Amended IN Senate April 02, 2025 Amended IN Senate March 24, 2025 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 20252026 REGULAR SESSION Senate Bill No. 734Introduced by Senator CaballeroFebruary 21, 2025An act to add Section 3305.6 to the Government Code, and to amend Sections 745 and 13510.8 of the Penal Code, relating to criminal procedure. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGESTSB 734, as amended, Caballero. Criminal procedure: discrimination.Existing law, the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, grants certain employment rights to public safety officers, as defined. The act prohibits, among other things, any punitive action against a public safety officer, denial of promotion on grounds other than merit, or threat of such treatment, because of the lawful exercise of the rights granted under the act, or the exercise of any rights under any existing administrative grievance procedure. Existing law, the California Racial Justice Act, Act of 2020, prohibits the state from seeking a criminal conviction or sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. Existing law authorizes a defendant to file a motion in the trial court or, if judgment has been imposed, to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus to allege a violation of this prohibition.Existing law authorizes the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to revoke the certification of a peace officer if the officer has, while employed as a peace officer, engaged in serious misconduct including, among other things, demonstrating bias on the basis of race, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, housing status, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, or other protected status in violation of law or department policy or inconsistent with a peace officers obligation to carry out their duties in a fair and unbiased manner.This bill would prohibit a punitive action, denial of promotion on grounds other than merit, or a revocation of certification proceeding from being undertaken against any public safety officer solely on the basis of a court finding made in a challenge brought under the California Racial Justice Act, Act of 2020, and would prohibit those court findings from being introduced for any purpose in any administrative appeal of a punitive action. The bill would require require, if the defendant is represented by an attorney in a case brought under the California Racial Justice Act to provide notice of a hearing pursuant to the act to any person accused of bias or racial animus in the proceeding, and would authorize any person accused of bias or racial animus in those proceedings, or any interested party on behalf of those persons or of the defendant, to submit an amicus brief to the court. of 2020, and the motion is based, in whole or in part, on the conduct of a law enforcement officer, the attorney to serve a copy of the motion on the law enforcement agency employing the officer.Digest Key Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: NO Bill TextThe people of the State of California do enact as follows:SECTION 1. Section 3305.6 is added to the Government Code, to read:3305.6. (a) A punitive action or denial of promotion on grounds other than merit shall not be undertaken by any public agency against any public safety officer solely because of a court finding made in a challenge brought pursuant to Section 745 of the Penal Code.(b) This section does not prohibit a public agency from taking punitive action, denying promotion on grounds other than merit, or taking other personnel action against a public safety officer based on the underlying acts or omissions which formed the basis of the action brought pursuant to Section 745 of the Penal Code, if the actions taken by the public agency otherwise conform to all the rules and procedures applicable to those proceedings, and the officer is accorded all due process protections provided in those proceedings.(c) Evidence of a court finding of a violation of Section 745 of the Penal Code shall not be introduced for any purpose in any administrative appeal of a punitive action, except as provided in subdivision (d). action.(d)Evidence that a public safety officer violated Section 745 of the Penal Code may only be introduced if, during the administrative appeal of a punitive action against an officer, the underlying act or omission the officer allegedly committed is proven and the officer is found to be subject to some form of punitive action. If the hearing officer or other administrative appeal tribunal finds or determines that a public safety officer has committed the underlying acts or omissions that will result in a punitive action, denial of a promotion on grounds other than merit, or any other adverse personnel action, and evidence exists that a public safety officer violated Section 745 of the Penal Code, then the evidence shall be introduced for the sole purpose of determining the type or level of punitive action to be imposed.(e)(d) This section does not grant immunity for civil or criminal liability for the underlying acts or omissions which formed the basis of the action brought under Section 745 of the Penal Code.SEC. 2. Section 745 of the Penal Code is amended to read:745. (a) The state shall not seek or obtain a criminal conviction or seek, obtain, or impose a sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. A violation is established if the defendant proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, any of the following:(1) The judge, an attorney in the case, a law enforcement officer involved in the case, an expert witness, or juror exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin.(2) During the defendants trial, in court and during the proceedings, the judge, an attorney in the case, a law enforcement officer involved in the case, an expert witness, or juror, used racially discriminatory language about the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin, or otherwise exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin, whether or not purposeful. This paragraph does not apply if the person speaking is relating language used by another that is relevant to the case or if the person speaking is giving a racially neutral and unbiased physical description of the suspect.(3) The defendant was charged or convicted of a more serious offense than defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins who have engaged in similar conduct and are similarly situated, and the evidence establishes that the prosecution more frequently sought or obtained convictions for more serious offenses against people who share the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin in the county where the convictions were sought or obtained.(4) (A) A longer or more severe sentence was imposed on the defendant than was imposed on other similarly situated individuals convicted of the same offense, and longer or more severe sentences were more frequently imposed for that offense on people that share the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin than on defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins in the county where the sentence was imposed.(B) A longer or more severe sentence was imposed on the defendant than was imposed on other similarly situated individuals convicted of the same offense, and longer or more severe sentences were more frequently imposed for the same offense on defendants in cases with victims of one race, ethnicity, or national origin than in cases with victims of other races, ethnicities, or national origins, in the county where the sentence was imposed.(b) A defendant may file a motion pursuant to this section, or a petition for writ of habeas corpus or a motion under Section 1473.7, in a court of competent jurisdiction, alleging a violation of subdivision (a). For claims based on the trial record, a defendant may raise a claim alleging a violation of subdivision (a) on direct appeal from the conviction or sentence. The defendant may also move to stay the appeal and request remand to the superior court to file a motion pursuant to this section. If the motion is based in whole or in part on conduct or statements by the judge, the judge shall disqualify themselves from any further proceedings under this section.(c) If a motion is filed in the trial court and the defendant makes a prima facie showing of a violation of subdivision (a), the trial court shall hold a hearing. A motion made at trial shall be made as soon as practicable upon the defendant learning of the alleged violation. A motion that is not timely may be deemed waived, in the discretion of the court.(1) At the hearing, evidence may be presented by either party, including, but not limited to, statistical evidence, aggregate data, expert testimony, and the sworn testimony of witnesses. The court may also appoint an independent expert. For the purpose of a motion and hearing under this section, out-of-court statements that the court finds trustworthy and reliable, statistical evidence, and aggregated data are admissible for the limited purpose of determining whether a violation of subdivision (a) has occurred.(2) The defendant shall have the burden of proving a violation of subdivision (a) by a preponderance of the evidence. The defendant does not need to prove intentional discrimination.(3)(A)Any person accused of bias or racial animus in a proceeding pursuant to this section shall be provided notice of the allegations by the defendant prior to a motion being filed pursuant to this section.(B)Any person accused of bias or racial animus in a proceeding pursuant to this section, any interested party on behalf of a person accused of bias or racial animus in a proceeding pursuant to this section, or any interested party on behalf of a defendant may submit an amicus brief to the court.(3) If the defendant is represented by an attorney and the motion alleges a violation of paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a), based in whole or in part on the conduct of one or more law enforcement officers, the attorney shall serve a copy of the motion on the law enforcement agency or agencies that employed the officer or officers.(4) At the conclusion of the hearing, the court shall make findings on the record.(d) A defendant may file a motion requesting disclosure to the defense of all evidence relevant to a potential violation of subdivision (a) in the possession or control of the state. A motion filed under this section shall describe the type of records or information the defendant seeks. Upon a showing of good cause, the court shall order the records to be released. Upon a showing of good cause, and in order to protect a privacy right or privilege, the court may permit the prosecution to redact information prior to disclosure or may subject disclosure to a protective order. If a statutory privilege or constitutional privacy right cannot be adequately protected by redaction or a protective order, the court shall not order the release of the records.(e) Notwithstanding any other law, except as provided in subdivision (k), or for an initiative approved by the voters, if the court finds, by a preponderance of evidence, a violation of subdivision (a), the court shall impose a remedy specific to the violation found from the following list:(1) Before a judgment has been entered, the court may impose any of the following remedies:(A) Declare a mistrial, if requested by the defendant.(B) Discharge the jury panel and empanel a new jury.(C) If the court determines that it would be in the interest of justice, dismiss enhancements, special circumstances, or special allegations, or reduce one or more charges.(2) (A) After a judgment has been entered, if the court finds that a conviction was sought or obtained in violation of subdivision (a), the court shall vacate the conviction and sentence, find that it is legally invalid, and order new proceedings consistent with subdivision (a). If the court finds that the only violation of subdivision (a) that occurred is based on paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the court may modify the judgment to a lesser included or lesser related offense. On resentencing, the court shall not impose a new sentence greater than that previously imposed.(B) After a judgment has been entered, if the court finds that only the sentence was sought, obtained, or imposed in violation of subdivision (a), the court shall vacate the sentence, find that it is legally invalid, and impose a new sentence. On resentencing, the court shall not impose a new sentence greater than that previously imposed.(3) When the court finds there has been a violation of subdivision (a), the defendant shall not be eligible for the death penalty.(4) The remedies available under this section do not foreclose any other remedies available under the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, or any other law.(f) This section also applies to adjudications and dispositions in the juvenile delinquency system and adjudications to transfer a juvenile case to adult court.(g) This section shall not prevent the prosecution of hate crimes pursuant to Sections 422.6 to 422.865, inclusive.(h) As used in this section, the following definitions apply:(1) More frequently sought or obtained or more frequently imposed means that the totality of the evidence demonstrates a significant difference in seeking or obtaining convictions or in imposing sentences comparing individuals who have engaged in similar conduct and are similarly situated, and the prosecution cannot establish race-neutral reasons for the disparity. The evidence may include statistical evidence, aggregate data, or nonstatistical evidence. Statistical significance is a factor the court may consider, but is not necessary to establish a significant difference. In evaluating the totality of the evidence, the court shall consider whether systemic and institutional racial bias, racial profiling, and historical patterns of racially biased policing and prosecution may have contributed to, or caused differences observed in, the data or impacted the availability of data overall. Race-neutral reasons shall be relevant factors to charges, convictions, and sentences that are not influenced by implicit, systemic, or institutional bias based on race, ethnicity, or national origin.(2) Prima facie showing means that the defendant produces facts that, if true, establish that there is a substantial likelihood that a violation of subdivision (a) occurred. For purposes of this section, a substantial likelihood requires more than a mere possibility, but less than a standard of more likely than not.(3) Relevant factors, as that phrase applies to sentencing, means the factors in the California Rules of Court that pertain to sentencing decisions and any additional factors required to or permitted to be considered in sentencing under state law and under the state and federal constitutions.(4) Racially discriminatory language means language that, to an objective observer, explicitly or implicitly appeals to racial bias, including, but not limited to, racially charged or racially coded language, language that compares the defendant to an animal, or language that references the defendants physical appearance, culture, ethnicity, or national origin. Evidence that particular words or images are used exclusively or disproportionately in cases where the defendant is of a specific race, ethnicity, or national origin is relevant to determining whether language is discriminatory.(5) State includes the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city prosecutor.(6) Similarly situated means that factors that are relevant in charging and sentencing are similar and do not require that all individuals in the comparison group are identical. A defendants conviction history may be a relevant factor to the severity of the charges, convictions, or sentences. If it is a relevant factor and the defense produces evidence that the conviction history may have been impacted by racial profiling or historical patterns of racially biased policing, the court shall consider the evidence.(i) A defendant may share a race, ethnicity, or national origin with more than one group. A defendant may aggregate data among groups to demonstrate a violation of subdivision (a).(j) This section applies as follows:(1) To all cases in which judgment is not final.(2) Commencing January 1, 2023, to all cases in which, at the time of the filing of a petition pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 1473 raising a claim under this section, the petitioner is sentenced to death or to cases in which the motion is filed pursuant to Section 1473.7 because of actual or potential immigration consequences related to the conviction or sentence, regardless of when the judgment or disposition became final.(3) Commencing January 1, 2024, to all cases in which, at the time of the filing of a petition pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 1473 raising a claim under this section, the petitioner is currently serving a sentence in the state prison or in a county jail pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or committed to the Division of Juvenile Justice for a juvenile disposition, regardless of when the judgment or disposition became final.(4) Commencing January 1, 2025, to all cases filed pursuant to Section 1473.7 or subdivision (e) of Section 1473 in which judgment became final for a felony conviction or juvenile disposition that resulted in a commitment to the Division of Juvenile Justice on or after January 1, 2015.(5) Commencing January 1, 2026, to all cases filed pursuant to Section 1473.7 or subdivision (e) of Section 1473 in which judgment was for a felony conviction or juvenile disposition that resulted in a commitment to the Division of Juvenile Justice, regardless of when the judgment or disposition became final.(k) For petitions that are filed in cases for which judgment was entered before January 1, 2021, and only in those cases, if the petition is based on a violation of paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a), the petitioner shall be entitled to relief as provided in subdivision (e), unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the violation did not contribute to the judgment.SEC. 3. Section 13510.8 of the Penal Code is amended to read:13510.8. (a) (1) The commission shall revoke the certification of a certified peace officer if the person is or has become ineligible to hold office as a peace officer pursuant to Section 1029 of the Government Code.(2) The commission may suspend or revoke the certification of a peace officer if the person has been terminated for cause from employment as a peace officer for, or has, while employed as a peace officer, otherwise engaged in, any serious misconduct as described in subdivision (b).(3) The commission may cancel the certificate or proof of eligibility of a peace officer if the commission determines that there was fraud or misrepresentation made by an applicant at any time during the application process that resulted in the issuance of the certification.(b) By January 1, 2023, the commission shall adopt by regulation a definition of serious misconduct that shall serve as the criteria to be considered for ineligibility for, or revocation of, certification. This definition shall include all of the following:(1) Dishonesty relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, a peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, false statements, intentionally filing false reports, tampering with, falsifying, destroying, or concealing evidence, perjury, and tampering with data recorded by a body-worn camera or other recording device for purposes of concealing misconduct.(2) Abuse of power, including, but not limited to, intimidating witnesses, knowingly obtaining a false confession, and knowingly making a false arrest.(3) Physical abuse, including, but not limited to, the excessive or unreasonable use of force.(4) Sexual assault, as described in subdivision (b) of Section 832.7.(5) Demonstrating bias on the basis of race, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, housing status, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, or other protected status in violation of law or department policy or inconsistent with a peace officers obligation to carry out their duties in a fair and unbiased manner. This paragraph does not limit an employees rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.(6) Acts that violate the law and are sufficiently egregious or repeated as to be inconsistent with a peace officers obligation to uphold the law or respect the rights of members of the public, as determined by the commission.(7) Participation in a law enforcement gang. For the purpose of this paragraph, a law enforcement gang means a group of peace officers within a law enforcement agency who may identify themselves by a name and may be associated with an identifying symbol, including, but not limited to, matching tattoos, and who engage in a pattern of on-duty behavior that intentionally violates the law or fundamental principles of professional policing, including, but not limited to, excluding, harassing, or discriminating against any individual based on a protected category under federal or state antidiscrimination laws, engaging in or promoting conduct that violates the rights of other employees or members of the public, violating agency policy, the persistent practice of unlawful detention or use of excessive force in circumstances where it is known to be unjustified, falsifying police reports, fabricating or destroying evidence, targeting persons for enforcement based solely on protected characteristics of those persons, theft, unauthorized use of alcohol or drugs on duty, unlawful or unauthorized protection of other members from disciplinary actions, and retaliation against other officers who threaten or interfere with the activities of the group.(8) Failure to cooperate with an investigation into potential police misconduct, including an investigation conducted pursuant to this chapter. For purposes of this paragraph, the lawful exercise of rights granted under the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, or any other law shall not be considered a failure to cooperate.(9) Failure to intercede when present and observing another officer using force that is clearly beyond that which is necessary, as determined by an objectively reasonable officer under the circumstances, taking into account the possibility that other officers may have additional information regarding the threat posed by a subject.(c) (1) Beginning no later than January 1, 2023, each law enforcement agency shall be responsible for the completion of investigations of allegations of serious misconduct by a peace officer, regardless of their employment status.(2) The division shall promptly review any grounds for decertification described in subdivision (a) received from an agency. The division shall have the authority to review any agency or other investigative authority file, as well as to conduct additional investigation, if necessary. The division shall only have authority to review and investigate allegations for purposes of decertification.(3) (A) The board, in their discretion, may request that the division review an investigative file or recommend that the commission direct the division to investigate any potential grounds for decertification of a peace officer. Those requests and recommendations from the board to the division or commission must be based upon a decision by a majority vote.(B) The commission, in its discretion, may direct the division to review an investigative file. The commission, either upon its own motion or in response to a recommendation from the board, may direct the division to investigate any potential grounds for decertification of a peace officer.(C) The division, in its discretion, may investigate without the request of the commission or board any potential grounds for revocation of certification of a peace officer.(4) The division, in carrying out any investigation initiated pursuant to this section or any other duty shall have all of the powers of investigation granted pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 11180) of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code.(5) Notwithstanding any other law, the investigation shall be completed within three years after the receipt of the completed report of the disciplinary or internal affairs investigation from the employing agency pursuant to Section 13510.9, however, no time limit shall apply if a report of the conduct was not made to the commission. An investigation shall be considered completed upon a notice of intent to deny, suspend, or revoke certification issued pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13510.85. The time limit shall be tolled during the appeal of a termination or other disciplinary action through an administrative or judicial proceeding or during any criminal prosecution of the peace officer. The commission shall consider the peace officers prior conduct and service record, and any instances of misconduct, including any incidents occurring beyond the time limitation for investigation in evaluating whether to revoke certification for the incident under investigation.(6) An action by an agency or decision resulting from an appeal of an agencys action does not preclude action by the commission to investigate, suspend, or revoke a peace officers certification pursuant to this section. Whether a particular factual or legal determination in a prior appeal proceeding shall have preclusive effect in proceedings under this chapter shall be governed by the existing law of collateral estoppel.(d) Upon arrest or indictment of a peace officer for any crime described in Section 1029 of the Government Code, or discharge from any law enforcement agency for grounds set forth in subdivision (a), or separation from employment of a peace officer during a pending investigation into allegations of serious misconduct, the executive director shall order the immediate temporary suspension of any certificate or proof of eligibility held by that peace officer upon the determination by the executive director that the temporary suspension is in the best interest of the health, safety, or welfare of the public. The order of temporary suspension shall be made in writing and shall specify the basis for the executive directors determination. Following the issuance of a temporary suspension order, proceedings of the commission in the exercise of its authority to discipline any peace officer shall be promptly scheduled as provided for in this section. The temporary suspension shall continue in effect until issuance of the final decision on revocation pursuant to this section or until the order is withdrawn by the executive director.(e) Records of an investigation of any person by the commission shall be retained for 30 years following the date that the investigation is deemed concluded by the commission. The commission may destroy records prior to the expiration of the 30-year retention period if the subject is deceased and no action upon the complaint was taken by the commission beyond the commissions initial intake of the complaint.(f) Any peace officer may voluntarily surrender their certification permanently. Voluntary permanent surrender of certification pursuant to this subdivision shall have the same effect as revocation. Voluntary permanent surrender is not the same as placement of a valid certification into inactive status during a period in which a person is not actively employed as a peace officer. A permanently surrendered certification cannot be reactivated.(g) (1) The commission may initiate proceedings to revoke or suspend a peace officers certification for conduct that occurred before January 1, 2022, only for either of the following:(A) Serious misconduct pursuant to paragraph (1) or (4) of subdivision (b) or pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) for the use of deadly force that results in death or serious bodily injury.(B) If the employing agency makes a final determination regarding its investigation of the misconduct after January 1, 2022.(2) Nothing in this subdivision prevents the commission from considering the peace officers prior conduct and service record in determining whether suspension or revocation is appropriate for serious misconduct.(h) (1) A revocation of certification shall not be undertaken pursuant to this section solely because of a court finding made in a challenge brought pursuant to Section 745.(2) This subdivision does not prohibit revocation based on the underlying acts or omissions which formed the basis of the action brought pursuant to Section 745, if the revocation otherwise conforms to all the rules and procedures applicable to those proceedings, and the officer is accorded all due process protections provided in those proceedings.
