Sponsored message
Logged in as
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • Experts weigh in on how to do it safely
    Two police/ICE officers in front of a red truck arresting something in a bright yellow shirt
    ICE officers detain a man in Escondido in 2019.

    Topline:

    With federal agents conducting more immigration-related arrests throughout Southern California, residents have been active, too, capturing on camera those detentions in their communities. LAist cannot offer legal counsel, but we have turned to civil rights experts for guidance on how to document these detentions safely and effectively.

    Why it matters: Video footage can be used to keep government employees accountable. Earlier this month, for instance, Border Patrol officers detained a 20-year-old U.S. citizen, and the federal government later claimed he was arrested for punching officers. But after watching video footage, a federal judge said he threw no punches.

    Why now? The Department of Homeland Security has raised its daily arrest quotas. Since then, agents in L.A. County have made dozens of arrests, in part by concentrating on places that are easily accessible, including parking lots and carwashes.

    The backstory: When running for a second term, President Donald Trump promised mass deportations, lauding a 1930s operation in which about a million people were forced out of the U.S.

    Go deeper: California bill would require law enforcement and federal agents to show ID

    Read on ... to learn about your rights and what agents can and can't tell you to do.

    With federal agents conducting more immigration-related arrests throughout Southern California, residents have been active, too, capturing on camera those detentions in their communities — by real agents and potential impersonators.

    Peter Eliasberg, chief counsel for First Amendment rights at the ACLU of Southern California, said community members have a constitutional right to record government officials engaging in public duties: “Doesn’t matter if it’s LAPD, the L.A. Sheriff’s Department, ICE or Border Patrol.”

    But being a bystander also means navigating moments that can take very quick turns.

    LAist cannot offer legal counsel, but we have turned to civil rights experts for guidance about how to document these detentions safely and effectively.

    What can bystanders record?

    The public has the right to capture agents’ faces and license plates, Eliasberg said.

    WITNESS, a nonprofit devoted to using video evidence to expose injustice, recommends gathering images of any documents that agents present, including warrants. Community members can also record badges, weapons and uniforms. Video of the context in which detention takes place — including street signs, landmarks and any cameras that might be affixed to nearby buildings — can be used to authenticate the footage and corroborate community members’ experiences.

    How close can you be to law enforcement?

    How far away must witnesses be while recording interactions between agents and detainees?

    “There's no tape measure rule,” Eliasberg said. “You have a right to record, and you have a right to be pretty close. You just can't get in the way so much that you're interfering with what the officer's trying to do.”

    Eliasberg also noted that there may be public safety reasons for law enforcement to close off an area, including crime scenes and disaster zones.

    After federal immigration agents shot and killed Minnesota residents Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti, the national ACLU held an information session to provide guidance for observers. More than 76,000 people tuned in.

    “A good rule of thumb would be that you want to be enough steps away from the officer that they would have to affirmatively walk towards you to be in physical contact with you,” said Byul Yoon, a fellow at the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “That's going to reduce the chance that they claim that you were interfering.”

    WITNESS encourages community members to “film openly and comply with any instructions agents give you.”

    But “if the agents tell you to stop filming, you can tell them: ‘I am exercising my right to document this arrest,'” a WITNESS instructional video adds. And if agents ask you to step back, “document yourself complying.”

    Can you ask agents to identify themselves?

    Given that agents continue to cover their faces, use unmarked vehicles and sometimes wear plain clothes, community members have increasingly demanded that they identify themselves. This, too, is permissible, Eliasberg said.

    “The public has a right to ask: ‘Who are you? What is your name?’” he added. “They may not get an answer, but they have an absolute right to ask that question.”

    If witnesses don’t get answers, Eliasberg said, “trying to take a photograph of the badge to see the name is a perfectly appropriate response.”

    Can you ask detainees questions?

    In videos circulating across social media, community members have also taken to asking detainees three questions:

    1. What is your full name?
    2. What is your birthday and year?
    3. Who can we call?

    Eliasberg said this is “absolutely permissible.”

    At the ACLU of Southern California, he added, “we are hearing stories all the time where people are saying: ‘I have no idea what happened to my family member.’ I mean, literally, they've been snatched off the street, or they don't even know. They just don't come home one night.”

    Can you remind detainees about their rights?

    The public also has the right to tell people who are being arrested that they have rights, Eliasberg said. This includes the right to remain silent and not to sign any documents.

    “You're simply informing them what their constitutional rights are,” he said.

    Is it OK to record ICE from inside my car?

    In some parts of the country, federal agents have set up traffic stops, then proceeded to ask drivers for proof of citizenship. In such situations, drivers can “absolutely” record these interactions, said Gloria Leal, general counsel of League of United Latin American Citizens, a nonprofit that works to advance the economic condition, educational attainment and civil rights of Latinos in the U.S.

    But, “whenever possible,” Leal recommends observing and filming immigration agent activity on foot. The courts and law enforcement “generally treat vehicles as potentially deadly weapons, even when no harm is intended [by the driver],” she said.

    If you’re in a vehicle and are approached by an immigration agent, she added, “you should not inch forward or reposition your vehicle without instruction. Do not block lanes, driveways, or sidewalks.”

    Maribel Hernández Rivera, the ACLU’s national director of immigrant community strategies, offered another piece of advice: “Don’t record while driving.”

    Yoon added: “If you're recording ICE from behind the wheel while you're driving and holding your phone, you could be pulled over or cited for breaking that law."

    What if an agent takes away my phone?

    If an immigration agent takes an observer’s phone, deletes their recordings or coerces them into sharing a password, those actions are a potential violation of the Fourth Amendment, Leal said.

    In such situations, she added, an observer “should not physically resist.”

    “They should state that they do not consent to the seizure or search,” she said. “They should [also] try to document the officer's identity, then seek legal counsel.”

    WITNESS and Eliasberg emphasized that agents cannot take your phone if you're simply trying to record what's happening. They also can’t force you to delete your footage. But they may try anyway.

    To help create a barrier, WITNESS recommends that witnesses lock their phones with a passcode, which are protected under the Fifth Amendment. (Fingerprint IDs and facial recognition are not.)

    If you feel that your civil rights have been violated, you can seek help from organizations like the ACLU, which offers free services.

    “The problem,” Eliasberg said, “is we don't necessarily have the resources to help everybody.”

    How should I share my footage?

    Community members typically share their footage with trusted media outlets, attorneys at civil rights organizations, or on social media. The state has also moved to track potentially unlawful activity by federal agents. Recently, the California Department of Justice launched a portal where the public can submit videos and photos. The portal asks community members to indicate whether their footage depicts excessive force, unlawful searches or arrests, or other civil rights violations.

    In its tip sheet for filming immigration enforcement activity, WITNESS recommends securing consent from the arrestee “and/or direct representatives,” including members of that person’s family or their lawyer. WITNESS also suggests keeping a copy of the video file in a secure location, in case your footage is removed from social media.

    If you’d like to share your footage with LAist’s investigative reporting team, you can do so by contacting editor Jared Bennett on Signal. His username is jbennett.18. You can also share it with watchdog correspondent Jordan Rynning, whose username is jrynning.56. For instructions on getting started with Signal,visit the app's support page. Once you're in the app, you can type their usernames in the search bar after starting a new chat.

    How footage can help community members

    The morning of June 17, Oscar Preciado went to a Walmart in Pico Rivera to pick up merchandise for his work as an Instacart shopper.

    That day, 20-year-old Adrian Martinez was detained and taken by Border Patrol — even though he’s a U.S. citizen.

    Preciado was in the parking lot. When he saw the agents appear, he whipped out his phone.

    In a conversation with LAist, Preciado said he and other community members were recording the agents’ vehicles and license plates when he noticed that “they were throwing someone to the ground.”

    Preciado ran over to capture what was happening.

    “It was horrifying to witness,” he added. “The kid weighs 110 pounds, maybe, and he was being thrown around by these big guys.”

    The federal government later said that Martinez was detained for punching officers. But after watching video footage, a federal judge said he threw no punches.

    Martinez has since been released from custody on bond. He also lost his job. But he's home with his family.

    Learn from a bystander: What is the experience like?

    Since detentions by the Department of Homeland Security intensified in southeastern L.A. County, local resident Eric Eztli has been monitoring Home Depot parking lots and car washes. He keeps an eye out for suspicious vehicles, as well as for people who, in his view, are racially profiling and unfairly detaining his community members.

    Last summer, Eztli went to a Home Depot in Huntington Park, bearing witness as men in sage green uniforms, with Border Patrol patches affixed to their sleeves, chased a day laborer. The agents’ faces were covered.

    Eztli ran toward them and started to record the interaction on his cellphone.

    In his video, Eztli is heard demanding that the agents show a warrant for the man’s arrest. They do not.

    One of the agents tackles the day laborer to the ground. Then, three agents hold down the day laborer and handcuff him. As they tie his arms behind his back, one agent pushes the day laborer’s face into the dirt, first with his hand, then with his knee. Eztli repeatedly asks the day laborer for his name. The man manages to say “Jorge” before agents drag him away. “Jorge what?” Eztli shouts after him, trying to get his last name.

