Effective now, a substantial portion of the Government Code has been recodified make the Code more “user friendly.”
Under AB 474, about 420 changes were made to The California Public Records Act (CPRA), without changing the substance of the code. Since its enactment in 1968, the CPRA has been revised many times, in a somewhat piecemeal fashion. This has resulted in a statute that is poorly organized and cumbersome for members of the public to use and understand, impeding fulfillment of the goals underlying the CPRA.
 
The rewritten and recodified CPRA, is divided into seven parts:
Part 1, “General Provisions,” is §§ 7920.000 to 7920.545
Part 2, “Disclosure and Exemptions Generally, is §§ 7921.000 to 7922.210.
Part 3, “Procedures and Related Matters,” is §§ 7922.505 to 7922.725.
Part 4, “Enforcement,” [by “[seeking] injunctive or declarative relief, or … a writ of mandate.…”] is §§ 7923.000 to 7923.500. 
Part 5, “Specific Types of Records,” is §§ 7923.600 to 7929.610. Part 5, Ch. 1 is “Crimes, Weapons, and Law Enforcement.”
Part 6, “Other Exemptions from Disclosure,” §§ 7930.000 to 7930.125. This “Secrecy Code,” lists, in alphabetical order, scores of specific exemptions.
Part 7, GC 7931.000. 
 
This was done for several reasons, notably to:

• Reduce the length and complexity of current sections. 
• Avoid unnecessary cross-references. 
• Neither expand nor contract the scope of existing exemptions to the general rule that records are open to the public pursuant to the current provisions of the CPRA. 
• To the extent compatible with 3), above, use terms with common definitions. 
• Organize the existing provisions in such a way that similar provisions are located in close proximity to one another. 
• Eliminate duplicative provisions. 
• Clearly express legislative intent without any change in the substantive provisions. 

 
 Having trouble interpreting a statute that affects a criminal case in which you are involved? Contact Devina Douglas here. 

While not entirely relevant (yet) to California law, it's interesting to note that lawmakers in Washington State have introduced a bill which would lower the BAC limit for a DUI from 0.08 (which is the limit here in CA, too,) to 0.05. 

To read more: see here.

Old drug convictions are potentially no longer a bar to applying for a teaching credential under a new change in the law, effective now. 
Prior to a change in the law this year, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing had to deny an application for a credential teaching credential or the renewal of a priorly-issued one for a person who has been convicted of certain drug offenses. 
After the passage of SB 731, the law now prohibits the record of convictions for possession of specified drugs that are more than 5 years old and for which relief was granted from going to the committee or from being used to deny a credential. Now, pursuant to Penal code 851.93, “A person is eligible for relief … if the arrest occurred on or after January 1, 1973, and [their case] meets any of the following conditions:

• The arrest was for a misdemeanor offense and the charge was dismissed.
• The arrest was for a misdemeanor offense, there is no indication that criminal proceedings have been initiated, at least one calendar year has elapsed since the date of the arrest, and no conviction occurred, or the arrestee was acquitted of any charges that arose, from that arrest.
• The arrest was for an offense that is punishable by imprisonment pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 1170, there is no indication that criminal proceedings have been initiated, at least three calendar years have elapsed since the date of the arrest, and no conviction occurred, or the arrestee was acquitted of any charges arising, from that arrest.
• The person successfully completed” a diversion program.

If you are facing any sort of criminal case, that can affect your ability to get a professional license. To talk to an attorney about minimizing the impacts of a criminal case, contact Devina Douglas here.