Amended IN Senate April 02, 2025 Amended IN Senate March 24, 2025 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 20252026 REGULAR SESSION Senate Bill No. 734Introduced by Senator CaballeroFebruary 21, 2025An act to add Section 3305.6 to the Government Code, and to amend Sections 745 and 13510.8 of the Penal Code, relating to criminal procedure. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGESTSB 734, as amended, Caballero. Criminal procedure: discrimination.Existing law, the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, grants certain employment rights to public safety officers, as defined. The act prohibits, among other things, any punitive action against a public safety officer, denial of promotion on grounds other than merit, or threat of such treatment, because of the lawful exercise of the rights granted under the act, or the exercise of any rights under any existing administrative grievance procedure. Existing law, the California Racial Justice Act, Act of 2020, prohibits the state from seeking a criminal conviction or sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. Existing law authorizes a defendant to file a motion in the trial court or, if judgment has been imposed, to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus to allege a violation of this prohibition.Existing law authorizes the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to revoke the certification of a peace officer if the officer has, while employed as a peace officer, engaged in serious misconduct including, among other things, demonstrating bias on the basis of race, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, housing status, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, or other protected status in violation of law or department policy or inconsistent with a peace officers obligation to carry out their duties in a fair and unbiased manner.This bill would prohibit a punitive action, denial of promotion on grounds other than merit, or a revocation of certification proceeding from being undertaken against any public safety officer solely on the basis of a court finding made in a challenge brought under the California Racial Justice Act, Act of 2020, and would prohibit those court findings from being introduced for any purpose in any administrative appeal of a punitive action. The bill would require require, if the defendant is represented by an attorney in a case brought under the California Racial Justice Act to provide notice of a hearing pursuant to the act to any person accused of bias or racial animus in the proceeding, and would authorize any person accused of bias or racial animus in those proceedings, or any interested party on behalf of those persons or of the defendant, to submit an amicus brief to the court. of 2020, and the motion is based, in whole or in part, on the conduct of a law enforcement officer, the attorney to serve a copy of the motion on the law enforcement agency employing the officer.Digest Key Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: NO
Amended IN Senate April 02, 2025 Amended IN Senate March 24, 2025
Amended IN Senate April 02, 2025
Amended IN Senate March 24, 2025
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 20252026 REGULAR SESSION
Senate Bill
No. 734
Introduced by Senator CaballeroFebruary 21, 2025
Introduced by Senator Caballero
February 21, 2025
An act to add Section 3305.6 to the Government Code, and to amend Sections 745 and 13510.8 of the Penal Code, relating to criminal procedure.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
## LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 734, as amended, Caballero. Criminal procedure: discrimination.
Existing law, the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, grants certain employment rights to public safety officers, as defined. The act prohibits, among other things, any punitive action against a public safety officer, denial of promotion on grounds other than merit, or threat of such treatment, because of the lawful exercise of the rights granted under the act, or the exercise of any rights under any existing administrative grievance procedure. Existing law, the California Racial Justice Act, Act of 2020, prohibits the state from seeking a criminal conviction or sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. Existing law authorizes a defendant to file a motion in the trial court or, if judgment has been imposed, to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus to allege a violation of this prohibition.Existing law authorizes the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to revoke the certification of a peace officer if the officer has, while employed as a peace officer, engaged in serious misconduct including, among other things, demonstrating bias on the basis of race, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, housing status, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, or other protected status in violation of law or department policy or inconsistent with a peace officers obligation to carry out their duties in a fair and unbiased manner.This bill would prohibit a punitive action, denial of promotion on grounds other than merit, or a revocation of certification proceeding from being undertaken against any public safety officer solely on the basis of a court finding made in a challenge brought under the California Racial Justice Act, Act of 2020, and would prohibit those court findings from being introduced for any purpose in any administrative appeal of a punitive action. The bill would require require, if the defendant is represented by an attorney in a case brought under the California Racial Justice Act to provide notice of a hearing pursuant to the act to any person accused of bias or racial animus in the proceeding, and would authorize any person accused of bias or racial animus in those proceedings, or any interested party on behalf of those persons or of the defendant, to submit an amicus brief to the court. of 2020, and the motion is based, in whole or in part, on the conduct of a law enforcement officer, the attorney to serve a copy of the motion on the law enforcement agency employing the officer.
Existing law, the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, grants certain employment rights to public safety officers, as defined. The act prohibits, among other things, any punitive action against a public safety officer, denial of promotion on grounds other than merit, or threat of such treatment, because of the lawful exercise of the rights granted under the act, or the exercise of any rights under any existing administrative grievance procedure.
Existing law, the California Racial Justice Act, Act of 2020, prohibits the state from seeking a criminal conviction or sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. Existing law authorizes a defendant to file a motion in the trial court or, if judgment has been imposed, to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus to allege a violation of this prohibition.
Existing law authorizes the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to revoke the certification of a peace officer if the officer has, while employed as a peace officer, engaged in serious misconduct including, among other things, demonstrating bias on the basis of race, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, housing status, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, or other protected status in violation of law or department policy or inconsistent with a peace officers obligation to carry out their duties in a fair and unbiased manner.
This bill would prohibit a punitive action, denial of promotion on grounds other than merit, or a revocation of certification proceeding from being undertaken against any public safety officer solely on the basis of a court finding made in a challenge brought under the California Racial Justice Act, Act of 2020, and would prohibit those court findings from being introduced for any purpose in any administrative appeal of a punitive action. The bill would require require, if the defendant is represented by an attorney in a case brought under the California Racial Justice Act to provide notice of a hearing pursuant to the act to any person accused of bias or racial animus in the proceeding, and would authorize any person accused of bias or racial animus in those proceedings, or any interested party on behalf of those persons or of the defendant, to submit an amicus brief to the court. of 2020, and the motion is based, in whole or in part, on the conduct of a law enforcement officer, the attorney to serve a copy of the motion on the law enforcement agency employing the officer.
## Digest Key
## Bill Text
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:SECTION 1. Section 3305.6 is added to the Government Code, to read:3305.6. (a) A punitive action or denial of promotion on grounds other than merit shall not be undertaken by any public agency against any public safety officer solely because of a court finding made in a challenge brought pursuant to Section 745 of the Penal Code.(b) This section does not prohibit a public agency from taking punitive action, denying promotion on grounds other than merit, or taking other personnel action against a public safety officer based on the underlying acts or omissions which formed the basis of the action brought pursuant to Section 745 of the Penal Code, if the actions taken by the public agency otherwise conform to all the rules and procedures applicable to those proceedings, and the officer is accorded all due process protections provided in those proceedings.(c) Evidence of a court finding of a violation of Section 745 of the Penal Code shall not be introduced for any purpose in any administrative appeal of a punitive action, except as provided in subdivision (d). action.(d)Evidence that a public safety officer violated Section 745 of the Penal Code may only be introduced if, during the administrative appeal of a punitive action against an officer, the underlying act or omission the officer allegedly committed is proven and the officer is found to be subject to some form of punitive action. If the hearing officer or other administrative appeal tribunal finds or determines that a public safety officer has committed the underlying acts or omissions that will result in a punitive action, denial of a promotion on grounds other than merit, or any other adverse personnel action, and evidence exists that a public safety officer violated Section 745 of the Penal Code, then the evidence shall be introduced for the sole purpose of determining the type or level of punitive action to be imposed.(e)(d) This section does not grant immunity for civil or criminal liability for the underlying acts or omissions which formed the basis of the action brought under Section 745 of the Penal Code.SEC. 2. Section 745 of the Penal Code is amended to read:745. (a) The state shall not seek or obtain a criminal conviction or seek, obtain, or impose a sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. A violation is established if the defendant proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, any of the following:(1) The judge, an attorney in the case, a law enforcement officer involved in the case, an expert witness, or juror exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin.(2) During the defendants trial, in court and during the proceedings, the judge, an attorney in the case, a law enforcement officer involved in the case, an expert witness, or juror, used racially discriminatory language about the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin, or otherwise exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin, whether or not purposeful. This paragraph does not apply if the person speaking is relating language used by another that is relevant to the case or if the person speaking is giving a racially neutral and unbiased physical description of the suspect.(3) The defendant was charged or convicted of a more serious offense than defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins who have engaged in similar conduct and are similarly situated, and the evidence establishes that the prosecution more frequently sought or obtained convictions for more serious offenses against people who share the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin in the county where the convictions were sought or obtained.(4) (A) A longer or more severe sentence was imposed on the defendant than was imposed on other similarly situated individuals convicted of the same offense, and longer or more severe sentences were more frequently imposed for that offense on people that share the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin than on defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins in the county where the sentence was imposed.(B) A longer or more severe sentence was imposed on the defendant than was imposed on other similarly situated individuals convicted of the same offense, and longer or more severe sentences were more frequently imposed for the same offense on defendants in cases with victims of one race, ethnicity, or national origin than in cases with victims of other races, ethnicities, or national origins, in the county where the sentence was imposed.(b) A defendant may file a motion pursuant to this section, or a petition for writ of habeas corpus or a motion under Section 1473.7, in a court of competent jurisdiction, alleging a violation of subdivision (a). For claims based on the trial record, a defendant may raise a claim alleging a violation of subdivision (a) on direct appeal from the conviction or sentence. The defendant may also move to stay the appeal and request remand to the superior court to file a motion pursuant to this section. If the motion is based in whole or in part on conduct or statements by the judge, the judge shall disqualify themselves from any further proceedings under this section.(c) If a motion is filed in the trial court and the defendant makes a prima facie showing of a violation of subdivision (a), the trial court shall hold a hearing. A motion made at trial shall be made as soon as practicable upon the defendant learning of the alleged violation. A motion that is not timely may be deemed waived, in the discretion of the court.(1) At the hearing, evidence may be presented by either party, including, but not limited to, statistical evidence, aggregate data, expert testimony, and the sworn testimony of witnesses. The court may also appoint an independent expert. For the purpose of a motion and hearing under this section, out-of-court statements that the court finds trustworthy and reliable, statistical evidence, and aggregated data are admissible for the limited purpose of determining whether a violation of subdivision (a) has occurred.(2) The defendant shall have the burden of proving a violation of subdivision (a) by a preponderance of the evidence. The defendant does not need to prove intentional discrimination.(3)(A)Any person accused of bias or racial animus in a proceeding pursuant to this section shall be provided notice of the allegations by the defendant prior to a motion being filed pursuant to this section.(B)Any person accused of bias or racial animus in a proceeding pursuant to this section, any interested party on behalf of a person accused of bias or racial animus in a proceeding pursuant to this section, or any interested party on behalf of a defendant may submit an amicus brief to the court.(3) If the defendant is represented by an attorney and the motion alleges a violation of paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a), based in whole or in part on the conduct of one or more law enforcement officers, the attorney shall serve a copy of the motion on the law enforcement agency or agencies that employed the officer or officers.(4) At the conclusion of the hearing, the court shall make findings on the record.(d) A defendant may file a motion requesting disclosure to the defense of all evidence relevant to a potential violation of subdivision (a) in the possession or control of the state. A motion filed under this section shall describe the type of records or information the defendant seeks. Upon a showing of good cause, the court shall order the records to be released. Upon a showing of good cause, and in order to protect a privacy right or privilege, the court may permit the prosecution to redact information prior to disclosure or may subject disclosure to a protective order. If a statutory privilege or constitutional privacy right cannot be adequately protected by redaction or a protective order, the court shall not order the release of the records.(e) Notwithstanding any other law, except as provided in subdivision (k), or for an initiative approved by the voters, if the court finds, by a preponderance of evidence, a violation of subdivision (a), the court shall impose a remedy specific to the violation found from the following list:(1) Before a judgment has been entered, the court may impose any of the following remedies:(A) Declare a mistrial, if requested by the defendant.(B) Discharge the jury panel and empanel a new jury.(C) If the court determines that it would be in the interest of justice, dismiss enhancements, special circumstances, or special allegations, or reduce one or more charges.(2) (A) After a judgment has been entered, if the court finds that a conviction was sought or obtained in violation of subdivision (a), the court shall vacate the conviction and sentence, find that it is legally invalid, and order new proceedings consistent with subdivision (a). If the court finds that the only violation of subdivision (a) that occurred is based on paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the court may modify the judgment to a lesser included or lesser related offense. On resentencing, the court shall not impose a new sentence greater than that previously imposed.(B) After a judgment has been entered, if the court finds that only the sentence was sought, obtained, or imposed in violation of subdivision (a), the court shall vacate the sentence, find that it is legally invalid, and impose a new sentence. On resentencing, the court shall not impose a new sentence greater than that previously imposed.(3) When the court finds there has been a violation of subdivision (a), the defendant shall not be eligible for the death penalty.(4) The remedies available under this section do not foreclose any other remedies available under the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, or any other law.(f) This section also applies to adjudications and dispositions in the juvenile delinquency system and adjudications to transfer a juvenile case to adult court.(g) This section shall not prevent the prosecution of hate crimes pursuant to Sections 422.6 to 422.865, inclusive.(h) As used in this section, the following definitions apply:(1) More frequently sought or obtained or more frequently imposed means that the totality of the evidence demonstrates a significant difference in seeking or obtaining convictions or in imposing sentences comparing individuals who have engaged in similar conduct and are similarly situated, and the prosecution cannot establish race-neutral reasons for the disparity. The evidence may include statistical evidence, aggregate data, or nonstatistical evidence. Statistical significance is a factor the court may consider, but is not necessary to establish a significant difference. In evaluating the totality of the evidence, the court shall consider whether systemic and institutional racial bias, racial profiling, and historical patterns of racially biased policing and prosecution may have contributed to, or caused differences observed in, the data or impacted the availability of data overall. Race-neutral reasons shall be relevant factors to charges, convictions, and sentences that are not influenced by implicit, systemic, or institutional bias based on race, ethnicity, or national origin.(2) Prima facie showing means that the defendant produces facts that, if true, establish that there is a substantial likelihood that a violation of subdivision (a) occurred. For purposes of this section, a substantial likelihood requires more than a mere possibility, but less than a standard of more likely than not.(3) Relevant factors, as that phrase applies to sentencing, means the factors in the California Rules of Court that pertain to sentencing decisions and any additional factors required to or permitted to be considered in sentencing under state law and under the state and federal constitutions.(4) Racially discriminatory language means language that, to an objective observer, explicitly or implicitly appeals to racial bias, including, but not limited to, racially charged or racially coded language, language that compares the defendant to an animal, or language that references the defendants physical appearance, culture, ethnicity, or national origin. Evidence that particular words or images are used exclusively or disproportionately in cases where the defendant is of a specific race, ethnicity, or national origin is relevant to determining whether language is discriminatory.(5) State includes the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city prosecutor.(6) Similarly situated means that factors that are relevant in charging and sentencing are similar and do not require that all individuals in the comparison group are identical. A defendants conviction history may be a relevant factor to the severity of the charges, convictions, or sentences. If it is a relevant factor and the defense produces evidence that the conviction history may have been impacted by racial profiling or historical patterns of racially biased policing, the court shall consider the evidence.