Our California Legislative Season ‘23
OPPOSE
AB 642 (Ting, Lee, Bradford, McCarthy)
Previous law, until January 1, 2023, prohibited the use of real-time facial recognition technology by law enforcement agencies in connection with body-worn cameras. This bill would expressly authorize use of facial recognition technology (FRT) by a law enforcement agency or peace officer. The bill would set certain requirements for FRT systems and reference databases used by law enforcement agencies. The bill would require law enforcement agencies utilizing FRT to keep certain records and to annually report certain data to the California State Auditor. The bill would require any law enforcement agency utilizing FRT to have a written policy, as specified, and to post that policy on their internet website. The bill would authorize a person harmed by a violation of these provisions to bring a civil action for damages, including statutory damages, although this is meaningless in practice as discussed below. This will would also authorize real time use of FRT, which is not the status quo in California. The authors claim that the status quo is the justification for this bill. On April 11, this bill was before the Assembly Public Safety Committee and not one individual or organization showed up in support, while over 50 organizations opposed it. The previous supporters (League of Cities, and a handful of police unions) all pulled their support from the proposed bill, which raises the question - whose interests are the authors representing?
Editor’s Note: This is the most dangerous surveillance technology bill we have ever reviewed in the country, and it is even more dangerous due to the three previously progressive Democrat authors carrying a bill only supported by police unions (and as of April 11, publicly supported by no one). No law in California presently authorizes the use of FRT, and if enacted, Californians would now be subject to real-time face surveillance, without any court authorization requirement. Although the bill purports to be enforceable by private right of action, the bill provides that so long as an officer has a good-faith belief that their actions are justified by this or any other law, that is sufficient to be a complete defense to any claim for damages. This defense does not presently exist in California law. Stated simply, this bill is unenforceable, and dangerous.
The lead author just months ago was a pro-ban advocate, and authored the previous 3-year moratorium on use of face surveillance in California. A co-author on the Senate side is a Black man who has previously been aggressive in holding police accountable (and is presently attempting to end the practice of pretext stops due to racial profiling concerns - which would seem to contradict his support of AB642 and real-time unrestricted face surveillance which will certainly increase racial profiling and fill our jails with more Black individuals). Another Assembly co-author is a DSA endorsed candidate, having signed onto a pledge to abolish the carceral state. Although there is disagreement over the definition of abolition, this member is the first to advance the theory that real-time face surveillance without any liability is the path towards abolition. For reasons unknown, they are now advocating for a reckless and dangerous surveillance bill opposed by their constituents, and publicly supported by no one as of the April 11 Public Safety Committee.
Last month, the very same committee that AB 642 sits in approved a ban on facial recognition (AB 1034 Wilson), and AB 642 was withdrawn from the same agenda. Rather than accept that the public did not want this reckless bill, the authors doubled down by adding real time authorization and expressly authorizing the use of mugshot databases, which are primarily made up of Black and brown faces due to our history of racist policing practices in California. These databases will lead to an outsized impact on Black and brown bodies, and further full our jails with these marginalized populations.
We want to acknowledge and thank Professor Andrew Ferguson for his ongoing analysis on very short notice as he has helped us identify the red flags in this proposed legislation.
You can help by clicking this tool - it will automatically contact your state reps and urge them to vote No! https://action.aclu.org/send-message/ca-no-ab642
Update: The Assembly Appropriations Committee killed the bill!
SUPPORT
This bill would prohibit a peace officer from stopping or detaining the operator of a motor vehicle or bicycle for a low-level infraction, as defined, unless a separate, independent basis for a stop exists. The bill would authorize a peace officer who does not have grounds to stop a vehicle or bicycle, but can determine the identity of the owner, to send a citation or warning letter to the owner. The bill would authorize local authorities to enforce a violation of the Vehicle Code through government employees who are not peace officers.
This bill would authorize an individual sentenced to death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for a conviction in which one or more special circumstances were found to be true to petition for recall and resentencing if the offense occurred before June 5, 1990, and the individual has served at least 20 years in custody. The bill would authorize the court to modify the petitioner’s sentence to impose a lesser sentence and apply any changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion, or to vacate the petitioner’s conviction and impose judgment on a lesser included offense, as specified. The bill would require a court to consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the petitioner to prove that specified mitigating circumstances are present. The bill would provide that proof of the presence of one or more specified mitigating circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing a special circumstance, unless the court finds that petitioner is currently an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined. The bill would require the court to appoint the State Public Defender or other qualified counsel for an indigent petitioner.
This bill would allow for prosecution of a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on the additional bases of the discovery of new evidence discovered after a plea or trial that has not previously been presented and heard. The bill would require the court to hold an evidentiary hearing before denying habeas relief on the grounds that the facts raised in support of a writ of habeas corpus and relevant to granting relief lack credibility. The bill would allow a petitioner to not appear at an evidentiary hearing if there is a waiver of the right to appear on record or appear through the use of remote technology unless counsel indicates that the defendant’s presence is needed. The bill would require a presumption in favor of granting relief in a habeas petition if the district attorney or the Attorney General concede or stipulate to a factual or legal basis for the relief. The bill would allow, if after granting postconviction relief the prosecuting agency retries the petitioner, the petitioner’s postconviction counsel to be appointed as counsel to represent the petitioner on the retrial, if certain requirements are met.
This bill would prohibit a housing provider, as defined, from inquiring about an applicant’s criminal history, requiring an applicant to disclose their criminal history, or requiring an applicant to authorize the release of their criminal history, unless they are complying with federal law, as specified. The bill would also prohibit a housing provider from basing any adverse action, in whole or in part, on information contained in an applicant’s criminal history, if the housing provider received criminal history information about an applicant, unless they are complying with federal law.
This bill would instead require the department to maintain a canteen at its active facilities, as specified, and would prohibit the sale prices of the articles offered for sale from exceeding the price of the articles paid to the vendors.
Existing law requires the Department of Justice, on a monthly basis, to review the records in the statewide criminal justice databases and identify persons who are eligible for automatic conviction record relief. Existing law makes this conviction record relief available for a defendant convicted, on or after January 1, 2005, of a felony for which they did not complete probation without revocation if the defendant appears to have completed all terms of incarceration, probation, mandatory supervision, post release community supervision, and parole, and a period of 4 years has elapsed during which the defendant was not convicted of a new felony offense, except as specified. This bill would extend that relief to apply to convictions on or after January 1, 1973.
Existing law provides for the compensation of victims and derivative victims of specified types of crimes by the California Victim Compensation Board from the Restitution Fund, a continuously appropriated fund, for specified losses suffered as a result of those crimes. Existing law defines various terms for purposes of these provisions, including “crime,” which includes any public offense wherever it may take place that would constitute a misdemeanor or felony.
This bill would revise the definition of “crime” to include, solely for the purposes of eligibility for compensation under this chapter, an incident occurring on or after January 1, 2024, in which an individual sustains serious bodily injury, as defined, or death as a result of a law enforcement officer’s use of force, regardless of whether the law enforcement officer is arrested for, charged with, or convicted of committing a crime. The bill would define “law enforcement officer” for these purposes. By expanding the types of incidents for which compensation can be paid from a continuously appropriated fund, the bill would make an appropriation.
Existing law requires that a person be ineligible for compensation under specified conditions, including, among other things, if the board determines that denial of the claim for compensation is appropriate because of the nature of the victim’s involvement in the events leading to the crime or the involvement of the person whose injury or death gives rise to the application. Existing law requires the board to deny an application if it finds that the victim failed to cooperate reasonably with a law enforcement agency in the apprehension and conviction of the person committing the crime. This bill, in the case of a claim based on a victim’s serious bodily injury or death that resulted from a law enforcement officer’s use of force, as described above, would prohibit the board from denying an application based on certain circumstances, including the victim’s or other applicant’s involvement in the crime, except as specified, the victim’s failure to cooperate, or the contents of a police report, or the lack thereof. The bill, in the case of a claim based on a victim’s serious bodily injury or death as a result of a crime, would require the board to adopt guidelines that allow the board to rely on evidence other than a police report, as specified. Existing law requires that the board be subrogated to the rights of the recipient to the extent of any compensation granted by the board.
This bill would prohibit a peace officer from using deadly force against a person or intend to injure, intimidate, or disorient a person by utilizing an unmanned, remotely piloted, powered ground or flying equipment unless specified criteria are met, including that the law enforcement agency has obtained prior approval from the relevant governing body to use that equipment, the officer cannot subdue the threat after using alternative force options and de-escalation tactics, and the law enforcement employee has completed training on the use of the equipment. The bill would require the commanding officer to create a report regarding any use of the equipment and would require the law enforcement agency to submit that report to the Department of Justice, the Legislature, and the governing body that authorized the use of the equipment.
This bill would require every jail, prison, public or privately operated detention facility, and a facility in which individuals are subject to confinement or involuntary detention to develop and follow written procedures governing the management of segregated confinement, as specified, and to make those written procedures publicly available. The bill would require those facilities to document the use of segregated confinement by, among other things, providing written orders of that confinement to the individual confined, as specified. The bill would prohibit those facilities from involuntarily placing an individual in segregated confinement if the individual belongs to a designated population, including, among others, that the individual has a mental or physical disability or that the individual is under 26 years of age or over 59 years of age. The bill would require the facility to periodically check on the individual and have a medical or mental health professional periodically assess the individual. This bill would prohibit a facility from holding an individual in segregated confinement for more than 15 consecutive days and no more than 45 days in a 180-day period, as specified. This bill would also prohibit a facility from imposing limitations on services, treatment, or basic needs; conducting out-of-cell programming opportunities in a smaller cage or therapy module; placing an individual in segregated confinement on the basis of confidential information, as specified; using specified restraints when an individual is in segregated confinement; and using segregated confinement as a means of protecting an individual.
Existing law establishes the Department of Technology within the Government Operations Agency and requires the Director of Technology to supervise the Department of Technology and report directly to the Governor on issues relating to information technology. This bill would require the department, in coordination with other interagency bodies, to conduct, on or before September 1, 2024, a comprehensive inventory of all high-risk automated decision systems, as defined, that have been proposed for use, development, or procurement by, or are being used, developed, or procured by, state agencies. The bill would require the comprehensive inventory to include a description of, among other things, the categories of data and personal information the automated decision system uses to make its decisions. On or before January 1, 2025, and annually thereafter, the bill would require the department to submit a report of the above-described comprehensive inventory to specified committees of the Legislature.
This bill would prohibit “excited delirium,” as defined, from being recognized as a valid medical diagnosis or cause of death in this state. The bill would prohibit a coroner or medical examiner from stating on the certificate of death or in any report that the cause of death was excited delirium. The bill would prohibit a peace officer from using the term “excited delirium” to describe an individual in an incident report, but would not prohibit the peace officer from describing an individual’s behavior, as specified. This bill would deem evidence that a person experienced or suffered an excited delirium inadmissible in a civil action.
Under existing law, a person is authorized to vote if that person is a United States citizen, a resident of California, at least 18 years of age, and not imprisoned for the conviction of a felony. Existing law further specifies conditions under which a person may register to vote, vote in person, vote by mail, vote a provisional ballot, and receive a replacement ballot. This bill would require a county jail facility, for elections held on or after November 1, 2024, to provide a polling location, as defined, that permits any eligible incarcerated person to perform specified activities, including registering to vote and voting, returning a vote by mail ballot, voting a provisional ballot, and receiving a replacement ballot. The bill would require the county elections official to work with the county sheriff or county jail facility administrator to design and implement a program that establishes a polling location at each facility and to post the plan for the program on the county elections official’s internet website. The bill would require the county sheriff or county jail facility administrator to designate an employee as a voting coordinator at each facility who will be responsible for ensuring compliance with requirements pertaining to polling locations, for maintaining voter education materials in the jail library, and for posting informational flyers regarding voting rights and eligibility to vote, among other duties.
Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services, subject to an appropriation, to provide grants to qualified nonprofit organizations through contracts, in order to provide persons with certain immigration-related legal services. Under existing law, a component of those grants is aimed at legal services to unaccompanied undocumented minors who are transferred to the care and custody of the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement and who are present in the state. This bill would make changes to the criteria for organizations providing legal services to those minors, including adjustments to qualifications based on the organization’s history of professional experience and to the fee system for legal services. Under existing law, another component of those grants is aimed at services relating to immigration remedies and naturalization, among other processes, to assist persons residing in, or formerly residing in, the state. This bill would expand those qualifying services to persons having an intent to reside in and having a nexus to the state, and would expand the scope of services to include, among other things, holistic legal representation and related services for removal defense. The bill would make changes to the definitions of various terms relating to legal services and immigration remedies.
This bill would prohibit the use of an unleashed police canine by law enforcement to apprehend a person, and any use of a police canine for crowd control. The bill would prohibit law enforcement agencies from authorizing any use or training of a police canine that is inconsistent with this bill.
This bill would prohibit any government entity from seeking, or any court from enforcing, assisting, or supporting, a reverse-keyword or reverse-location demand, as defined, issued by a government entity or court in this state or any other state. The bill would prohibit a person or California entity from complying with a reverse-keyword or reverse-location demand. The bill would authorize a court to suppress any information obtained or retained in violation of these provisions, the United States Constitution, or California Constitution. The bill would authorize the Attorney General to commence a civil action for compliance with these provisions. The bill would require a government entity to immediately notify any person whose information was obtained in violation of these provisions of the violation and of the legal recourse available, as specified. The bill would authorize an individual whose information was obtained, or a service provider or other recipient of the reverse-keyword or reverse-location demand to file a petition to void or modify the demand or order the destruction of information obtained in violation of these provisions. The bill would authorize an individual whose information was obtained by a government entity in violation of these provisions to bring a civil suit against the government entity for damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, or other relief that the court deems proper.
(1) Under existing law, a person sentenced to imprisonment in a state prison or in a county jail for a felony offense, as specified, may, during that period of confinement, be deprived of only those rights as is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Existing law enumerates certain civil rights of these prisoners, including the right to purchase, receive, and read newspapers, periodicals, and books accepted for distribution by the United States Post Office. This bill would include the right to personal visits by an intimate partner or a family member, as defined, as a civil right, as specified. The bill would provide that these civil rights may not infringed, except as necessary and only if narrowly tailored to further a compelling security interest of the government and would provide that any governmental action related to these civil rights may be reviewed in court for legal or factual error. (2) Existing law authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to prescribe and amend rules and regulations for the administration of prisons and requires regulations, which are adopted by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and may impact the visitation of inmates. Existing law requires these regulations to recognize and consider the value of inmate visitation as a means of increasing safety in prisons, maintaining family and community connections, and preparing inmates for successful release and rehabilitation. Existing regulations create the framework for establishing a visitation process in prisons that is conducted in as accommodating a manner as possible, subject to the need to maintain order, the safety of persons, the security of institutions and facilities, and required prison activities and operations. This bill would additionally require those regulations pertaining to inmate visits to recognize and consider the right to personal visits as a civil right. The bill would prohibit the department from denying in-person contact visits, as specified, including as a disciplinary sanction against the incarcerated person, except as specified. The bill would require the department to inform an applicant of the specific reason for any denial of a visit. The bill would require the department to provide at least 3 days of in-person visiting per week, with a minimum of 8 visiting hours per day, plus access to video calls for at least an additional 8 hours per week.
This bill would prohibit a law enforcement agency or law enforcement officer from installing, activating, or using any biometric surveillance system in connection with an officer camera or data collected by an officer camera. The bill would authorize a person to bring an action for equitable or declaratory relief against a law enforcement agency or officer who violates that prohibition. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2034.
This bill would authorize the board of supervisors to remove a sheriff from office for cause, by a 4/5 vote, after the sheriff is served with a written statement of the alleged grounds for removal and the sheriff is provided a reasonable opportunity to be heard regarding an explanation or defense at a removal proceeding. The bill would authorize the board of supervisors to establish procedures for a removal proceeding. The bill would require that these provisions not be applied in a manner that interferes with the constitutional functions of a sheriff.
This bill, for an incarcerated person with a parent and child relationship with a child under 18 years of age, as specified, or who is a guardian or relative caregiver of a child, as defined, would require the secretary to place the person in the correctional institution or facility that is located nearest to the primary place of residence of the person’s child, provided that the placement would be suitable and appropriate, would facilitate increased contact between the person and their child, and the incarcerated parent gives their consent to the placement. The bill would authorize the department to reevaluate an incarcerated person’s placement to determine whether existing orders should be modified, including whether the person’s child has moved to a place significantly nearer to an otherwise suitable and appropriate institution. The bill would allow an incarcerated person to request a review of their housing assignment when there is a change in the primary place of residence of the person’s child upon which the person’s housing assignment was based.
