Source: https://www.911law.com/blog/2016/february/new-criminal-statutes-in-2016/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:47:47+00:00

Document:
Early and complete disclosure of discovery will limit discovery motions and help lead to the early and just resolution of criminal cases; in turn, saving tax dollars and reducing the risk of wrongful convictions.
As you all know, the United States Supreme Court in Riley v. California (134 S. Ct. 2473) held the "search incident to arrest" rules to not allow law enforcement to view and obtain every arrestee's cellular phone data. The Electronic Communication Privacy Act appears to be a step in the right direction.
When convicted, the court may require a waiver of digital privacy that is part and parcel to a 4th Waiver. This may be illegal as it circumvents the new digital privacy laws (i.e., the Electronics Communication Privacy Act.) Plus, a blanket waiver of passwords and cell phones, computers and the like lack necessary nexus, particularity, probable cause required by law. This waiver is a minefield.
AB 370 is the Legislature's most recent attempt to alleviate some of the arcane, overbroad, and harsh controlled substance laws. Now, the possession and transportation of most controlled substances (including marijuana and magic mushrooms) in "personal use" amounts is just a crime of simple possession. This law amends Health and Safety Code, Sections 11360, 11379.5, and 11391.
The newly created Business and Professions Code, Section 2525 makes it a misdemeanor for physicians to make cannabis recommendations, then refer patients to a facility in which the doctor has a financial interest.
Also, the new Department of Consumer Affairs' "Bureau of Medical Marijuana" was created.
California residents struggling with unpaid traffic fines or bail will be pleased to hear that eligibility for "amnesty" has been expanded under AB 405 (amending Penal Code, § 1214.1 and Vehicle Code, § 42008.8).
Under prior law, an amnesty program was available for those who had unpaid fines or bail for Vehicle Code infractions that was initially due on or before January 1, 2013. Payments under the prior law were accepted between October 1, 2015 through March 31, 2017. The program allowed those with unpaid bail or fines to apply to have the fines reduced or and to request permission to get their driver's license back. Reductions are available at 50%, or 80% for those on public assistance. This could reduce fines, which frequently exceed $1,000, to a mere $300, providing substantial relief for indigent populations.
The Legislature extended the program so it is now available to those who have not made payments after September 30, 2015.
The California Legislature also adopted a more relaxed and reasonable approach under the so-called "traffic amnesty" rules. Previously, the court could impose an additional $300 civil assessment against those who fail to appear or who fail to make timely payments on a fine installment plan, effective just 10 days after the court mails a warning letter. Perhaps most troubling, the prior law required payment of the civil assessment before the defendant can schedule his/her next court appearance.
Now, the penalty becomes effective 20 days after mailing the notice, and payment of bail, fines, penalties, fees or the civil assessment is not required before the court can vacate the assessment when the person appears. Payment of the civil assessment is no longer required to schedule a court appearance.
California residents are now automatically registered to vote whenever they get a driver's license or state identification card under AB 1465.
California codified the long-existing First Amendment dictate that citizens are allowed to photograph and video record public interactions with law enforcement. New Penal Code Sections 148 and 69 make it clear that recording police interactions is not a crime and is not, in and of itself, probable cause to arrest.
11.Body Cams and Discovery requests before Preliminary hearing.
This law will facilitate enforcement of pre-preliminary hearing discovery motion orders, as Due Process requires disclosure independent of criminal statutes. This is true so long as there is a mere reasonable probability said body cam evidence effects probable cause, the charge or allegations Bridgeforth v. Superior Court (2013); Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 US 83. Said procedure helps set up a motion to suppress evidence (under Penal Code Section 1538.5) at the preliminary hearing. Magallan v. Superior Court (2011) 192 Cal App 4th 1444.
Early production of relevant discovery will facilitate prompt and equitable resolution of criminal cases.
I hope this information assists you in your practice as you find justice for your clients.

References: v. 
 § 1214
 § 42008
 v. 
 v. 
 v.