(i) A defendant may share a race, ethnicity, or national origin with more than one group. A defendant may aggregate data among groups to demonstrate a violation of subdivision (a).(j) This section applies as follows:(1) To all cases in which judgment is not final.(2) Commencing January 1, 2023, to all cases in which, at the time of the filing of a petition pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 1473 raising a claim under this section, the petitioner is sentenced to death or to cases in which the motion is filed pursuant to Section 1473.7 because of actual or potential immigration consequences related to the conviction or sentence, regardless of when the judgment or disposition became final.(3) Commencing January 1, 2024, to all cases in which, at the time of the filing of a petition pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 1473 raising a claim under this section, the petitioner is currently serving a sentence in the state prison or in a county jail pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or committed to the Division of Juvenile Justice for a juvenile disposition, regardless of when the judgment or disposition became final.(4) Commencing January 1, 2025, to all cases filed pursuant to Section 1473.7 or subdivision (e) of Section 1473 in which judgment became final for a felony conviction or juvenile disposition that resulted in a commitment to the Division of Juvenile Justice on or after January 1, 2015.(5) Commencing January 1, 2026, to all cases filed pursuant to Section 1473.7 or subdivision (e) of Section 1473 in which judgment was for a felony conviction or juvenile disposition that resulted in a commitment to the Division of Juvenile Justice, regardless of when the judgment or disposition became final.(k) For petitions that are filed in cases for which judgment was entered before January 1, 2021, and only in those cases, if the petition is based on a violation of paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a), the petitioner shall be entitled to relief as provided in subdivision (e), unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the violation did not contribute to the judgment.SEC. 3. Section 13510.8 of the Penal Code is amended to read:13510.8. (a) (1) The commission shall revoke the certification of a certified peace officer if the person is or has become ineligible to hold office as a peace officer pursuant to Section 1029 of the Government Code.(2) The commission may suspend or revoke the certification of a peace officer if the person has been terminated for cause from employment as a peace officer for, or has, while employed as a peace officer, otherwise engaged in, any serious misconduct as described in subdivision (b).(3) The commission may cancel the certificate or proof of eligibility of a peace officer if the commission determines that there was fraud or misrepresentation made by an applicant at any time during the application process that resulted in the issuance of the certification.(b) By January 1, 2023, the commission shall adopt by regulation a definition of serious misconduct that shall serve as the criteria to be considered for ineligibility for, or revocation of, certification. This definition shall include all of the following:(1) Dishonesty relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, a peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, false statements, intentionally filing false reports, tampering with, falsifying, destroying, or concealing evidence, perjury, and tampering with data recorded by a body-worn camera or other recording device for purposes of concealing misconduct.(2) Abuse of power, including, but not limited to, intimidating witnesses, knowingly obtaining a false confession, and knowingly making a false arrest.(3) Physical abuse, including, but not limited to, the excessive or unreasonable use of force.(4) Sexual assault, as described in subdivision (b) of Section 832.7.(5) Demonstrating bias on the basis of race, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, housing status, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, or other protected status in violation of law or department policy or inconsistent with a peace officers obligation to carry out their duties in a fair and unbiased manner. This paragraph does not limit an employees rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.(6) Acts that violate the law and are sufficiently egregious or repeated as to be inconsistent with a peace officers obligation to uphold the law or respect the rights of members of the public, as determined by the commission.(7) Participation in a law enforcement gang. For the purpose of this paragraph, a law enforcement gang means a group of peace officers within a law enforcement agency who may identify themselves by a name and may be associated with an identifying symbol, including, but not limited to, matching tattoos, and who engage in a pattern of on-duty behavior that intentionally violates the law or fundamental principles of professional policing, including, but not limited to, excluding, harassing, or discriminating against any individual based on a protected category under federal or state antidiscrimination laws, engaging in or promoting conduct that violates the rights of other employees or members of the public, violating agency policy, the persistent practice of unlawful detention or use of excessive force in circumstances where it is known to be unjustified, falsifying police reports, fabricating or destroying evidence, targeting persons for enforcement based solely on protected characteristics of those persons, theft, unauthorized use of alcohol or drugs on duty, unlawful or unauthorized protection of other members from disciplinary actions, and retaliation against other officers who threaten or interfere with the activities of the group.(8) Failure to cooperate with an investigation into potential police misconduct, including an investigation conducted pursuant to this chapter. For purposes of this paragraph, the lawful exercise of rights granted under the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, or any other law shall not be considered a failure to cooperate.(9) Failure to intercede when present and observing another officer using force that is clearly beyond that which is necessary, as determined by an objectively reasonable officer under the circumstances, taking into account the possibility that other officers may have additional information regarding the threat posed by a subject.(c) (1) Beginning no later than January 1, 2023, each law enforcement agency shall be responsible for the completion of investigations of allegations of serious misconduct by a peace officer, regardless of their employment status.(2) The division shall promptly review any grounds for decertification described in subdivision (a) received from an agency. The division shall have the authority to review any agency or other investigative authority file, as well as to conduct additional investigation, if necessary. The division shall only have authority to review and investigate allegations for purposes of decertification.(3) (A) The board, in their discretion, may request that the division review an investigative file or recommend that the commission direct the division to investigate any potential grounds for decertification of a peace officer. Those requests and recommendations from the board to the division or commission must be based upon a decision by a majority vote.(B) The commission, in its discretion, may direct the division to review an investigative file. The commission, either upon its own motion or in response to a recommendation from the board, may direct the division to investigate any potential grounds for decertification of a peace officer.(C) The division, in its discretion, may investigate without the request of the commission or board any potential grounds for revocation of certification of a peace officer.(4) The division, in carrying out any investigation initiated pursuant to this section or any other duty shall have all of the powers of investigation granted pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 11180) of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code.(5) Notwithstanding any other law, the investigation shall be completed within three years after the receipt of the completed report of the disciplinary or internal affairs investigation from the employing agency pursuant to Section 13510.9, however, no time limit shall apply if a report of the conduct was not made to the commission. An investigation shall be considered completed upon a notice of intent to deny, suspend, or revoke certification issued pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13510.85. The time limit shall be tolled during the appeal of a termination or other disciplinary action through an administrative or judicial proceeding or during any criminal prosecution of the peace officer. The commission shall consider the peace officers prior conduct and service record, and any instances of misconduct, including any incidents occurring beyond the time limitation for investigation in evaluating whether to revoke certification for the incident under investigation.(6) An action by an agency or decision resulting from an appeal of an agencys action does not preclude action by the commission to investigate, suspend, or revoke a peace officers certification pursuant to this section. Whether a particular factual or legal determination in a prior appeal proceeding shall have preclusive effect in proceedings under this chapter shall be governed by the existing law of collateral estoppel.(d) Upon arrest or indictment of a peace officer for any crime described in Section 1029 of the Government Code, or discharge from any law enforcement agency for grounds set forth in subdivision (a), or separation from employment of a peace officer during a pending investigation into allegations of serious misconduct, the executive director shall order the immediate temporary suspension of any certificate or proof of eligibility held by that peace officer upon the determination by the executive director that the temporary suspension is in the best interest of the health, safety, or welfare of the public. The order of temporary suspension shall be made in writing and shall specify the basis for the executive directors determination. Following the issuance of a temporary suspension order, proceedings of the commission in the exercise of its authority to discipline any peace officer shall be promptly scheduled as provided for in this section. The temporary suspension shall continue in effect until issuance of the final decision on revocation pursuant to this section or until the order is withdrawn by the executive director.(e) Records of an investigation of any person by the commission shall be retained for 30 years following the date that the investigation is deemed concluded by the commission. The commission may destroy records prior to the expiration of the 30-year retention period if the subject is deceased and no action upon the complaint was taken by the commission beyond the commissions initial intake of the complaint.(f) Any peace officer may voluntarily surrender their certification permanently. Voluntary permanent surrender of certification pursuant to this subdivision shall have the same effect as revocation. Voluntary permanent surrender is not the same as placement of a valid certification into inactive status during a period in which a person is not actively employed as a peace officer. A permanently surrendered certification cannot be reactivated.(g) (1) The commission may initiate proceedings to revoke or suspend a peace officers certification for conduct that occurred before January 1, 2022, only for either of the following:(A) Serious misconduct pursuant to paragraph (1) or (4) of subdivision (b) or pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) for the use of deadly force that results in death or serious bodily injury.(B) If the employing agency makes a final determination regarding its investigation of the misconduct after January 1, 2022.(2) Nothing in this subdivision prevents the commission from considering the peace officers prior conduct and service record in determining whether suspension or revocation is appropriate for serious misconduct.(h) (1) A revocation of certification shall not be undertaken pursuant to this section solely because of a court finding made in a challenge brought pursuant to Section 745.(2) This subdivision does not prohibit revocation based on the underlying acts or omissions which formed the basis of the action brought pursuant to Section 745, if the revocation otherwise conforms to all the rules and procedures applicable to those proceedings, and the officer is accorded all due process protections provided in those proceedings.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
## The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 3305.6 is added to the Government Code, to read:3305.6. (a) A punitive action or denial of promotion on grounds other than merit shall not be undertaken by any public agency against any public safety officer solely because of a court finding made in a challenge brought pursuant to Section 745 of the Penal Code.(b) This section does not prohibit a public agency from taking punitive action, denying promotion on grounds other than merit, or taking other personnel action against a public safety officer based on the underlying acts or omissions which formed the basis of the action brought pursuant to Section 745 of the Penal Code, if the actions taken by the public agency otherwise conform to all the rules and procedures applicable to those proceedings, and the officer is accorded all due process protections provided in those proceedings.(c) Evidence of a court finding of a violation of Section 745 of the Penal Code shall not be introduced for any purpose in any administrative appeal of a punitive action, except as provided in subdivision (d). action.(d)Evidence that a public safety officer violated Section 745 of the Penal Code may only be introduced if, during the administrative appeal of a punitive action against an officer, the underlying act or omission the officer allegedly committed is proven and the officer is found to be subject to some form of punitive action. If the hearing officer or other administrative appeal tribunal finds or determines that a public safety officer has committed the underlying acts or omissions that will result in a punitive action, denial of a promotion on grounds other than merit, or any other adverse personnel action, and evidence exists that a public safety officer violated Section 745 of the Penal Code, then the evidence shall be introduced for the sole purpose of determining the type or level of punitive action to be imposed.(e)(d) This section does not grant immunity for civil or criminal liability for the underlying acts or omissions which formed the basis of the action brought under Section 745 of the Penal Code.
SECTION 1. Section 3305.6 is added to the Government Code, to read:
### SECTION 1.
3305.6. (a) A punitive action or denial of promotion on grounds other than merit shall not be undertaken by any public agency against any public safety officer solely because of a court finding made in a challenge brought pursuant to Section 745 of the Penal Code.(b) This section does not prohibit a public agency from taking punitive action, denying promotion on grounds other than merit, or taking other personnel action against a public safety officer based on the underlying acts or omissions which formed the basis of the action brought pursuant to Section 745 of the Penal Code, if the actions taken by the public agency otherwise conform to all the rules and procedures applicable to those proceedings, and the officer is accorded all due process protections provided in those proceedings.(c) Evidence of a court finding of a violation of Section 745 of the Penal Code shall not be introduced for any purpose in any administrative appeal of a punitive action, except as provided in subdivision (d). action.(d)Evidence that a public safety officer violated Section 745 of the Penal Code may only be introduced if, during the administrative appeal of a punitive action against an officer, the underlying act or omission the officer allegedly committed is proven and the officer is found to be subject to some form of punitive action. If the hearing officer or other administrative appeal tribunal finds or determines that a public safety officer has committed the underlying acts or omissions that will result in a punitive action, denial of a promotion on grounds other than merit, or any other adverse personnel action, and evidence exists that a public safety officer violated Section 745 of the Penal Code, then the evidence shall be introduced for the sole purpose of determining the type or level of punitive action to be imposed.(e)(d) This section does not grant immunity for civil or criminal liability for the underlying acts or omissions which formed the basis of the action brought under Section 745 of the Penal Code.
3305.6. (a) A punitive action or denial of promotion on grounds other than merit shall not be undertaken by any public agency against any public safety officer solely because of a court finding made in a challenge brought pursuant to Section 745 of the Penal Code.(b) This section does not prohibit a public agency from taking punitive action, denying promotion on grounds other than merit, or taking other personnel action against a public safety officer based on the underlying acts or omissions which formed the basis of the action brought pursuant to Section 745 of the Penal Code, if the actions taken by the public agency otherwise conform to all the rules and procedures applicable to those proceedings, and the officer is accorded all due process protections provided in those proceedings.(c) Evidence of a court finding of a violation of Section 745 of the Penal Code shall not be introduced for any purpose in any administrative appeal of a punitive action, except as provided in subdivision (d). action.(d)Evidence that a public safety officer violated Section 745 of the Penal Code may only be introduced if, during the administrative appeal of a punitive action against an officer, the underlying act or omission the officer allegedly committed is proven and the officer is found to be subject to some form of punitive action. If the hearing officer or other administrative appeal tribunal finds or determines that a public safety officer has committed the underlying acts or omissions that will result in a punitive action, denial of a promotion on grounds other than merit, or any other adverse personnel action, and evidence exists that a public safety officer violated Section 745 of the Penal Code, then the evidence shall be introduced for the sole purpose of determining the type or level of punitive action to be imposed.(e)(d) This section does not grant immunity for civil or criminal liability for the underlying acts or omissions which formed the basis of the action brought under Section 745 of the Penal Code.
3305.6. (a) A punitive action or denial of promotion on grounds other than merit shall not be undertaken by any public agency against any public safety officer solely because of a court finding made in a challenge brought pursuant to Section 745 of the Penal Code.(b) This section does not prohibit a public agency from taking punitive action, denying promotion on grounds other than merit, or taking other personnel action against a public safety officer based on the underlying acts or omissions which formed the basis of the action brought pursuant to Section 745 of the Penal Code, if the actions taken by the public agency otherwise conform to all the rules and procedures applicable to those proceedings, and the officer is accorded all due process protections provided in those proceedings.(c) Evidence of a court finding of a violation of Section 745 of the Penal Code shall not be introduced for any purpose in any administrative appeal of a punitive action, except as provided in subdivision (d). action.(d)Evidence that a public safety officer violated Section 745 of the Penal Code may only be introduced if, during the administrative appeal of a punitive action against an officer, the underlying act or omission the officer allegedly committed is proven and the officer is found to be subject to some form of punitive action. If the hearing officer or other administrative appeal tribunal finds or determines that a public safety officer has committed the underlying acts or omissions that will result in a punitive action, denial of a promotion on grounds other than merit, or any other adverse personnel action, and evidence exists that a public safety officer violated Section 745 of the Penal Code, then the evidence shall be introduced for the sole purpose of determining the type or level of punitive action to be imposed.(e)(d) This section does not grant immunity for civil or criminal liability for the underlying acts or omissions which formed the basis of the action brought under Section 745 of the Penal Code.
3305.6. (a) A punitive action or denial of promotion on grounds other than merit shall not be undertaken by any public agency against any public safety officer solely because of a court finding made in a challenge brought pursuant to Section 745 of the Penal Code.
