California’s laws implement fresh ideas and serve as models for change across the nation. We bring you nuts-and-bolts explanations of how the various bodies that make laws, regulations, and rules operate, and advice from insiders about how to navigate the processes.  We update you on proposed changes to existing laws, and provide information and analysis on recently enacted statutes and initiatives.  And we direct you to other helpful resources, so you can look more deeply into the laws and policies that structure the world around you.

By: Kyle Harrison

When the police arrest someone on suspicion of committing a crime, the person is brought to jail. In an ideal criminal justice system, the person would be given a trial the next day where a judge and jury determine the defendant’s guilt.  This is not the system we currently have. Individuals are arrested and can wait months – and sometimes years – for criminal trials to take place. Our jails do not have the resources to keep all these defendants incarcerated before trial.

Bail is a common law relic, created during the Middle Ages in England with the intent of keeping jail populations low and ensuring a defendant’s return to court. Critics argue the problem with the bail system is that it allows the defendant’s release and return for trial only if that person can afford bail. Under the current system, judges look to bail schedules to decide the amount of bail for defendants. Judges have to make a quick assessment of whether to set bail and how much it should be. Currently the average bail amount in California is $50,000, and at least 10% of the total amount must be posted in order to make bail. Therefore the average amount necessary to make bail is $5,000. According to a 2016 report by the U.S. Federal Reserve, 46% of Americans do not have even $400 to pay for an emergency payment. Thus, even if bail is set at $1000 or $500, let alone $5000, many people simply do not have sufficient funds available to afford the $500 to post bail. Critics of the current bail system argue that the problem with the bail system is that it allows the defendant’s release and return for trial only if that person can afford bail  and that it results in lower income defendants remaining incarcerated while those with greater financial means are able to buy their freedom.

Because many defendants cannot afford bail under the current system, the majority of jail detainees are not serving sentences. Indeed, 66% of California’s jail population is awaiting trial. Close to 50,000 defendants who have not yet been convicted of a crime and are presumed innocent are being detained. This pretrial detention can be more than an inconvenience for the poor, and can lead to them losing their property, their jobs, even their children. Lengthy pretrial detention has also been shown to increase the chances of recidivism when the individuals are released. Many of them pose no public safety threat or flight risk. They simply lack the money to afford bail.

These are the problems that SB 10 aims to fix. Under the current language, SB 10 mandates the creation of pretrial agencies in every county in California. These pretrial agencies will be tasked with gathering information on new arrestees and conducting risk assessments that will be given to the judge with a tailored recommendation for each defendant, advising release or detention. The recommendation’s primary concern will be the safety of the public and the victim(s) and the flight risk of the defendant. The agencies will also be tasked with supervision of the released pretrial defendants and will remind them of court dates. This new proposed system would also assess the safety of the individuals and release those who are deemed safe without regard to a defendant’s financial means. This bill, however, does not eliminate the option of money bail—it allows judges to keep their discretion to apply money bail when deemed necessary. After much debate and many amendments, SB 10 has been turned into a two-year bill, meaning that if passed and signed into law, this will occur in 2018. This means that at least some of the bill’s language will likely change, so it is unclear exactly how the language of the bill will ultimately read.

There is significant debate on whether the goals of the bill can be met without jeopardizing public safety. According to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, SB 10 will likely cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually for counties to establish and operate the pretrial agencies including the additional requirements under the bill. The bill’s proponents, however, claim there will be significant future savings from no longer needlessly incarcerating thousands of Californians. Opponents argue the cost of creating, training, and maintaining the pretrial agencies will be high and that SB 10 will eliminate thousands of jobs in the bail industry in California. Now that the authors have turned SB 10 into a two-year bill, giving the legislature until September 2018 to pass it, they have gained the support of Gov. Jerry Brown and Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye. Such support makes the chances of passing the bill next year very good.

To learn more about SB 10, listen to both parts of two-part interview on “In Session,” a podcast by the University of the Pacific Law Review.

Kyle Harrison is a staff writer for the University of the Pacific Law Review and law student student at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento.

By: Nolan Kessler

The amount of energy, land, water, and money spent on wasted food in the United States is staggering. Specifically, Americans waste “four percent of the [national] energy budget, about 12 percent of the land . . . 23 percent of all freshwater,” and $162 billion each year on uneaten food. Confusing food date labeling is partly to blame for some of this food waste. Up to “90 percent of [Americans] discard some food prematurely as a result of misinterpreting food date labels.” I examined AB 954, which created a uniform food date labeling system in California. Its goal is to reduce consumer confusion around food date labels and cut down on food waste.