(1) Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to willfully fail to appear in court, as specified. Existing law, when a person has failed to appear and has not posted bail, requires the magistrate to issue a warrant for the person’s arrest within 20 days of the failure to appear. This bill would make those sections only apply when the underlying charge is not an infraction. (2) Existing law authorizes the issuance of a bench warrant of arrest when a person fails to appear in court as promised in specified criminal proceedings. This bill would prohibit the issuance of a bench warrant of arrest when the underlying crime is an infraction. (3) Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to willfully fail to appear in court for a violation of the Vehicle Code and requires the court to report a conviction of this offense to the Department of Motor Vehicles. This bill would make that misdemeanor only apply when the underlying charge is not an infraction. The bill would also remove the requirement for the court to report a conviction of this offense to the department. (4) Existing law authorizes the imposition of a civil assessment or the issuance of an arrest warrant when a person fails to make an installment payment on bail imposed by the court for an infraction violation of the Vehicle Code. Existing law also makes it a misdemeanor to fail to pay bail in installments or to fail to pay a fine imposed for the violation of a state or local traffic law and requires the court to report a conviction of this offense to the department. This bill would repeal the misdemeanor for failure to pay a bail installment or fine. The bill would remove the authorization to issue an arrest warrant for failure to pay a bail installment. The bill would also remove the requirement for the court to report a conviction of these offenses to the department. (5) Existing law, if a defendant does not appear at the time the case is called for a violation of the Vehicle Code, authorizes the court to declare the bail forfeited and order that no further proceedings be had in the case, or to issue a warrant for the arrest of the defendant. However, if a defendant is charged with specified crimes, including disposing of a flaming or glowing substance on or near a road and littering a highway, has previously been convicted of the same crime, and fails to appear at the time the case is called to trial, existing law authorizes the court to declare the bail forfeited and requires the court to issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the person charged, unless the magistrate finds that undue hardship will be imposed by requiring the defendant to appear. This bill would remove the requirement that the magistrate issue a bench warrant when the person has committed one of the crimes specified above.
This bill would prohibit a local government from, among other things, imposing a penalty against a resident, owner, tenant, landlord, or other person as a consequence of contact with a law enforcement agency, as specified. The bill similarly would prohibit a local government from requiring or encouraging a landlord to perform a criminal background check of a tenant or a prospective tenant, or to evict or penalize a tenant because of the tenant’s association with another tenant or household member who has had contact with a law enforcement agency or has a criminal conviction. The bill would preempt inconsistent local rules and regulations and prescribe remedies for violations. The bill would require a local government to repeal, or bring into compliance, an inconsistent local ordinance, rule, policy, or regulation within one year of the effective date of the provisions. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
Existing federal law authorizes the United States Department of Defense to transfer surplus personal property, including arms and ammunition, to federal or state agencies for use in law enforcement activities, subject to specified conditions, at no cost to the acquiring agency.
Existing law requires a law enforcement agency to adopt a military equipment use policy, as specified, before obtaining military equipment, as defined. Existing law also requires a law enforcement agency to obtain approval from their governing body before obtaining military equipment, as specified.
Existing law defines military equipment to include specialty firearms and ammunition, including assault weapons, as that term is defined in law, but excludes standard issue service weapons and ammunition.
This bill would clarify the meaning of a standard issue service weapons and ammunition for purposes of this provision. provision and exclude assault weapons from this exception.
The California Constitution requires the Legislature to provide for the disqualification of electors while serving a state or federal prison term for the conviction of a felony. ACA 4 of the 2023–24 Regular Session, if approved by the voters, would repeal that requirement, thereby authorizing an otherwise qualified elector serving a state or federal prison term for the conviction of a felony to vote. This bill would remove statutory references to the disqualification of electors while serving a state or federal prison term for the conviction of a felony and would make other conforming changes. This bill would become operative only if ACA 4 of the 2023–24 Regular Session is approved by the voters and takes effect.