(b) This section does not prohibit a public agency from taking punitive action, denying promotion on grounds other than merit, or taking other personnel action against a public safety officer based on the underlying acts or omissions which formed the basis of the action brought pursuant to Section 745 of the Penal Code, if the actions taken by the public agency otherwise conform to all the rules and procedures applicable to those proceedings, and the officer is accorded all due process protections provided in those proceedings.
(c) Evidence of a court finding of a violation of Section 745 of the Penal Code shall not be introduced for any purpose in any administrative appeal of a punitive action, except as provided in subdivision (d). action.
(d)Evidence that a public safety officer violated Section 745 of the Penal Code may only be introduced if, during the administrative appeal of a punitive action against an officer, the underlying act or omission the officer allegedly committed is proven and the officer is found to be subject to some form of punitive action. If the hearing officer or other administrative appeal tribunal finds or determines that a public safety officer has committed the underlying acts or omissions that will result in a punitive action, denial of a promotion on grounds other than merit, or any other adverse personnel action, and evidence exists that a public safety officer violated Section 745 of the Penal Code, then the evidence shall be introduced for the sole purpose of determining the type or level of punitive action to be imposed.
(e)
(d) This section does not grant immunity for civil or criminal liability for the underlying acts or omissions which formed the basis of the action brought under Section 745 of the Penal Code.
SEC. 2. Section 745 of the Penal Code is amended to read:745. (a) The state shall not seek or obtain a criminal conviction or seek, obtain, or impose a sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. A violation is established if the defendant proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, any of the following:(1) The judge, an attorney in the case, a law enforcement officer involved in the case, an expert witness, or juror exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin.(2) During the defendants trial, in court and during the proceedings, the judge, an attorney in the case, a law enforcement officer involved in the case, an expert witness, or juror, used racially discriminatory language about the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin, or otherwise exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin, whether or not purposeful. This paragraph does not apply if the person speaking is relating language used by another that is relevant to the case or if the person speaking is giving a racially neutral and unbiased physical description of the suspect.(3) The defendant was charged or convicted of a more serious offense than defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins who have engaged in similar conduct and are similarly situated, and the evidence establishes that the prosecution more frequently sought or obtained convictions for more serious offenses against people who share the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin in the county where the convictions were sought or obtained.(4) (A) A longer or more severe sentence was imposed on the defendant than was imposed on other similarly situated individuals convicted of the same offense, and longer or more severe sentences were more frequently imposed for that offense on people that share the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin than on defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins in the county where the sentence was imposed.(B) A longer or more severe sentence was imposed on the defendant than was imposed on other similarly situated individuals convicted of the same offense, and longer or more severe sentences were more frequently imposed for the same offense on defendants in cases with victims of one race, ethnicity, or national origin than in cases with victims of other races, ethnicities, or national origins, in the county where the sentence was imposed.(b) A defendant may file a motion pursuant to this section, or a petition for writ of habeas corpus or a motion under Section 1473.7, in a court of competent jurisdiction, alleging a violation of subdivision (a). For claims based on the trial record, a defendant may raise a claim alleging a violation of subdivision (a) on direct appeal from the conviction or sentence. The defendant may also move to stay the appeal and request remand to the superior court to file a motion pursuant to this section. If the motion is based in whole or in part on conduct or statements by the judge, the judge shall disqualify themselves from any further proceedings under this section.(c) If a motion is filed in the trial court and the defendant makes a prima facie showing of a violation of subdivision (a), the trial court shall hold a hearing. A motion made at trial shall be made as soon as practicable upon the defendant learning of the alleged violation. A motion that is not timely may be deemed waived, in the discretion of the court.(1) At the hearing, evidence may be presented by either party, including, but not limited to, statistical evidence, aggregate data, expert testimony, and the sworn testimony of witnesses. The court may also appoint an independent expert. For the purpose of a motion and hearing under this section, out-of-court statements that the court finds trustworthy and reliable, statistical evidence, and aggregated data are admissible for the limited purpose of determining whether a violation of subdivision (a) has occurred.(2) The defendant shall have the burden of proving a violation of subdivision (a) by a preponderance of the evidence. The defendant does not need to prove intentional discrimination.(3)(A)Any person accused of bias or racial animus in a proceeding pursuant to this section shall be provided notice of the allegations by the defendant prior to a motion being filed pursuant to this section.(B)Any person accused of bias or racial animus in a proceeding pursuant to this section, any interested party on behalf of a person accused of bias or racial animus in a proceeding pursuant to this section, or any interested party on behalf of a defendant may submit an amicus brief to the court.(3) If the defendant is represented by an attorney and the motion alleges a violation of paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a), based in whole or in part on the conduct of one or more law enforcement officers, the attorney shall serve a copy of the motion on the law enforcement agency or agencies that employed the officer or officers.(4) At the conclusion of the hearing, the court shall make findings on the record.(d) A defendant may file a motion requesting disclosure to the defense of all evidence relevant to a potential violation of subdivision (a) in the possession or control of the state. A motion filed under this section shall describe the type of records or information the defendant seeks. Upon a showing of good cause, the court shall order the records to be released. Upon a showing of good cause, and in order to protect a privacy right or privilege, the court may permit the prosecution to redact information prior to disclosure or may subject disclosure to a protective order. If a statutory privilege or constitutional privacy right cannot be adequately protected by redaction or a protective order, the court shall not order the release of the records.(e) Notwithstanding any other law, except as provided in subdivision (k), or for an initiative approved by the voters, if the court finds, by a preponderance of evidence, a violation of subdivision (a), the court shall impose a remedy specific to the violation found from the following list:(1) Before a judgment has been entered, the court may impose any of the following remedies:(A) Declare a mistrial, if requested by the defendant.(B) Discharge the jury panel and empanel a new jury.(C) If the court determines that it would be in the interest of justice, dismiss enhancements, special circumstances, or special allegations, or reduce one or more charges.(2) (A) After a judgment has been entered, if the court finds that a conviction was sought or obtained in violation of subdivision (a), the court shall vacate the conviction and sentence, find that it is legally invalid, and order new proceedings consistent with subdivision (a). If the court finds that the only violation of subdivision (a) that occurred is based on paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the court may modify the judgment to a lesser included or lesser related offense. On resentencing, the court shall not impose a new sentence greater than that previously imposed.(B) After a judgment has been entered, if the court finds that only the sentence was sought, obtained, or imposed in violation of subdivision (a), the court shall vacate the sentence, find that it is legally invalid, and impose a new sentence. On resentencing, the court shall not impose a new sentence greater than that previously imposed.(3) When the court finds there has been a violation of subdivision (a), the defendant shall not be eligible for the death penalty.(4) The remedies available under this section do not foreclose any other remedies available under the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, or any other law.(f) This section also applies to adjudications and dispositions in the juvenile delinquency system and adjudications to transfer a juvenile case to adult court.(g) This section shall not prevent the prosecution of hate crimes pursuant to Sections 422.6 to 422.865, inclusive.(h) As used in this section, the following definitions apply:(1) More frequently sought or obtained or more frequently imposed means that the totality of the evidence demonstrates a significant difference in seeking or obtaining convictions or in imposing sentences comparing individuals who have engaged in similar conduct and are similarly situated, and the prosecution cannot establish race-neutral reasons for the disparity. The evidence may include statistical evidence, aggregate data, or nonstatistical evidence. Statistical significance is a factor the court may consider, but is not necessary to establish a significant difference. In evaluating the totality of the evidence, the court shall consider whether systemic and institutional racial bias, racial profiling, and historical patterns of racially biased policing and prosecution may have contributed to, or caused differences observed in, the data or impacted the availability of data overall. Race-neutral reasons shall be relevant factors to charges, convictions, and sentences that are not influenced by implicit, systemic, or institutional bias based on race, ethnicity, or national origin.(2) Prima facie showing means that the defendant produces facts that, if true, establish that there is a substantial likelihood that a violation of subdivision (a) occurred. For purposes of this section, a substantial likelihood requires more than a mere possibility, but less than a standard of more likely than not.(3) Relevant factors, as that phrase applies to sentencing, means the factors in the California Rules of Court that pertain to sentencing decisions and any additional factors required to or permitted to be considered in sentencing under state law and under the state and federal constitutions.(4) Racially discriminatory language means language that, to an objective observer, explicitly or implicitly appeals to racial bias, including, but not limited to, racially charged or racially coded language, language that compares the defendant to an animal, or language that references the defendants physical appearance, culture, ethnicity, or national origin. Evidence that particular words or images are used exclusively or disproportionately in cases where the defendant is of a specific race, ethnicity, or national origin is relevant to determining whether language is discriminatory.(5) State includes the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city prosecutor.(6) Similarly situated means that factors that are relevant in charging and sentencing are similar and do not require that all individuals in the comparison group are identical. A defendants conviction history may be a relevant factor to the severity of the charges, convictions, or sentences. If it is a relevant factor and the defense produces evidence that the conviction history may have been impacted by racial profiling or historical patterns of racially biased policing, the court shall consider the evidence.(i) A defendant may share a race, ethnicity, or national origin with more than one group. A defendant may aggregate data among groups to demonstrate a violation of subdivision (a).(j) This section applies as follows:(1) To all cases in which judgment is not final.(2) Commencing January 1, 2023, to all cases in which, at the time of the filing of a petition pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 1473 raising a claim under this section, the petitioner is sentenced to death or to cases in which the motion is filed pursuant to Section 1473.7 because of actual or potential immigration consequences related to the conviction or sentence, regardless of when the judgment or disposition became final.(3) Commencing January 1, 2024, to all cases in which, at the time of the filing of a petition pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 1473 raising a claim under this section, the petitioner is currently serving a sentence in the state prison or in a county jail pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or committed to the Division of Juvenile Justice for a juvenile disposition, regardless of when the judgment or disposition became final.(4) Commencing January 1, 2025, to all cases filed pursuant to Section 1473.7 or subdivision (e) of Section 1473 in which judgment became final for a felony conviction or juvenile disposition that resulted in a commitment to the Division of Juvenile Justice on or after January 1, 2015.(5) Commencing January 1, 2026, to all cases filed pursuant to Section 1473.7 or subdivision (e) of Section 1473 in which judgment was for a felony conviction or juvenile disposition that resulted in a commitment to the Division of Juvenile Justice, regardless of when the judgment or disposition became final.(k) For petitions that are filed in cases for which judgment was entered before January 1, 2021, and only in those cases, if the petition is based on a violation of paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a), the petitioner shall be entitled to relief as provided in subdivision (e), unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the violation did not contribute to the judgment.
SEC. 2. Section 745 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
### SEC. 2.
745. (a) The state shall not seek or obtain a criminal conviction or seek, obtain, or impose a sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. A violation is established if the defendant proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, any of the following:(1) The judge, an attorney in the case, a law enforcement officer involved in the case, an expert witness, or juror exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin.(2) During the defendants trial, in court and during the proceedings, the judge, an attorney in the case, a law enforcement officer involved in the case, an expert witness, or juror, used racially discriminatory language about the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin, or otherwise exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin, whether or not purposeful. This paragraph does not apply if the person speaking is relating language used by another that is relevant to the case or if the person speaking is giving a racially neutral and unbiased physical description of the suspect.(3) The defendant was charged or convicted of a more serious offense than defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins who have engaged in similar conduct and are similarly situated, and the evidence establishes that the prosecution more frequently sought or obtained convictions for more serious offenses against people who share the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin in the county where the convictions were sought or obtained.(4) (A) A longer or more severe sentence was imposed on the defendant than was imposed on other similarly situated individuals convicted of the same offense, and longer or more severe sentences were more frequently imposed for that offense on people that share the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin than on defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins in the county where the sentence was imposed.(B) A longer or more severe sentence was imposed on the defendant than was imposed on other similarly situated individuals convicted of the same offense, and longer or more severe sentences were more frequently imposed for the same offense on defendants in cases with victims of one race, ethnicity, or national origin than in cases with victims of other races, ethnicities, or national origins, in the county where the sentence was imposed.(b) A defendant may file a motion pursuant to this section, or a petition for writ of habeas corpus or a motion under Section 1473.7, in a court of competent jurisdiction, alleging a violation of subdivision (a). For claims based on the trial record, a defendant may raise a claim alleging a violation of subdivision (a) on direct appeal from the conviction or sentence. The defendant may also move to stay the appeal and request remand to the superior court to file a motion pursuant to this section. If the motion is based in whole or in part on conduct or statements by the judge, the judge shall disqualify themselves from any further proceedings under this section.(c) If a motion is filed in the trial court and the defendant makes a prima facie showing of a violation of subdivision (a), the trial court shall hold a hearing. A motion made at trial shall be made as soon as practicable upon the defendant learning of the alleged violation. A motion that is not timely may be deemed waived, in the discretion of the court.(1) At the hearing, evidence may be presented by either party, including, but not limited to, statistical evidence, aggregate data, expert testimony, and the sworn testimony of witnesses. The court may also appoint an independent expert. For the purpose of a motion and hearing under this section, out-of-court statements that the court finds trustworthy and reliable, statistical evidence, and aggregated data are admissible for the limited purpose of determining whether a violation of subdivision (a) has occurred.(2) The defendant shall have the burden of proving a violation of subdivision (a) by a preponderance of the evidence. The defendant does not need to prove intentional discrimination.(3)(A)Any person accused of bias or racial animus in a proceeding pursuant to this section shall be provided notice of the allegations by the defendant prior to a motion being filed pursuant to this section.(B)Any person accused of bias or racial animus in a proceeding pursuant to this section, any interested party on behalf of a person accused of bias or racial animus in a proceeding pursuant to this section, or any interested party on behalf of a defendant may submit an amicus brief to the court.(3) If the defendant is represented by an attorney and the motion alleges a violation of paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a), based in whole or in part on the conduct of one or more law enforcement officers, the attorney shall serve a copy of the motion on the law enforcement agency or agencies that employed the officer or officers.(4) At the conclusion of the hearing, the court shall make findings on the record.(d) A defendant may file a motion requesting disclosure to the defense of all evidence relevant to a potential violation of subdivision (a) in the possession or control of the state. A motion filed under this section shall describe the type of records or information the defendant seeks. Upon a showing of good cause, the court shall order the records to be released. Upon a showing of good cause, and in order to protect a privacy right or privilege, the court may permit the prosecution to redact information prior to disclosure or may subject disclosure to a protective order. If a statutory privilege or constitutional privacy right cannot be adequately protected by redaction or a protective order, the court shall not order the release of the records.(e) Notwithstanding any other law, except as provided in subdivision (k), or for an initiative approved by the voters, if the court finds, by a preponderance of evidence, a violation of subdivision (a), the court shall impose a remedy specific to the violation found from the following list:(1) Before a judgment has been entered, the court may impose any of the following remedies:(A) Declare a mistrial, if requested by the defendant.(B) Discharge the jury panel and empanel a new jury.(C) If the court determines that it would be in the interest of justice, dismiss enhancements, special circumstances, or special allegations, or reduce one or more charges.(2) (A) After a judgment has been entered, if the court finds that a conviction was sought or obtained in violation of subdivision (a), the court shall vacate the conviction and sentence, find that it is legally invalid, and order new proceedings consistent with subdivision (a). If the court finds that the only violation of subdivision (a) that occurred is based on paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the court may modify the judgment to a lesser included or lesser related offense. On resentencing, the court shall not impose a new sentence greater than that previously imposed.(B) After a judgment has been entered, if the court finds that only the sentence was sought, obtained, or imposed in violation of subdivision (a), the court shall vacate the sentence, find that it is legally invalid, and impose a new sentence. On resentencing, the court shall not impose a new sentence greater than that previously imposed.(3) When the court finds there has been a violation of subdivision (a), the defendant shall not be eligible for the death penalty.(4) The remedies available under this section do not foreclose any other remedies available under the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, or any other law.(f) This section also applies to adjudications and dispositions in the juvenile delinquency system and adjudications to transfer a juvenile case to adult court.(g) This section shall not prevent the prosecution of hate crimes pursuant to Sections 422.6 to 422.865, inclusive.(h) As used in this section, the following definitions apply:(1) More frequently sought or obtained or more frequently imposed means that the totality of the evidence demonstrates a significant difference in seeking or obtaining convictions or in imposing sentences comparing individuals who have engaged in similar conduct and are similarly situated, and the prosecution cannot establish race-neutral reasons for the disparity. The evidence may include statistical evidence, aggregate data, or nonstatistical evidence. Statistical significance is a factor the court may consider, but is not necessary to establish a significant difference. In evaluating the totality of the evidence, the court shall consider whether systemic and institutional racial bias, racial profiling, and historical patterns of racially biased policing and prosecution may have contributed to, or caused differences observed in, the data or impacted the availability of data overall. Race-neutral reasons shall be relevant factors to charges, convictions, and sentences that are not influenced by implicit, systemic, or institutional bias based on race, ethnicity, or national origin.(2) Prima facie showing means that the defendant produces facts that, if true, establish that there is a substantial likelihood that a violation of subdivision (a) occurred. For purposes of this section, a substantial likelihood requires more than a mere possibility, but less than a standard of more likely than not.(3) Relevant factors, as that phrase applies to sentencing, means the factors in the California Rules of Court that pertain to sentencing decisions and any additional factors required to or permitted to be considered in sentencing under state law and under the state and federal constitutions.(4) Racially discriminatory language means language that, to an objective observer, explicitly or implicitly appeals to racial bias, including, but not limited to, racially charged or racially coded language, language that compares the defendant to an animal, or language that references the defendants physical appearance, culture, ethnicity, or national origin. Evidence that particular words or images are used exclusively or disproportionately in cases where the defendant is of a specific race, ethnicity, or national origin is relevant to determining whether language is discriminatory.(5) State includes the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city prosecutor.(6) Similarly situated means that factors that are relevant in charging and sentencing are similar and do not require that all individuals in the comparison group are identical. A defendants conviction history may be a relevant factor to the severity of the charges, convictions, or sentences. If it is a relevant factor and the defense produces evidence that the conviction history may have been impacted by racial profiling or historical patterns of racially biased policing, the court shall consider the evidence.(i) A defendant may share a race, ethnicity, or national origin with more than one group. A defendant may aggregate data among groups to demonstrate a violation of subdivision (a).(j) This section applies as follows:(1) To all cases in which judgment is not final.(2) Commencing January 1, 2023, to all cases in which, at the time of the filing of a petition pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 1473 raising a claim under this section, the petitioner is sentenced to death or to cases in which the motion is filed pursuant to Section 1473.7 because of actual or potential immigration consequences related to the conviction or sentence, regardless of when the judgment or disposition became final.(3) Commencing January 1, 2024, to all cases in which, at the time of the filing of a petition pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 1473 raising a claim under this section, the petitioner is currently serving a sentence in the state prison or in a county jail pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or committed to the Division of Juvenile Justice for a juvenile disposition, regardless of when the judgment or disposition became final.(4) Commencing January 1, 2025, to all cases filed pursuant to Section 1473.7 or subdivision (e) of Section 1473 in which judgment became final for a felony conviction or juvenile disposition that resulted in a commitment to the Division of Juvenile Justice on or after January 1, 2015.(5) Commencing January 1, 2026, to all cases filed pursuant to Section 1473.7 or subdivision (e) of Section 1473 in which judgment was for a felony conviction or juvenile disposition that resulted in a commitment to the Division of Juvenile Justice, regardless of when the judgment or disposition became final.(k) For petitions that are filed in cases for which judgment was entered before January 1, 2021, and only in those cases, if the petition is based on a violation of paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a), the petitioner shall be entitled to relief as provided in subdivision (e), unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the violation did not contribute to the judgment.