To accomplish its goals, AB 954 requires the California Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA) “to publish information to encourage food manufacturers, processors, and retailers responsible for the labeling of food products to voluntarily use . . . uniform terms on food product labels to communicate quality dates and safety dates.” These uniform terms are “BEST if USED by” or “BEST if Used or Frozen by,” which both “indicate the quality date of a product,” and “USE by” or “USE by or Freeze by,” which both “indicate the safety date of a product.” Further, AB 954 requires the DFA to promote this voluntary food date labeling system “in the course of its existing interactions with food date manufacturers, processors, and retailers.” Finally, AB 954 allows the DFA to “accept nonstate funds from public and private sources to educate consumers about the meaning of the quality dates and safety dates.”

I analyzed AB 954’s likely impact by exploring how the legislation interacts with a similar industry-led food date labeling initiative announced by the Food Marketing Institute (FMI) and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) in February 2017. For example, even though the industry started implementing its initiative before the California Legislature began considering AB 954, the legislation remains significant because it will reach entities in the industry that do not belong to the FMI or GMA. Additionally, the DFA can leverage its regulatory and advisory programs, such as its Inspection Service Programs and Marketing Branch, to reach the food industry and convince the industry to adopt AB 954’s food date labeling system. Further, the DFA can use the funding AB 954 authorizes to collaborate with the food industry and nonprofits on consumer education campaigns.

Finally, in the hopes of encouraging stakeholders to build on the momentum created by AB 954, I offered other food waste reduction solutions that consumer-facing businesses, consumers, and governments should consider adopting. Some of these solutions include investing in waste tracking capabilities, embracing imperfect produce, and subsidizing food donation transportation. In the end, by taking a collaborative approach and attacking food waste from these multiple angles, Americans can begin eradicating the food waste epidemic.

To learn more about AB 954, listen to my interview on “In Session,” a podcast by the University of the Pacific Law Review.

Nolan Kessler is a staff writer for the University of the Pacific Law Review and law student student at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento.

By: Libby Grotewohl

Do you know what ingredients are in the cleaning products you use throughout your home? When asked that question, most of us would refer to the ingredient list on the product’s label. However, like most Americans, you may be surprised to find no ingredient list on nearly all cleaning product labels.

That’s because no federal or state law currently exists requiring the manufacturers of cleaning products to disclose product ingredients. Cleaning product manufacturers have skirted ingredient disclosure requirements by arguing for the protection of their coveted trade secrets. Nevertheless, as evidence surfaces indicating that the chemicals used in many cleaning products are potentially harmful to humans, many consumers and domestic workers who use these products everyday are demanding full disclosure. In response, Senator Ricardo Lara introduced Senate Bill 258, the Cleaning Product Right to Know Act of 2017, aimed at placing more stringent disclosure requirements on the manufacturers of cleaning products.

SB 258 would require cleaning product manufacturers to list all potentially hazardous chemicals existing in a product on the product’s label. By utilizing pictograms and directing consumers to the manufacturer’s website for more information, SB 258 is seen as a “critical first step” towards the betterment of human health and the environment. To protect trade secrets, manufacturers are not required to provide ingredient weight, however, they must utilize an ingredient’s Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) number and the proper ingredient name. SB 258 would require all employers to create and provide employees with Safety Data Sheets which will list pertinent information on all ingredients contained in any cleaning products used in the workplace.

Supporters of SB 258 –  which include more than 80 environmental groups, labor unions, healthcare providers and “green” cleaning product manufacturers –  argue consumers and domestic workers have a right to know what is in the cleaning products they use every day. With the emergence of “green” cleaning products that fully disclose ingredients, supporters argue that transparency will be necessary for manufacturers to remain relevant in the industry. As large manufacturers like Clorox have begun voluntarily disclosing ingredients on their websites, proponents assert that such disclosure requirements should be imposed on the manufacturers of all products that consumers and domestic workers encounter.

Those opposing SB 258 argue it takes the wrong approach. One notable argument is that the majority of consumers and domestic workers are not chemists. Thus, if most consumers and domestic workers have no knowledge of the chemicals listed, SB 258’s efforts may be futile. Or worse, they argue, for those who take the time to research the ingredients by visiting the manufacturer’s website, SB 258’s requirements may needlessly concern consumers and domestic workers of harms that the products do not in fact present. Further, by requiring manufacturers to invest in research, testing, and development to adequately disclose ingredients, the cost of cleaning products could potentially increase. By offering no alternative approach, opponents essentially argue that labeling will not bring about any change in the industry, and, thus, is not necessary.

Despite this opposition, SB 258 continues to push on and was just heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. As Senator Lara explains, “[w]e’ve all heard the expression that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and the Cleaning Product Right to Know Act will shine a light on the products families and workers use every day.”

To learn more about SB 258, check out my interview on “In Session,” a podcast from the University of the Pacific Law Review.

Libby Grotewohl is a staff writer for the University of the Pacific Law Review and law student student at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento.