft prosecution, the value of specified agricultural products shall be determined as the wholesale value of the products on the day of the theft; SB 1428 (Pavley) amending the existing wiretap provisions to include the interception of modern types of contemporaneous two-way electronic communications; AB 668 (Lieu) expanding the crime of trespass to include individuals convicted of any crime upon particular premises from re-entering those premises once they have been informed the premises are off limits to that person; AB 674 (Salas) making a series of changes designed to address the treatment of veterans convicted of criminal offenses as a result of post-traumatic stress-related disorders; AB 819 (Calderon) doubling the current fines for crimes relating to intellectual property piracy; AB 973 (Strickland) limiting when a peace officer may, without a warrant, take a drug-exposed newborn into temporary custody; AB 1048 (Torrico) immunizing a safe baby surrender site and its personnel from criminal, civil, or administrative liability for a surrendered child prior to taking actual physical custody of the child, or prior to the time the surrender site or its personnel knows, or should know, that the child has been surrendered; AB 1414 (Hill) removing apomorphine from Schedule II of the California Controlled Substances Act, as specified; AB 1586 (Swanson) authorizing the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Board of Directors to establish an office of police auditor; AB 1601 (Hill) permitting a court to order a 10-year revocation of a driver’s license for a person convicted of three or more separate driving under the influence offenses; AB 1675 (Hagman) creating an infraction or a misdemeanor for any person, other than an employee, to trespass into an animal enclosure at a zoo, circus, or traveling animal exhibit; AB 1714 (Fuentes) appropriating $20 million to pay the settlement in the Jaycee Lee Dugard kidnapping case; AB 1723 (Lieu) creating a new hearsay exception for forfeiture by wrongdoing and expanding the definition of “unavailable as a witness”; AB 1738 (Tran) expanding the current law providing domestic violence victims with a free copy of the domestic violence incident report to include family members and additional representatives, as specified; AB 1753 (Hill) increasing the fines for repeat slot machine-related offenses; AB 1800 (Ma) increasing the penalty for unlawful rental of a residential dwelling from six months in the county jail, a fine of not more than $1,000 or by both imprisonment and fine, to up to one year in the county jail, a fine of not more than $2,500 or by both imprisonment and fine; AB 1829 (Cook) increasing the penalty from an infraction to a misdemeanor for civilians who, orally, in writing, or by wearing any military decoration, falsely represents himself/herself to have been awarded any military decoration, with the intent to defraud; AB 1847 (Furutani) authorizing a court to grant a prosecutor the authority to utilize lien procedures against a defendant; AB 1848 (Garrick) defining a new misdemeanor that would be committed where a person possesses a tool or device with the specific intent of stealing a motorcycle; AB 1888 (Hill) enhancing the law giving law enforcement the authority to reduce the prevalence of unauthorized limousine drivers illegally soliciting business at airports; AB 1999 (Portantino) providing that a person under the age of 21 shall be immune from prosecution for possession or consumption of an alcoholic beverage where that person reports an alcohol-related medical emergency concerning himself/herself or another person; AB 2011 (Arambula) increasing the mandatory minimum fine imposed on persons granted probation for a domestic violence offense from $200 to $400; AB 2210 (Fuentes) allowing law enforcement to eavesdrop in a barricade or hostage situation; AB 2212 (Fuentes) enacting a statutory provision consistent with case law describing the process and standards for handling incompetent minors before the juvenile court, as specified; AB 2263 (Yamada) extending to January 1, 2012, provisions of law that state the court shall, in its discretion, impose the term or enhancement that best serves the interest of justice; AB 2324 (John A. Perez) creating new misdemeanors and recasting fines and punishments for crimes committed in a public transit facility; AB 2350 (Hill) providing that status offenders cannot be held in custody for more than 24 hours except pursuant to the Interstate Juvenile Compact, as specified, to assure compliance with the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act; AB 2372 (Ammiano) raising the general value threshold for grand theft from $400, as that value was set in 1982, to $950; AB 2479 (Bass) providing that a person who commits false imprisonment with the intent to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of a plaintiff is subject to liability under the civil invasion of privacy statute and, as such, liable for damages and remedies available pursuant to that statute; AB 2582 (Adams) authorizing the court to expunge a former conviction for a non-vehicular infraction; and AB 2632 (Davis) designating a violation of a specific gang injunction subsection as a separate and distinct contempt of court to allow statistical tracking of gang injunction violations.
Vetoed Criminal Justice legislation of note included SB 662 (Yee) which would have permitted board of supervisors to increase the marriage license fees used to fund domestic violence shelters by $10; SB 733 (Leno) which would have allowed California Victims Compensation and Government Claims Board to award grants to multi-disciplinary trauma recovery centers; SB 1067 (Oropeza) which would have required the Division of Juvenile Justice to collect and post recidivism information on its Web site; AB 15 (Fuentes) which would required that courts advise defendants, if they are deported from the United States and returned illegally, that they could be charged with a separate federal offense; AB 114 (Carter) which would have revised the objectives of the juvenile foster system to include principles of restorative justice and authorized communities to adopt restorative foster programs; AB 640 (Huber) which would have provided that any person granted probation for the sale of methamphetamine to serve at least 120 days in the county jail; AB 909 (Hill) which would have reduced the fine for violations involving right turns on a red light; AB 1925 (Salas) which would have allowed superior courts to develop and implement preguilty plea programs, deferred entry of judgment programs, and/or postguilty plea veterans court programs; AB 2012 (Lieu) which would have made animal neglect the same penalty of one year in county jail, like animal cruelty is; AB 2068 (Hill) which would have allowed a court, in the interest of justice and under certain conditions, to expunge a misdemeanor conviction of a defendant who is not granted probation after the lapse of one year from the date of pronouncement of the judgment; AB 2217 (Fuentes) which would have made it clear that admonishments by the court to juries regarding communications include communications by means of electronic and wireless devices to communicate, research, or disseminate information about an ongoing case; AB 2264 (De Leon) which would have prohibited the garnishment of a bank account or the earning of homeless youth for failure to pay fees, fines, forfeitures, or other penalties imposed by the court for violating truancy, loitering, curfew, or illegal lodging laws; AB 2410 (Fuller) which would have expanded a provision of law encouraging law enforcement agencies to develop policies and standards for responding to crime scenes involving narcotics to include crime scenes involving methamphetamine, cocaine, PCP, and hallucinogens; and AB 2460 (Ammiano) which would have encouraged Californians to call 911 in all overdose situations, even when the caller may be in possession of drugs, by offering limited immunity to the caller from certain drug possession laws.