745. (a) The state shall not seek or obtain a criminal conviction or seek, obtain, or impose a sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. A violation is established if the defendant proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, any of the following:(1) The judge, an attorney in the case, a law enforcement officer involved in the case, an expert witness, or juror exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin.(2) During the defendants trial, in court and during the proceedings, the judge, an attorney in the case, a law enforcement officer involved in the case, an expert witness, or juror, used racially discriminatory language about the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin, or otherwise exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin, whether or not purposeful. This paragraph does not apply if the person speaking is relating language used by another that is relevant to the case or if the person speaking is giving a racially neutral and unbiased physical description of the suspect.(3) The defendant was charged or convicted of a more serious offense than defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins who have engaged in similar conduct and are similarly situated, and the evidence establishes that the prosecution more frequently sought or obtained convictions for more serious offenses against people who share the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin in the county where the convictions were sought or obtained.(4) (A) A longer or more severe sentence was imposed on the defendant than was imposed on other similarly situated individuals convicted of the same offense, and longer or more severe sentences were more frequently imposed for that offense on people that share the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin than on defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins in the county where the sentence was imposed.(B) A longer or more severe sentence was imposed on the defendant than was imposed on other similarly situated individuals convicted of the same offense, and longer or more severe sentences were more frequently imposed for the same offense on defendants in cases with victims of one race, ethnicity, or national origin than in cases with victims of other races, ethnicities, or national origins, in the county where the sentence was imposed.(b) A defendant may file a motion pursuant to this section, or a petition for writ of habeas corpus or a motion under Section 1473.7, in a court of competent jurisdiction, alleging a violation of subdivision (a). For claims based on the trial record, a defendant may raise a claim alleging a violation of subdivision (a) on direct appeal from the conviction or sentence. The defendant may also move to stay the appeal and request remand to the superior court to file a motion pursuant to this section. If the motion is based in whole or in part on conduct or statements by the judge, the judge shall disqualify themselves from any further proceedings under this section.(c) If a motion is filed in the trial court and the defendant makes a prima facie showing of a violation of subdivision (a), the trial court shall hold a hearing. A motion made at trial shall be made as soon as practicable upon the defendant learning of the alleged violation. A motion that is not timely may be deemed waived, in the discretion of the court.(1) At the hearing, evidence may be presented by either party, including, but not limited to, statistical evidence, aggregate data, expert testimony, and the sworn testimony of witnesses. The court may also appoint an independent expert. For the purpose of a motion and hearing under this section, out-of-court statements that the court finds trustworthy and reliable, statistical evidence, and aggregated data are admissible for the limited purpose of determining whether a violation of subdivision (a) has occurred.(2) The defendant shall have the burden of proving a violation of subdivision (a) by a preponderance of the evidence. The defendant does not need to prove intentional discrimination.(3)(A)Any person accused of bias or racial animus in a proceeding pursuant to this section shall be provided notice of the allegations by the defendant prior to a motion being filed pursuant to this section.(B)Any person accused of bias or racial animus in a proceeding pursuant to this section, any interested party on behalf of a person accused of bias or racial animus in a proceeding pursuant to this section, or any interested party on behalf of a defendant may submit an amicus brief to the court.(3) If the defendant is represented by an attorney and the motion alleges a violation of paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a), based in whole or in part on the conduct of one or more law enforcement officers, the attorney shall serve a copy of the motion on the law enforcement agency or agencies that employed the officer or officers.(4) At the conclusion of the hearing, the court shall make findings on the record.(d) A defendant may file a motion requesting disclosure to the defense of all evidence relevant to a potential violation of subdivision (a) in the possession or control of the state. A motion filed under this section shall describe the type of records or information the defendant seeks. Upon a showing of good cause, the court shall order the records to be released. Upon a showing of good cause, and in order to protect a privacy right or privilege, the court may permit the prosecution to redact information prior to disclosure or may subject disclosure to a protective order. If a statutory privilege or constitutional privacy right cannot be adequately protected by redaction or a protective order, the court shall not order the release of the records.(e) Notwithstanding any other law, except as provided in subdivision (k), or for an initiative approved by the voters, if the court finds, by a preponderance of evidence, a violation of subdivision (a), the court shall impose a remedy specific to the violation found from the following list:(1) Before a judgment has been entered, the court may impose any of the following remedies:(A) Declare a mistrial, if requested by the defendant.(B) Discharge the jury panel and empanel a new jury.(C) If the court determines that it would be in the interest of justice, dismiss enhancements, special circumstances, or special allegations, or reduce one or more charges.(2) (A) After a judgment has been entered, if the court finds that a conviction was sought or obtained in violation of subdivision (a), the court shall vacate the conviction and sentence, find that it is legally invalid, and order new proceedings consistent with subdivision (a). If the court finds that the only violation of subdivision (a) that occurred is based on paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the court may modify the judgment to a lesser included or lesser related offense. On resentencing, the court shall not impose a new sentence greater than that previously imposed.(B) After a judgment has been entered, if the court finds that only the sentence was sought, obtained, or imposed in violation of subdivision (a), the court shall vacate the sentence, find that it is legally invalid, and impose a new sentence. On resentencing, the court shall not impose a new sentence greater than that previously imposed.(3) When the court finds there has been a violation of subdivision (a), the defendant shall not be eligible for the death penalty.(4) The remedies available under this section do not foreclose any other remedies available under the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, or any other law.(f) This section also applies to adjudications and dispositions in the juvenile delinquency system and adjudications to transfer a juvenile case to adult court.(g) This section shall not prevent the prosecution of hate crimes pursuant to Sections 422.6 to 422.865, inclusive.(h) As used in this section, the following definitions apply:(1) More frequently sought or obtained or more frequently imposed means that the totality of the evidence demonstrates a significant difference in seeking or obtaining convictions or in imposing sentences comparing individuals who have engaged in similar conduct and are similarly situated, and the prosecution cannot establish race-neutral reasons for the disparity. The evidence may include statistical evidence, aggregate data, or nonstatistical evidence. Statistical significance is a factor the court may consider, but is not necessary to establish a significant difference. In evaluating the totality of the evidence, the court shall consider whether systemic and institutional racial bias, racial profiling, and historical patterns of racially biased policing and prosecution may have contributed to, or caused differences observed in, the data or impacted the availability of data overall. Race-neutral reasons shall be relevant factors to charges, convictions, and sentences that are not influenced by implicit, systemic, or institutional bias based on race, ethnicity, or national origin.(2) Prima facie showing means that the defendant produces facts that, if true, establish that there is a substantial likelihood that a violation of subdivision (a) occurred. For purposes of this section, a substantial likelihood requires more than a mere possibility, but less than a standard of more likely than not.(3) Relevant factors, as that phrase applies to sentencing, means the factors in the California Rules of Court that pertain to sentencing decisions and any additional factors required to or permitted to be considered in sentencing under state law and under the state and federal constitutions.(4) Racially discriminatory language means language that, to an objective observer, explicitly or implicitly appeals to racial bias, including, but not limited to, racially charged or racially coded language, language that compares the defendant to an animal, or language that references the defendants physical appearance, culture, ethnicity, or national origin. Evidence that particular words or images are used exclusively or disproportionately in cases where the defendant is of a specific race, ethnicity, or national origin is relevant to determining whether language is discriminatory.(5) State includes the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city prosecutor.(6) Similarly situated means that factors that are relevant in charging and sentencing are similar and do not require that all individuals in the comparison group are identical. A defendants conviction history may be a relevant factor to the severity of the charges, convictions, or sentences. If it is a relevant factor and the defense produces evidence that the conviction history may have been impacted by racial profiling or historical patterns of racially biased policing, the court shall consider the evidence.(i) A defendant may share a race, ethnicity, or national origin with more than one group. A defendant may aggregate data among groups to demonstrate a violation of subdivision (a).(j) This section applies as follows:(1) To all cases in which judgment is not final.(2) Commencing January 1, 2023, to all cases in which, at the time of the filing of a petition pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 1473 raising a claim under this section, the petitioner is sentenced to death or to cases in which the motion is filed pursuant to Section 1473.7 because of actual or potential immigration consequences related to the conviction or sentence, regardless of when the judgment or disposition became final.(3) Commencing January 1, 2024, to all cases in which, at the time of the filing of a petition pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 1473 raising a claim under this section, the petitioner is currently serving a sentence in the state prison or in a county jail pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or committed to the Division of Juvenile Justice for a juvenile disposition, regardless of when the judgment or disposition became final.(4) Commencing January 1, 2025, to all cases filed pursuant to Section 1473.7 or subdivision (e) of Section 1473 in which judgment became final for a felony conviction or juvenile disposition that resulted in a commitment to the Division of Juvenile Justice on or after January 1, 2015.(5) Commencing January 1, 2026, to all cases filed pursuant to Section 1473.7 or subdivision (e) of Section 1473 in which judgment was for a felony conviction or juvenile disposition that resulted in a commitment to the Division of Juvenile Justice, regardless of when the judgment or disposition became final.(k) For petitions that are filed in cases for which judgment was entered before January 1, 2021, and only in those cases, if the petition is based on a violation of paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a), the petitioner shall be entitled to relief as provided in subdivision (e), unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the violation did not contribute to the judgment.
745. (a) The state shall not seek or obtain a criminal conviction or seek, obtain, or impose a sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. A violation is established if the defendant proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, any of the following:(1) The judge, an attorney in the case, a law enforcement officer involved in the case, an expert witness, or juror exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin.(2) During the defendants trial, in court and during the proceedings, the judge, an attorney in the case, a law enforcement officer involved in the case, an expert witness, or juror, used racially discriminatory language about the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin, or otherwise exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin, whether or not purposeful. This paragraph does not apply if the person speaking is relating language used by another that is relevant to the case or if the person speaking is giving a racially neutral and unbiased physical description of the suspect.(3) The defendant was charged or convicted of a more serious offense than defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins who have engaged in similar conduct and are similarly situated, and the evidence establishes that the prosecution more frequently sought or obtained convictions for more serious offenses against people who share the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin in the county where the convictions were sought or obtained.(4) (A) A longer or more severe sentence was imposed on the defendant than was imposed on other similarly situated individuals convicted of the same offense, and longer or more severe sentences were more frequently imposed for that offense on people that share the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin than on defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins in the county where the sentence was imposed.(B) A longer or more severe sentence was imposed on the defendant than was imposed on other similarly situated individuals convicted of the same offense, and longer or more severe sentences were more frequently imposed for the same offense on defendants in cases with victims of one race, ethnicity, or national origin than in cases with victims of other races, ethnicities, or national origins, in the county where the sentence was imposed.(b) A defendant may file a motion pursuant to this section, or a petition for writ of habeas corpus or a motion under Section 1473.7, in a court of competent jurisdiction, alleging a violation of subdivision (a). For claims based on the trial record, a defendant may raise a claim alleging a violation of subdivision (a) on direct appeal from the conviction or sentence. The defendant may also move to stay the appeal and request remand to the superior court to file a motion pursuant to this section. If the motion is based in whole or in part on conduct or statements by the judge, the judge shall disqualify themselves from any further proceedings under this section.(c) If a motion is filed in the trial court and the defendant makes a prima facie showing of a violation of subdivision (a), the trial court shall hold a hearing. A motion made at trial shall be made as soon as practicable upon the defendant learning of the alleged violation. A motion that is not timely may be deemed waived, in the discretion of the court.(1) At the hearing, evidence may be presented by either party, including, but not limited to, statistical evidence, aggregate data, expert testimony, and the sworn testimony of witnesses. The court may also appoint an independent expert. For the purpose of a motion and hearing under this section, out-of-court statements that the court finds trustworthy and reliable, statistical evidence, and aggregated data are admissible for the limited purpose of determining whether a violation of subdivision (a) has occurred.(2) The defendant shall have the burden of proving a violation of subdivision (a) by a preponderance of the evidence. The defendant does not need to prove intentional discrimination.(3)(A)Any person accused of bias or racial animus in a proceeding pursuant to this section shall be provided notice of the allegations by the defendant prior to a motion being filed pursuant to this section.(B)Any person accused of bias or racial animus in a proceeding pursuant to this section, any interested party on behalf of a person accused of bias or racial animus in a proceeding pursuant to this section, or any interested party on behalf of a defendant may submit an amicus brief to the court.(3) If the defendant is represented by an attorney and the motion alleges a violation of paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a), based in whole or in part on the conduct of one or more law enforcement officers, the attorney shall serve a copy of the motion on the law enforcement agency or agencies that employed the officer or officers.(4) At the conclusion of the hearing, the court shall make findings on the record.(d) A defendant may file a motion requesting disclosure to the defense of all evidence relevant to a potential violation of subdivision (a) in the possession or control of the state. A motion filed under this section shall describe the type of records or information the defendant seeks. Upon a showing of good cause, the court shall order the records to be released. Upon a showing of good cause, and in order to protect a privacy right or privilege, the court may permit the prosecution to redact information prior to disclosure or may subject disclosure to a protective order. If a statutory privilege or constitutional privacy right cannot be adequately protected by redaction or a protective order, the court shall not order the release of the records.(e) Notwithstanding any other law, except as provided in subdivision (k), or for an initiative approved by the voters, if the court finds, by a preponderance of evidence, a violation of subdivision (a), the court shall impose a remedy specific to the violation found from the following list:(1) Before a judgment has been entered, the court may impose any of the following remedies:(A) Declare a mistrial, if requested by the defendant.(B) Discharge the jury panel and empanel a new jury.(C) If the court determines that it would be in the interest of justice, dismiss enhancements, special circumstances, or special allegations, or reduce one or more charges.(2) (A) After a judgment has been entered, if the court finds that a conviction was sought or obtained in violation of subdivision (a), the court shall vacate the conviction and sentence, find that it is legally invalid, and order new proceedings consistent with subdivision (a). If the court finds that the only violation of subdivision (a) that occurred is based on paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the court may modify the judgment to a lesser included or lesser related offense. On resentencing, the court shall not impose a new sentence greater than that previously imposed.(B) After a judgment has been entered, if the court finds that only the sentence was sought, obtained, or imposed in violation of subdivision (a), the court shall vacate the sentence, find that it is legally invalid, and impose a new sentence. On resentencing, the court shall not impose a new sentence greater than that previously imposed.(3) When the court finds there has been a violation of subdivision (a), the defendant shall not be eligible for the death penalty.(4) The remedies available under this section do not foreclose any other remedies available under the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, or any other law.(f) This section also applies to adjudications and dispositions in the juvenile delinquency system and adjudications to transfer a juvenile case to adult court.(g) This section shall not prevent the prosecution of hate crimes pursuant to Sections 422.6 to 422.865, inclusive.(h) As used in this section, the following definitions apply:(1) More frequently sought or obtained or more frequently imposed means that the totality of the evidence demonstrates a significant difference in seeking or obtaining convictions or in imposing sentences comparing individuals who have engaged in similar conduct and are similarly situated, and the prosecution cannot establish race-neutral reasons for the disparity. The evidence may include statistical evidence, aggregate data, or nonstatistical evidence. Statistical significance is a factor the court may consider, but is not necessary to establish a significant difference. In evaluating the totality of the evidence, the court shall consider whether systemic and institutional racial bias, racial profiling, and historical patterns of racially biased policing and prosecution may have contributed to, or caused differences observed in, the data or impacted the availability of data overall. Race-neutral reasons shall be relevant factors to charges, convictions, and sentences that are not influenced by implicit, systemic, or institutional bias based on race, ethnicity, or national origin.(2) Prima facie showing means that the defendant produces facts that, if true, establish that there is a substantial likelihood that a violation of subdivision (a) occurred. For purposes of this section, a substantial likelihood requires more than a mere possibility, but less than a standard of more likely than not.(3) Relevant factors, as that phrase applies to sentencing, means the factors in the California Rules of Court that pertain to sentencing decisions and any additional factors required to or permitted to be considered in sentencing under state law and under the state and federal constitutions.(4) Racially discriminatory language means language that, to an objective observer, explicitly or implicitly appeals to racial bias, including, but not limited to, racially charged or racially coded language, language that compares the defendant to an animal, or language that references the defendants physical appearance, culture, ethnicity, or national origin. Evidence that particular words or images are used exclusively or disproportionately in cases where the defendant is of a specific race, ethnicity, or national origin is relevant to determining whether language is discriminatory.(5) State includes the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city prosecutor.(6) Similarly situated means that factors that are relevant in charging and sentencing are similar and do not require that all individuals in the comparison group are identical. A defendants conviction history may be a relevant factor to the severity of the charges, convictions, or sentences. If it is a relevant factor and the defense produces evidence that the conviction history may have been impacted by racial profiling or historical patterns of racially biased policing, the court shall consider the evidence.(i) A defendant may share a race, ethnicity, or national origin with more than one group. A defendant may aggregate data among groups to demonstrate a violation of subdivision (a).(j) This section applies as follows:(1) To all cases in which judgment is not final.(2) Commencing January 1, 2023, to all cases in which, at the time of the filing of a petition pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 1473 raising a claim under this section, the petitioner is sentenced to death or to cases in which the motion is filed pursuant to Section 1473.7 because of actual or potential immigration consequences related to the conviction or sentence, regardless of when the judgment or disposition became final.(3) Commencing January 1, 2024, to all cases in which, at the time of the filing of a petition pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 1473 raising a claim under this section, the petitioner is currently serving a sentence in the state prison or in a county jail pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or committed to the Division of Juvenile Justice for a juvenile disposition, regardless of when the judgment or disposition became final.(4) Commencing January 1, 2025, to all cases filed pursuant to Section 1473.7 or subdivision (e) of Section 1473 in which judgment became final for a felony conviction or juvenile disposition that resulted in a commitment to the Division of Juvenile Justice on or after January 1, 2015.(5) Commencing January 1, 2026, to all cases filed pursuant to Section 1473.7 or subdivision (e) of Section 1473 in which judgment was for a felony conviction or juvenile disposition that resulted in a commitment to the Division of Juvenile Justice, regardless of when the judgment or disposition became final.(k) For petitions that are filed in cases for which judgment was entered before January 1, 2021, and only in those cases, if the petition is based on a violation of paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a), the petitioner shall be entitled to relief as provided in subdivision (e), unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the violation did not contribute to the judgment.
745. (a) The state shall not seek or obtain a criminal conviction or seek, obtain, or impose a sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. A violation is established if the defendant proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, any of the following:
(1) The judge, an attorney in the case, a law enforcement officer involved in the case, an expert witness, or juror exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin.
(2) During the defendants trial, in court and during the proceedings, the judge, an attorney in the case, a law enforcement officer involved in the case, an expert witness, or juror, used racially discriminatory language about the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin, or otherwise exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin, whether or not purposeful. This paragraph does not apply if the person speaking is relating language used by another that is relevant to the case or if the person speaking is giving a racially neutral and unbiased physical description of the suspect.
(3) The defendant was charged or convicted of a more serious offense than defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins who have engaged in similar conduct and are similarly situated, and the evidence establishes that the prosecution more frequently sought or obtained convictions for more serious offenses against people who share the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin in the county where the convictions were sought or obtained.
(4) (A) A longer or more severe sentence was imposed on the defendant than was imposed on other similarly situated individuals convicted of the same offense, and longer or more severe sentences were more frequently imposed for that offense on people that share the defendants race, ethnicity, or national origin than on defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins in the county where the sentence was imposed.
(B) A longer or more severe sentence was imposed on the defendant than was imposed on other similarly situated individuals convicted of the same offense, and longer or more severe sentences were more frequently imposed for the same offense on defendants in cases with victims of one race, ethnicity, or national origin than in cases with victims of other races, ethnicities, or national origins, in the county where the sentence was imposed.
(b) A defendant may file a motion pursuant to this section, or a petition for writ of habeas corpus or a motion under Section 1473.7, in a court of competent jurisdiction, alleging a violation of subdivision (a). For claims based on the trial record, a defendant may raise a claim alleging a violation of subdivision (a) on direct appeal from the conviction or sentence. The defendant may also move to stay the appeal and request remand to the superior court to file a motion pursuant to this section. If the motion is based in whole or in part on conduct or statements by the judge, the judge shall disqualify themselves from any further proceedings under this section.
(c) If a motion is filed in the trial court and the defendant makes a prima facie showing of a violation of subdivision (a), the trial court shall hold a hearing. A motion made at trial shall be made as soon as practicable upon the defendant learning of the alleged violation. A motion that is not timely may be deemed waived, in the discretion of the court.
(1) At the hearing, evidence may be presented by either party, including, but not limited to, statistical evidence, aggregate data, expert testimony, and the sworn testimony of witnesses. The court may also appoint an independent expert. For the purpose of a motion and hearing under this section, out-of-court statements that the court finds trustworthy and reliable, statistical evidence, and aggregated data are admissible for the limited purpose of determining whether a violation of subdivision (a) has occurred.
(2) The defendant shall have the burden of proving a violation of subdivision (a) by a preponderance of the evidence. The defendant does not need to prove intentional discrimination.
(3)(A)Any person accused of bias or racial animus in a proceeding pursuant to this section shall be provided notice of the allegations by the defendant prior to a motion being filed pursuant to this section.
(B)Any person accused of bias or racial animus in a proceeding pursuant to this section, any interested party on behalf of a person accused of bias or racial animus in a proceeding pursuant to this section, or any interested party on behalf of a defendant may submit an amicus brief to the court.
(3) If the defendant is represented by an attorney and the motion alleges a violation of paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a), based in whole or in part on the conduct of one or more law enforcement officers, the attorney shall serve a copy of the motion on the law enforcement agency or agencies that employed the officer or officers.
(4) At the conclusion of the hearing, the court shall make findings on the record.
(d) A defendant may file a motion requesting disclosure to the defense of all evidence relevant to a potential violation of subdivision (a) in the possession or control of the state. A motion filed under this section shall describe the type of records or information the defendant seeks. Upon a showing of good cause, the court shall order the records to be released. Upon a showing of good cause, and in order to protect a privacy right or privilege, the court may permit the prosecution to redact information prior to disclosure or may subject disclosure to a protective order. If a statutory privilege or constitutional privacy right cannot be adequately protected by redaction or a protective order, the court shall not order the release of the records.
(e) Notwithstanding any other law, except as provided in subdivision (k), or for an initiative approved by the voters, if the court finds, by a preponderance of evidence, a violation of subdivision (a), the court shall impose a remedy specific to the violation found from the following list:
(1) Before a judgment has been entered, the court may impose any of the following remedies:
(A) Declare a mistrial, if requested by the defendant.
(B) Discharge the jury panel and empanel a new jury.
(C) If the court determines that it would be in the interest of justice, dismiss enhancements, special circumstances, or special allegations, or reduce one or more charges.
(2) (A) After a judgment has been entered, if the court finds that a conviction was sought or obtained in violation of subdivision (a), the court shall vacate the conviction and sentence, find that it is legally invalid, and order new proceedings consistent with subdivision (a). If the court finds that the only violation of subdivision (a) that occurred is based on paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the court may modify the judgment to a lesser included or lesser related offense. On resentencing, the court shall not impose a new sentence greater than that previously imposed.
(B) After a judgment has been entered, if the court finds that only the sentence was sought, obtained, or imposed in violation of subdivision (a), the court shall vacate the sentence, find that it is legally invalid, and impose a new sentence. On resentencing, the court shall not impose a new sentence greater than that previously imposed.
(3) When the court finds there has been a violation of subdivision (a), the defendant shall not be eligible for the death penalty.
(4) The remedies available under this section do not foreclose any other remedies available under the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, or any other law.
(f) This section also applies to adjudications and dispositions in the juvenile delinquency system and adjudications to transfer a juvenile case to adult court.
(g) This section shall not prevent the prosecution of hate crimes pursuant to Sections 422.6 to 422.865, inclusive.
(h) As used in this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) More frequently sought or obtained or more frequently imposed means that the totality of the evidence demonstrates a significant difference in seeking or obtaining convictions or in imposing sentences comparing individuals who have engaged in similar conduct and are similarly situated, and the prosecution cannot establish race-neutral reasons for the disparity. The evidence may include statistical evidence, aggregate data, or nonstatistical evidence. Statistical significance is a factor the court may consider, but is not necessary to establish a significant difference. In evaluating the totality of the evidence, the court shall consider whether systemic and institutional racial bias, racial profiling, and historical patterns of racially biased policing and prosecution may have contributed to, or caused differences observed in, the data or impacted the availability of data overall. Race-neutral reasons shall be relevant factors to charges, convictions, and sentences that are not influenced by implicit, systemic, or institutional bias based on race, ethnicity, or national origin.
(2) Prima facie showing means that the defendant produces facts that, if true, establish that there is a substantial likelihood that a violation of subdivision (a) occurred. For purposes of this section, a substantial likelihood requires more than a mere possibility, but less than a standard of more likely than not.
(3) Relevant factors, as that phrase applies to sentencing, means the factors in the California Rules of Court that pertain to sentencing decisions and any additional factors required to or permitted to be considered in sentencing under state law and under the state and federal constitutions.
(4) Racially discriminatory language means language that, to an objective observer, explicitly or implicitly appeals to racial bias, including, but not limited to, racially charged or racially coded language, language that compares the defendant to an animal, or language that references the defendants physical appearance, culture, ethnicity, or national origin. Evidence that particular words or images are used exclusively or disproportionately in cases where the defendant is of a specific race, ethnicity, or national origin is relevant to determining whether language is discriminatory.
(5) State includes the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city prosecutor.
(6) Similarly situated means that factors that are relevant in charging and sentencing are similar and do not require that all individuals in the comparison group are identical. A defendants conviction history may be a relevant factor to the severity of the charges, convictions, or sentences. If it is a relevant factor and the defense produces evidence that the conviction history may have been impacted by racial profiling or historical patterns of racially biased policing, the court shall consider the evidence.
(i) A defendant may share a race, ethnicity, or national origin with more than one group. A defendant may aggregate data among groups to demonstrate a violation of subdivision (a).
(j) This section applies as follows:
(1) To all cases in which judgment is not final.
(2) Commencing January 1, 2023, to all cases in which, at the time of the filing of a petition pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 1473 raising a claim under this section, the petitioner is sentenced to death or to cases in which the motion is filed pursuant to Section 1473.7 because of actual or potential immigration consequences related to the conviction or sentence, regardless of when the judgment or disposition became final.
(3) Commencing January 1, 2024, to all cases in which, at the time of the filing of a petition pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 1473 raising a claim under this section, the petitioner is currently serving a sentence in the state prison or in a county jail pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or committed to the Division of Juvenile Justice for a juvenile disposition, regardless of when the judgment or disposition became final.
(4) Commencing January 1, 2025, to all cases filed pursuant to Section 1473.7 or subdivision (e) of Section 1473 in which judgment became final for a felony conviction or juvenile disposition that resulted in a commitment to the Division of Juvenile Justice on or after January 1, 2015.
(5) Commencing January 1, 2026, to all cases filed pursuant to Section 1473.7 or subdivision (e) of Section 1473 in which judgment was for a felony conviction or juvenile disposition that resulted in a commitment to the Division of Juvenile Justice, regardless of when the judgment or disposition became final.
(k) For petitions that are filed in cases for which judgment was entered before January 1, 2021, and only in those cases, if the petition is based on a violation of paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a), the petitioner shall be entitled to relief as provided in subdivision (e), unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the violation did not contribute to the judgment.
SEC. 3. Section 13510.8 of the Penal Code is amended to read:13510.8. (a) (1) The commission shall revoke the certification of a certified peace officer if the person is or has become ineligible to hold office as a peace officer pursuant to Section 1029 of the Government Code.(2) The commission may suspend or revoke the certification of a peace officer if the person has been terminated for cause from employment as a peace officer for, or has, while employed as a peace officer, otherwise engaged in, any serious misconduct as described in subdivision (b).(3) The commission may cancel the certificate or proof of eligibility of a peace officer if the commission determines that there was fraud or misrepresentation made by an applicant at any time during the application process that resulted in the issuance of the certification.(b) By January 1, 2023, the commission shall adopt by regulation a definition of serious misconduct that shall serve as the criteria to be considered for ineligibility for, or revocation of, certification. This definition shall include all of the following:(1) Dishonesty relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, a peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, false statements, intentionally filing false reports, tampering with, falsifying, destroying, or concealing evidence, perjury, and tampering with data recorded by a body-worn camera or other recording device for purposes of concealing misconduct.(2) Abuse of power, including, but not limited to, intimidating witnesses, knowingly obtaining a false confession, and knowingly making a false arrest.(3) Physical abuse, including, but not limited to, the excessive or unreasonable use of force.(4) Sexual assault, as described in subdivision (b) of Section 832.7.(5) Demonstrating bias on the basis of race, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, housing status, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, or other protected status in violation of law or department policy or inconsistent with a peace officers obligation to carry out their duties in a fair and unbiased manner. This paragraph does not limit an employees rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.(6) Acts that violate the law and are sufficiently egregious or repeated as to be inconsistent with a peace officers obligation to uphold the law or respect the rights of members of the public, as determined by the commission.(7) Participation in a law enforcement gang. For the purpose of this paragraph, a law enforcement gang means a group of peace officers within a law enforcement agency who may identify themselves by a name and may be associated with an identifying symbol, including, but not limited to, matching tattoos, and who engage in a pattern of on-duty behavior that intentionally violates the law or fundamental principles of professional policing, including, but not limited to, excluding, harassing, or discriminating against any individual based on a protected category under federal or state antidiscrimination laws, engaging in or promoting conduct that violates the rights of other employees or members of the public, violating agency policy, the persistent practice of unlawful detention or use of excessive force in circumstances where it is known to be unjustified, falsifying police reports, fabricating or destroying evidence, targeting persons for enforcement based solely on protected characteristics of those persons, theft, unauthorized use of alcohol or drugs on duty, unlawful or unauthorized protection of other members from disciplinary actions, and retaliation against other officers who threaten or interfere with the activities of the group.(8) Failure to cooperate with an investigation into potential police misconduct, including an investigation conducted pursuant to this chapter. For purposes of this paragraph, the lawful exercise of rights granted under the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, or any other law shall not be considered a failure to cooperate.(9) Failure to intercede when present and observing another officer using force that is clearly beyond that which is necessary, as determined by an objectively reasonable officer under the circumstances, taking into account the possibility that other officers may have additional information regarding the threat posed by a subject.(c) (1) Beginning no later than January 1, 2023, each law enforcement agency shall be responsible for the completion of investigations of allegations of serious misconduct by a peace officer, regardless of their employment status.(2) The division shall promptly review any grounds for decertification described in subdivision (a) received from an agency. The division shall have the authority to review any agency or other investigative authority file, as well as to conduct additional investigation, if necessary. The division shall only have authority to review and investigate allegations for purposes of decertification.(3) (A) The board, in their discretion, may request that the division review an investigative file or recommend that the commission direct the division to investigate any potential grounds for decertification of a peace officer. Those requests and recommendations from the board to the division or commission must be based upon a decision by a majority vote.(B) The commission, in its discretion, may direct the division to review an investigative file. The commission, either upon its own motion or in response to a recommendation from the board, may direct the division to investigate any potential grounds for decertification of a peace officer.(C) The division, in its discretion, may investigate without the request of the commission or board any potential grounds for revocation of certification of a peace officer.(4) The division, in carrying out any investigation initiated pursuant to this section or any other duty shall have all of the powers of investigation granted pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 11180) of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code.(5) Notwithstanding any other law, the investigation shall be completed within three years after the receipt of the completed report of the disciplinary or internal affairs investigation from the employing agency pursuant to Section 13510.9, however, no time limit shall apply if a report of the conduct was not made to the commission. An investigation shall be considered completed upon a notice of intent to deny, suspend, or revoke certification issued pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13510.85. The time limit shall be tolled during the appeal of a termination or other disciplinary action through an administrative or judicial proceeding or during any criminal prosecution of the peace officer. The commission shall consider the peace officers prior conduct and service record, and any instances of misconduct, including any incidents occurring beyond the time limitation for investigation in evaluating whether to revoke certification for the incident under investigation.(6) An action by an agency or decision resulting from an appeal of an agencys action does not preclude action by the commission to investigate, suspend, or revoke a peace officers certification pursuant to this section. Whether a particular factual or legal determination in a prior appeal proceeding shall have preclusive effect in proceedings under this chapter shall be governed by the existing law of collateral estoppel.(d) Upon arrest or indictment of a peace officer for any crime described in Section 1029 of the Government Code, or discharge from any law enforcement agency for grounds set forth in subdivision (a), or separation from employment of a peace officer during a pending investigation into allegations of serious misconduct, the executive director shall order the immediate temporary suspension of any certificate or proof of eligibility held by that peace officer upon the determination by the executive director that the temporary suspension is in the best interest of the health, safety, or welfare of the public. The order of temporary suspension shall be made in writing and shall specify the basis for the executive directors determination. Following the issuance of a temporary suspension order, proceedings of the commission in the exercise of its authority to discipline any peace officer shall be promptly scheduled as provided for in this section. The temporary suspension shall continue in effect until issuance of the final decision on revocation pursuant to this section or until the order is withdrawn by the executive director.(e) Records of an investigation of any person by the commission shall be retained for 30 years following the date that the investigation is deemed concluded by the commission. The commission may destroy records prior to the expiration of the 30-year retention period if the subject is deceased and no action upon the complaint was taken by the commission beyond the commissions initial intake of the complaint.(f) Any peace officer may voluntarily surrender their certification permanently. Voluntary permanent surrender of certification pursuant to this subdivision shall have the same effect as revocation. Voluntary permanent surrender is not the same as placement of a valid certification into inactive status during a period in which a person is not actively employed as a peace officer. A permanently surrendered certification cannot be reactivated.(g) (1) The commission may initiate proceedings to revoke or suspend a peace officers certification for conduct that occurred before January 1, 2022, only for either of the following:(A) Serious misconduct pursuant to paragraph (1) or (4) of subdivision (b) or pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) for the use of deadly force that results in death or serious bodily injury.(B) If the employing agency makes a final determination regarding its investigation of the misconduct after January 1, 2022.(2) Nothing in this subdivision prevents the commission from considering the peace officers prior conduct and service record in determining whether suspension or revocation is appropriate for serious misconduct.(h) (1) A revocation of certification shall not be undertaken pursuant to this section solely because of a court finding made in a challenge brought pursuant to Section 745.(2) This subdivision does not prohibit revocation based on the underlying acts or omissions which formed the basis of the action brought pursuant to Section 745, if the revocation otherwise conforms to all the rules and procedures applicable to those proceedings, and the officer is accorded all due process protections provided in those proceedings.
SEC. 3. Section 13510.8 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
### SEC. 3.
13510.8. (a) (1) The commission shall revoke the certification of a certified peace officer if the person is or has become ineligible to hold office as a peace officer pursuant to Section 1029 of the Government Code.(2) The commission may suspend or revoke the certification of a peace officer if the person has been terminated for cause from employment as a peace officer for, or has, while employed as a peace officer, otherwise engaged in, any serious misconduct as described in subdivision (b).(3) The commission may cancel the certificate or proof of eligibility of a peace officer if the commission determines that there was fraud or misrepresentation made by an applicant at any time during the application process that resulted in the issuance of the certification.(b) By January 1, 2023, the commission shall adopt by regulation a definition of serious misconduct that shall serve as the criteria to be considered for ineligibility for, or revocation of, certification. This definition shall include all of the following:(1) Dishonesty relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, a peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, false statements, intentionally filing false reports, tampering with, falsifying, destroying, or concealing evidence, perjury, and tampering with data recorded by a body-worn camera or other recording device for purposes of concealing misconduct.(2) Abuse of power, including, but not limited to, intimidating witnesses, knowingly obtaining a false confession, and knowingly making a false arrest.(3) Physical abuse, including, but not limited to, the excessive or unreasonable use of force.(4) Sexual assault, as described in subdivision (b) of Section 832.7.(5) Demonstrating bias on the basis of race, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, housing status, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, or other protected status in violation of law or department policy or inconsistent with a peace officers obligation to carry out their duties in a fair and unbiased manner. This paragraph does not limit an employees rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.(6) Acts that violate the law and are sufficiently egregious or repeated as to be inconsistent with a peace officers obligation to uphold the law or respect the rights of members of the public, as determined by the commission.(7) Participation in a law enforcement gang. For the purpose of this paragraph, a law enforcement gang means a group of peace officers within a law enforcement agency who may identify themselves by a name and may be associated with an identifying symbol, including, but not limited to, matching tattoos, and who engage in a pattern of on-duty behavior that intentionally violates the law or fundamental principles of professional policing, including, but not limited to, excluding, harassing, or discriminating against any individual based on a protected category under federal or state antidiscrimination laws, engaging in or promoting conduct that violates the rights of other employees or members of the public, violating agency policy, the persistent practice of unlawful detention or use of excessive force in circumstances where it is known to be unjustified, falsifying police reports, fabricating or destroying evidence, targeting persons for enforcement based solely on protected characteristics of those persons, theft, unauthorized use of alcohol or drugs on duty, unlawful or unauthorized protection of other members from disciplinary actions, and retaliation against other officers who threaten or interfere with the activities of the group.(8) Failure to cooperate with an investigation into potential police misconduct, including an investigation conducted pursuant to this chapter. For purposes of this paragraph, the lawful exercise of rights granted under the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, or any other law shall not be considered a failure to cooperate.(9) Failure to intercede when present and observing another officer using force that is clearly beyond that which is necessary, as determined by an objectively reasonable officer under the circumstances, taking into account the possibility that other officers may have additional information regarding the threat posed by a subject.(c) (1) Beginning no later than January 1, 2023, each law enforcement agency shall be responsible for the completion of investigations of allegations of serious misconduct by a peace officer, regardless of their employment status.(2) The division shall promptly review any grounds for decertification described in subdivision (a) received from an agency. The division shall have the authority to review any agency or other investigative authority file, as well as to conduct additional investigation, if necessary. The division shall only have authority to review and investigate allegations for purposes of decertification.(3) (A) The board, in their discretion, may request that the division review an investigative file or recommend that the commission direct the division to investigate any potential grounds for decertification of a peace officer. Those requests and recommendations from the board to the division or commission must be based upon a decision by a majority vote.(B) The commission, in its discretion, may direct the division to review an investigative file. The commission, either upon its own motion or in response to a recommendation from the board, may direct the division to investigate any potential grounds for decertification of a peace officer.(C) The division, in its discretion, may investigate without the request of the commission or board any potential grounds for revocation of certification of a peace officer.(4) The division, in carrying out any investigation initiated pursuant to this section or any other duty shall have all of the powers of investigation granted pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 11180) of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code.(5) Notwithstanding any other law, the investigation shall be completed within three years after the receipt of the completed report of the disciplinary or internal affairs investigation from the employing agency pursuant to Section 13510.9, however, no time limit shall apply if a report of the conduct was not made to the commission. An investigation shall be considered completed upon a notice of intent to deny, suspend, or revoke certification issued pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13510.85. The time limit shall be tolled during the appeal of a termination or other disciplinary action through an administrative or judicial proceeding or during any criminal prosecution of the peace officer. The commission shall consider the peace officers prior conduct and service record, and any instances of misconduct, including any incidents occurring beyond the time limitation for investigation in evaluating whether to revoke certification for the incident under investigation.(6) An action by an agency or decision resulting from an appeal of an agencys action does not preclude action by the commission to investigate, suspend, or revoke a peace officers certification pursuant to this section. Whether a particular factual or legal determination in a prior appeal proceeding shall have preclusive effect in proceedings under this chapter shall be governed by the existing law of collateral estoppel.(d) Upon arrest or indictment of a peace officer for any crime described in Section 1029 of the Government Code, or discharge from any law enforcement agency for grounds set forth in subdivision (a), or separation from employment of a peace officer during a pending investigation into allegations of serious misconduct, the executive director shall order the immediate temporary suspension of any certificate or proof of eligibility held by that peace officer upon the determination by the executive director that the temporary suspension is in the best interest of the health, safety, or welfare of the public. The order of temporary suspension shall be made in writing and shall specify the basis for the executive directors determination. Following the issuance of a temporary suspension order, proceedings of the commission in the exercise of its authority to discipline any peace officer shall be promptly scheduled as provided for in this section. The temporary suspension shall continue in effect until issuance of the final decision on revocation pursuant to this section or until the order is withdrawn by the executive director.(e) Records of an investigation of any person by the commission shall be retained for 30 years following the date that the investigation is deemed concluded by the commission. The commission may destroy records prior to the expiration of the 30-year retention period if the subject is deceased and no action upon the complaint was taken by the commission beyond the commissions initial intake of the complaint.(f) Any peace officer may voluntarily surrender their certification permanently. Voluntary permanent surrender of certification pursuant to this subdivision shall have the same effect as revocation. Voluntary permanent surrender is not the same as placement of a valid certification into inactive status during a period in which a person is not actively employed as a peace officer. A permanently surrendered certification cannot be reactivated.(g) (1) The commission may initiate proceedings to revoke or suspend a peace officers certification for conduct that occurred before January 1, 2022, only for either of the following:(A) Serious misconduct pursuant to paragraph (1) or (4) of subdivision (b) or pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) for the use of deadly force that results in death or serious bodily injury.(B) If the employing agency makes a final determination regarding its investigation of the misconduct after January 1, 2022.(2) Nothing in this subdivision prevents the commission from considering the peace officers prior conduct and service record in determining whether suspension or revocation is appropriate for serious misconduct.(h) (1) A revocation of certification shall not be undertaken pursuant to this section solely because of a court finding made in a challenge brought pursuant to Section 745.(2) This subdivision does not prohibit revocation based on the underlying acts or omissions which formed the basis of the action brought pursuant to Section 745, if the revocation otherwise conforms to all the rules and procedures applicable to those proceedings, and the officer is accorded all due process protections provided in those proceedings.
13510.8. (a) (1) The commission shall revoke the certification of a certified peace officer if the person is or has become ineligible to hold office as a peace officer pursuant to Section 1029 of the Government Code.(2) The commission may suspend or revoke the certification of a peace officer if the person has been terminated for cause from employment as a peace officer for, or has, while employed as a peace officer, otherwise engaged in, any serious misconduct as described in subdivision (b).(3) The commission may cancel the certificate or proof of eligibility of a peace officer if the commission determines that there was fraud or misrepresentation made by an applicant at any time during the application process that resulted in the issuance of the certification.(b) By January 1, 2023, the commission shall adopt by regulation a definition of serious misconduct that shall serve as the criteria to be considered for ineligibility for, or revocation of, certification. This definition shall include all of the following:(1) Dishonesty relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, a peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, false statements, intentionally filing false reports, tampering with, falsifying, destroying, or concealing evidence, perjury, and tampering with data recorded by a body-worn camera or other recording device for purposes of concealing misconduct.(2) Abuse of power, including, but not limited to, intimidating witnesses, knowingly obtaining a false confession, and knowingly making a false arrest.(3) Physical abuse, including, but not limited to, the excessive or unreasonable use of force.(4) Sexual assault, as described in subdivision (b) of Section 832.7.(5) Demonstrating bias on the basis of race, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, housing status, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, or other protected status in violation of law or department policy or inconsistent with a peace officers obligation to carry out their duties in a fair and unbiased manner. This paragraph does not limit an employees rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.(6) Acts that violate the law and are sufficiently egregious or repeated as to be inconsistent with a peace officers obligation to uphold the law or respect the rights of members of the public, as determined by the commission.(7) Participation in a law enforcement gang. For the purpose of this paragraph, a law enforcement gang means a group of peace officers within a law enforcement agency who may identify themselves by a name and may be associated with an identifying symbol, including, but not limited to, matching tattoos, and who engage in a pattern of on-duty behavior that intentionally violates the law or fundamental principles of professional policing, including, but not limited to, excluding, harassing, or discriminating against any individual based on a protected category under federal or state antidiscrimination laws, engaging in or promoting conduct that violates the rights of other employees or members of the public, violating agency policy, the persistent practice of unlawful detention or use of excessive force in circumstances where it is known to be unjustified, falsifying police reports, fabricating or destroying evidence, targeting persons for enforcement based solely on protected characteristics of those persons, theft, unauthorized use of alcohol or drugs on duty, unlawful or unauthorized protection of other members from disciplinary actions, and retaliation against other officers who threaten or interfere with the activities of the group.(8) Failure to cooperate with an investigation into potential police misconduct, including an investigation conducted pursuant to this chapter. For purposes of this paragraph, the lawful exercise of rights granted under the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, or any other law shall not be considered a failure to cooperate.(9) Failure to intercede when present and observing another officer using force that is clearly beyond that which is necessary, as determined by an objectively reasonable officer under the circumstances, taking into account the possibility that other officers may have additional information regarding the threat posed by a subject.(c) (1) Beginning no later than January 1, 2023, each law enforcement agency shall be responsible for the completion of investigations of allegations of serious misconduct by a peace officer, regardless of their employment status.(2) The division shall promptly review any grounds for decertification described in subdivision (a) received from an agency. The division shall have the authority to review any agency or other investigative authority file, as well as to conduct additional investigation, if necessary. The division shall only have authority to review and investigate allegations for purposes of decertification.(3) (A) The board, in their discretion, may request that the division review an investigative file or recommend that the commission direct the division to investigate any potential grounds for decertification of a peace officer. Those requests and recommendations from the board to the division or commission must be based upon a decision by a majority vote.(B) The commission, in its discretion, may direct the division to review an investigative file. The commission, either upon its own motion or in response to a recommendation from the board, may direct the division to investigate any potential grounds for decertification of a peace officer.(C) The division, in its discretion, may investigate without the request of the commission or board any potential grounds for revocation of certification of a peace officer.(4) The division, in carrying out any investigation initiated pursuant to this section or any other duty shall have all of the powers of investigation granted pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 11180) of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code.(5) Notwithstanding any other law, the investigation shall be completed within three years after the receipt of the completed report of the disciplinary or internal affairs investigation from the employing agency pursuant to Section 13510.9, however, no time limit shall apply if a report of the conduct was not made to the commission. An investigation shall be considered completed upon a notice of intent to deny, suspend, or revoke certification issued pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13510.85. The time limit shall be tolled during the appeal of a termination or other disciplinary action through an administrative or judicial proceeding or during any criminal prosecution of the peace officer. The commission shall consider the peace officers prior conduct and service record, and any instances of misconduct, including any incidents occurring beyond the time limitation for investigation in evaluating whether to revoke certification for the incident under investigation.(6) An action by an agency or decision resulting from an appeal of an agencys action does not preclude action by the commission to investigate, suspend, or revoke a peace officers certification pursuant to this section. Whether a particular factual or legal determination in a prior appeal proceeding shall have preclusive effect in proceedings under this chapter shall be governed by the existing law of collateral estoppel.(d) Upon arrest or indictment of a peace officer for any crime described in Section 1029 of the Government Code, or discharge from any law enforcement agency for grounds set forth in subdivision (a), or separation from employment of a peace officer during a pending investigation into allegations of serious misconduct, the executive director shall order the immediate temporary suspension of any certificate or proof of eligibility held by that peace officer upon the determination by the executive director that the temporary suspension is in the best interest of the health, safety, or welfare of the public. The order of temporary suspension shall be made in writing and shall specify the basis for the executive directors determination. Following the issuance of a temporary suspension order, proceedings of the commission in the exercise of its authority to discipline any peace officer shall be promptly scheduled as provided for in this section. The temporary suspension shall continue in effect until issuance of the final decision on revocation pursuant to this section or until the order is withdrawn by the executive director.(e) Records of an investigation of any person by the commission shall be retained for 30 years following the date that the investigation is deemed concluded by the commission. The commission may destroy records prior to the expiration of the 30-year retention period if the subject is deceased and no action upon the complaint was taken by the commission beyond the commissions initial intake of the complaint.(f) Any peace officer may voluntarily surrender their certification permanently. Voluntary permanent surrender of certification pursuant to this subdivision shall have the same effect as revocation. Voluntary permanent surrender is not the same as placement of a valid certification into inactive status during a period in which a person is not actively employed as a peace officer. A permanently surrendered certification cannot be reactivated.(g) (1) The commission may initiate proceedings to revoke or suspend a peace officers certification for conduct that occurred before January 1, 2022, only for either of the following:(A) Serious misconduct pursuant to paragraph (1) or (4) of subdivision (b) or pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) for the use of deadly force that results in death or serious bodily injury.(B) If the employing agency makes a final determination regarding its investigation of the misconduct after January 1, 2022.(2) Nothing in this subdivision prevents the commission from considering the peace officers prior conduct and service record in determining whether suspension or revocation is appropriate for serious misconduct.(h) (1) A revocation of certification shall not be undertaken pursuant to this section solely because of a court finding made in a challenge brought pursuant to Section 745.(2) This subdivision does not prohibit revocation based on the underlying acts or omissions which formed the basis of the action brought pursuant to Section 745, if the revocation otherwise conforms to all the rules and procedures applicable to those proceedings, and the officer is accorded all due process protections provided in those proceedings.
13510.8. (a) (1) The commission shall revoke the certification of a certified peace officer if the person is or has become ineligible to hold office as a peace officer pursuant to Section 1029 of the Government Code.(2) The commission may suspend or revoke the certification of a peace officer if the person has been terminated for cause from employment as a peace officer for, or has, while employed as a peace officer, otherwise engaged in, any serious misconduct as described in subdivision (b).(3) The commission may cancel the certificate or proof of eligibility of a peace officer if the commission determines that there was fraud or misrepresentation made by an applicant at any time during the application process that resulted in the issuance of the certification.(b) By January 1, 2023, the commission shall adopt by regulation a definition of serious misconduct that shall serve as the criteria to be considered for ineligibility for, or revocation of, certification. This definition shall include all of the following:(1) Dishonesty relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, a peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, false statements, intentionally filing false reports, tampering with, falsifying, destroying, or concealing evidence, perjury, and tampering with data recorded by a body-worn camera or other recording device for purposes of concealing misconduct.(2) Abuse of power, including, but not limited to, intimidating witnesses, knowingly obtaining a false confession, and knowingly making a false arrest.(3) Physical abuse, including, but not limited to, the excessive or unreasonable use of force.(4) Sexual assault, as described in subdivision (b) of Section 832.7.(5) Demonstrating bias on the basis of race, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, housing status, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, or other protected status in violation of law or department policy or inconsistent with a peace officers obligation to carry out their duties in a fair and unbiased manner. This paragraph does not limit an employees rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.(6) Acts that violate the law and are sufficiently egregious or repeated as to be inconsistent with a peace officers obligation to uphold the law or respect the rights of members of the public, as determined by the commission.(7) Participation in a law enforcement gang. For the purpose of this paragraph, a law enforcement gang means a group of peace officers within a law enforcement agency who may identify themselves by a name and may be associated with an identifying symbol, including, but not limited to, matching tattoos, and who engage in a pattern of on-duty behavior that intentionally violates the law or fundamental principles of professional policing, including, but not limited to, excluding, harassing, or discriminating against any individual based on a protected category under federal or state antidiscrimination laws, engaging in or promoting conduct that violates the rights of other employees or members of the public, violating agency policy, the persistent practice of unlawful detention or use of excessive force in circumstances where it is known to be unjustified, falsifying police reports, fabricating or destroying evidence, targeting persons for enforcement based solely on protected characteristics of those persons, theft, unauthorized use of alcohol or drugs on duty, unlawful or unauthorized protection of other members from disciplinary actions, and retaliation against other officers who threaten or interfere with the activities of the group.(8) Failure to cooperate with an investigation into potential police misconduct, including an investigation conducted pursuant to this chapter. For purposes of this paragraph, the lawful exercise of rights granted under the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, or any other law shall not be considered a failure to cooperate.(9) Failure to intercede when present and observing another officer using force that is clearly beyond that which is necessary, as determined by an objectively reasonable officer under the circumstances, taking into account the possibility that other officers may have additional information regarding the threat posed by a subject.(c) (1) Beginning no later than January 1, 2023, each law enforcement agency shall be responsible for the completion of investigations of allegations of serious misconduct by a peace officer, regardless of their employment status.(2) The division shall promptly review any grounds for decertification described in subdivision (a) received from an agency. The division shall have the authority to review any agency or other investigative authority file, as well as to conduct additional investigation, if necessary. The division shall only have authority to review and investigate allegations for purposes of decertification.(3) (A) The board, in their discretion, may request that the division review an investigative file or recommend that the commission direct the division to investigate any potential grounds for decertification of a peace officer. Those requests and recommendations from the board to the division or commission must be based upon a decision by a majority vote.(B) The commission, in its discretion, may direct the division to review an investigative file. The commission, either upon its own motion or in response to a recommendation from the board, may direct the division to investigate any potential grounds for decertification of a peace officer.(C) The division, in its discretion, may investigate without the request of the commission or board any potential grounds for revocation of certification of a peace officer.(4) The division, in carrying out any investigation initiated pursuant to this section or any other duty shall have all of the powers of investigation granted pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 11180) of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code.(5) Notwithstanding any other law, the investigation shall be completed within three years after the receipt of the completed report of the disciplinary or internal affairs investigation from the employing agency pursuant to Section 13510.9, however, no time limit shall apply if a report of the conduct was not made to the commission. An investigation shall be considered completed upon a notice of intent to deny, suspend, or revoke certification issued pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13510.85. The time limit shall be tolled during the appeal of a termination or other disciplinary action through an administrative or judicial proceeding or during any criminal prosecution of the peace officer. The commission shall consider the peace officers prior conduct and service record, and any instances of misconduct, including any incidents occurring beyond the time limitation for investigation in evaluating whether to revoke certification for the incident under investigation.(6) An action by an agency or decision resulting from an appeal of an agencys action does not preclude action by the commission to investigate, suspend, or revoke a peace officers certification pursuant to this section. Whether a particular factual or legal determination in a prior appeal proceeding shall have preclusive effect in proceedings under this chapter shall be governed by the existing law of collateral estoppel.(d) Upon arrest or indictment of a peace officer for any crime described in Section 1029 of the Government Code, or discharge from any law enforcement agency for grounds set forth in subdivision (a), or separation from employment of a peace officer during a pending investigation into allegations of serious misconduct, the executive director shall order the immediate temporary suspension of any certificate or proof of eligibility held by that peace officer upon the determination by the executive director that the temporary suspension is in the best interest of the health, safety, or welfare of the public. The order of temporary suspension shall be made in writing and shall specify the basis for the executive directors determination. Following the issuance of a temporary suspension order, proceedings of the commission in the exercise of its authority to discipline any peace officer shall be promptly scheduled as provided for in this section. The temporary suspension shall continue in effect until issuance of the final decision on revocation pursuant to this section or until the order is withdrawn by the executive director.(e) Records of an investigation of any person by the commission shall be retained for 30 years following the date that the investigation is deemed concluded by the commission. The commission may destroy records prior to the expiration of the 30-year retention period if the subject is deceased and no action upon the complaint was taken by the commission beyond the commissions initial intake of the complaint.(f) Any peace officer may voluntarily surrender their certification permanently. Voluntary permanent surrender of certification pursuant to this subdivision shall have the same effect as revocation. Voluntary permanent surrender is not the same as placement of a valid certification into inactive status during a period in which a person is not actively employed as a peace officer. A permanently surrendered certification cannot be reactivated.(g) (1) The commission may initiate proceedings to revoke or suspend a peace officers certification for conduct that occurred before January 1, 2022, only for either of the following:(A) Serious misconduct pursuant to paragraph (1) or (4) of subdivision (b) or pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) for the use of deadly force that results in death or serious bodily injury.(B) If the employing agency makes a final determination regarding its investigation of the misconduct after January 1, 2022.(2) Nothing in this subdivision prevents the commission from considering the peace officers prior conduct and service record in determining whether suspension or revocation is appropriate for serious misconduct.(h) (1) A revocation of certification shall not be undertaken pursuant to this section solely because of a court finding made in a challenge brought pursuant to Section 745.(2) This subdivision does not prohibit revocation based on the underlying acts or omissions which formed the basis of the action brought pursuant to Section 745, if the revocation otherwise conforms to all the rules and procedures applicable to those proceedings, and the officer is accorded all due process protections provided in those proceedings.
13510.8. (a) (1) The commission shall revoke the certification of a certified peace officer if the person is or has become ineligible to hold office as a peace officer pursuant to Section 1029 of the Government Code.
(2) The commission may suspend or revoke the certification of a peace officer if the person has been terminated for cause from employment as a peace officer for, or has, while employed as a peace officer, otherwise engaged in, any serious misconduct as described in subdivision (b).
(3) The commission may cancel the certificate or proof of eligibility of a peace officer if the commission determines that there was fraud or misrepresentation made by an applicant at any time during the application process that resulted in the issuance of the certification.
(b) By January 1, 2023, the commission shall adopt by regulation a definition of serious misconduct that shall serve as the criteria to be considered for ineligibility for, or revocation of, certification. This definition shall include all of the following:
(1) Dishonesty relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, a peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, false statements, intentionally filing false reports, tampering with, falsifying, destroying, or concealing evidence, perjury, and tampering with data recorded by a body-worn camera or other recording device for purposes of concealing misconduct.
(2) Abuse of power, including, but not limited to, intimidating witnesses, knowingly obtaining a false confession, and knowingly making a false arrest.
(3) Physical abuse, including, but not limited to, the excessive or unreasonable use of force.
(4) Sexual assault, as described in subdivision (b) of Section 832.7.
(5) Demonstrating bias on the basis of race, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, housing status, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, or other protected status in violation of law or department policy or inconsistent with a peace officers obligation to carry out their duties in a fair and unbiased manner. This paragraph does not limit an employees rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
(6) Acts that violate the law and are sufficiently egregious or repeated as to be inconsistent with a peace officers obligation to uphold the law or respect the rights of members of the public, as determined by the commission.
(7) Participation in a law enforcement gang. For the purpose of this paragraph, a law enforcement gang means a group of peace officers within a law enforcement agency who may identify themselves by a name and may be associated with an identifying symbol, including, but not limited to, matching tattoos, and who engage in a pattern of on-duty behavior that intentionally violates the law or fundamental principles of professional policing, including, but not limited to, excluding, harassing, or discriminating against any individual based on a protected category under federal or state antidiscrimination laws, engaging in or promoting conduct that violates the rights of other employees or members of the public, violating agency policy, the persistent practice of unlawful detention or use of excessive force in circumstances where it is known to be unjustified, falsifying police reports, fabricating or destroying evidence, targeting persons for enforcement based solely on protected characteristics of those persons, theft, unauthorized use of alcohol or drugs on duty, unlawful or unauthorized protection of other members from disciplinary actions, and retaliation against other officers who threaten or interfere with the activities of the group.
(8) Failure to cooperate with an investigation into potential police misconduct, including an investigation conducted pursuant to this chapter. For purposes of this paragraph, the lawful exercise of rights granted under the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, or any other law shall not be considered a failure to cooperate.
(9) Failure to intercede when present and observing another officer using force that is clearly beyond that which is necessary, as determined by an objectively reasonable officer under the circumstances, taking into account the possibility that other officers may have additional information regarding the threat posed by a subject.
(c) (1) Beginning no later than January 1, 2023, each law enforcement agency shall be responsible for the completion of investigations of allegations of serious misconduct by a peace officer, regardless of their employment status.
(2) The division shall promptly review any grounds for decertification described in subdivision (a) received from an agency. The division shall have the authority to review any agency or other investigative authority file, as well as to conduct additional investigation, if necessary. The division shall only have authority to review and investigate allegations for purposes of decertification.
(3) (A) The board, in their discretion, may request that the division review an investigative file or recommend that the commission direct the division to investigate any potential grounds for decertification of a peace officer. Those requests and recommendations from the board to the division or commission must be based upon a decision by a majority vote.
(B) The commission, in its discretion, may direct the division to review an investigative file. The commission, either upon its own motion or in response to a recommendation from the board, may direct the division to investigate any potential grounds for decertification of a peace officer.
(C) The division, in its discretion, may investigate without the request of the commission or board any potential grounds for revocation of certification of a peace officer.
(4) The division, in carrying out any investigation initiated pursuant to this section or any other duty shall have all of the powers of investigation granted pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 11180) of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(5) Notwithstanding any other law, the investigation shall be completed within three years after the receipt of the completed report of the disciplinary or internal affairs investigation from the employing agency pursuant to Section 13510.9, however, no time limit shall apply if a report of the conduct was not made to the commission. An investigation shall be considered completed upon a notice of intent to deny, suspend, or revoke certification issued pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13510.85. The time limit shall be tolled during the appeal of a termination or other disciplinary action through an administrative or judicial proceeding or during any criminal prosecution of the peace officer. The commission shall consider the peace officers prior conduct and service record, and any instances of misconduct, including any incidents occurring beyond the time limitation for investigation in evaluating whether to revoke certification for the incident under investigation.
(6) An action by an agency or decision resulting from an appeal of an agencys action does not preclude action by the commission to investigate, suspend, or revoke a peace officers certification pursuant to this section. Whether a particular factual or legal determination in a prior appeal proceeding shall have preclusive effect in proceedings under this chapter shall be governed by the existing law of collateral estoppel.
(d) Upon arrest or indictment of a peace officer for any crime described in Section 1029 of the Government Code, or discharge from any law enforcement agency for grounds set forth in subdivision (a), or separation from employment of a peace officer during a pending investigation into allegations of serious misconduct, the executive director shall order the immediate temporary suspension of any certificate or proof of eligibility held by that peace officer upon the determination by the executive director that the temporary suspension is in the best interest of the health, safety, or welfare of the public. The order of temporary suspension shall be made in writing and shall specify the basis for the executive directors determination. Following the issuance of a temporary suspension order, proceedings of the commission in the exercise of its authority to discipline any peace officer shall be promptly scheduled as provided for in this section. The temporary suspension shall continue in effect until issuance of the final decision on revocation pursuant to this section or until the order is withdrawn by the executive director.
(e) Records of an investigation of any person by the commission shall be retained for 30 years following the date that the investigation is deemed concluded by the commission. The commission may destroy records prior to the expiration of the 30-year retention period if the subject is deceased and no action upon the complaint was taken by the commission beyond the commissions initial intake of the complaint.
(f) Any peace officer may voluntarily surrender their certification permanently. Voluntary permanent surrender of certification pursuant to this subdivision shall have the same effect as revocation. Voluntary permanent surrender is not the same as placement of a valid certification into inactive status during a period in which a person is not actively employed as a peace officer. A permanently surrendered certification cannot be reactivated.
(g) (1) The commission may initiate proceedings to revoke or suspend a peace officers certification for conduct that occurred before January 1, 2022, only for either of the following:
(A) Serious misconduct pursuant to paragraph (1) or (4) of subdivision (b) or pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) for the use of deadly force that results in death or serious bodily injury.
(B) If the employing agency makes a final determination regarding its investigation of the misconduct after January 1, 2022.
(2) Nothing in this subdivision prevents the commission from considering the peace officers prior conduct and service record in determining whether suspension or revocation is appropriate for serious misconduct.
(h) (1) A revocation of certification shall not be undertaken pursuant to this section solely because of a court finding made in a challenge brought pursuant to Section 745.
(2) This subdivision does not prohibit revocation based on the underlying acts or omissions which formed the basis of the action brought pursuant to Section 745, if the revocation otherwise conforms to all the rules and procedures applicable to those proceedings, and the officer is accorded all due process protections provided in those proceedings.