    As the agents’ unmarked vehicles pulled away from the parking lot, Eztli recorded their license plate numbers.

    The scene hurt to watch, he told LAist, but he wanted to gather as many details as he could. Some of it might be of use to Jorge.

    “I was going to get his birthday, too, but they just took him very quickly,” Eztli said.

    Eztli also meant to get a contact number so he could reach out to Jorge’s family and let them know he’d been detained. Full names and birth dates are also required to search for people in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s inmate locator system.

    “I think it's important for the community to exercise their right to record and make sure that [agents] are being held accountable,” Eztli added. “But it's hard because they are hiding behind anonymity, so they can do whatever they want — that's why it feels so scary.”

  • NEW UCI poll finds “sea change” in OC
    A person holds a sign that readers "No human is illegal".
    Protesters hold signs during an "ICE Out of OC" rally at Home Depot in Garden Grove on Aug. 19, 2025.

    Topline:

    Most Orange County residents favor offering undocumented residents a pathway to legal status rather than blanket deportation, according to a new poll from the University of California, Irvine School of Social Ecology. But that’s not true for a majority of Republicans (54%) who favor deportation, the poll found.

    Some other major takeaways: 

    • The majority of respondents agreed that violent criminals should automatically be deported, and that immigrants who are U.S. veterans should never be deported.
    • While 62% of respondents said they disapproved of President Trump’s handling of immigration issues, a smaller margin, 55% disapproved of his handling of the U.S.-Mexico border.

    Why it matters: Orange County is considered “purple” because the county’s two million voters are nearly evenly split, with one-third each registered as Republican or Democrat, and another third registered as No Party Preference or with a smaller political party.  

    “No matter which party you are, you have to find a way to appeal to independents,” said Jon Gould, dean of the School of Social Ecology.

    Read on… for more on what the poll found in Orange County.

    Most Orange County residents favor offering undocumented residents a pathway to legal status rather than blanket deportation, according to a new poll from the University of California, Irvine School of Social Ecology. But that’s not true for a majority of Republicans (54%), who favor deportation, the poll found.

    Jon Gould, dean of the School of Social Ecology, said the poll demonstrates the stark difference in public opinion on immigration between Republicans on one side, and Democrats and independents on the other.

    “ Majorities are very much in favor of immigration, paths to legal citizenship, and are hesitant to use the enforcement power too strongly," Gould said of the poll results. “It’s surprising in a purple county that we’re seeing both a strong majority one way, and a cleavage where one of the political parties [Republican] is off by itself compared to independents and Democrats.”

    Orange County is considered “purple” because the county’s 2 million voters are nearly evenly split, with one-third each registered as Republican or Democrat, and another third registered as No Party Preference or with a smaller political party.

    There was agreement across political parties on some issues, Gold said. The majority of respondents agreed that violent criminals should automatically be deported, and that immigrants who are U.S. veterans should never be deported.

    Poll showing overall views on immigration impacts, starting with majority agreement that it fills low-wage jobs, and ended with majority saying it's "not true" that immigration takes jobs from Americans.
    UC Irvine School of Social Ecology polled 1,200 Orange County adults on immigration issues in March 2026.
    (
    Courtesy UC Irvine School of Social Ecology
    /
    LAist
    )

    Gould also said the poll of some 1,200 adults demonstrates the nuanced opinions that most residents have on the subject of immigration. For example, a majority of all respondents (61%) support limiting immigration from countries the government deems dangerous or unstable.

    A poll asking whether any undocumented group should be automatically deported. It shows that most people from all political parties say violent criminals should be deported. Most people from all groups say nonviolent criminals, recent arrivals, the unemployed, and those who don't speak English should not be deported.
    Results of the UC Irvine poll on immigration show agreement across party lines on some nuanced questions.
    (
    Courtesy: UC Irvine School of Social Ecology
    /
    LAist
    )

    Some other key takeaways:

    • While 62% of respondents said they disapproved of President Donald Trump’s handling of immigration issues, a smaller margin, 55%, disapproved of his handling of the U.S.-Mexico border.
    • A majority said immigration fills essential low-wage jobs (76%) and enhances civic life (67%). A plurality also said immigration strains public services (48%).
    • Only small percentages of all respondents said they supported automatic deportation for immigrants convicted of non-violent crimes (23%), unemployed immigrants (16%), recent arrivals (11%), and non-English speakers (10%). 
    • On the question of ICE, 73% of Republicans said they supported the agency’s actions, whereas 67% of Democrats and 40% of independents said the agency should be abolished.

    Implications for the upcoming elections and immigration reform

    Trump’s aggressive immigration enforcement has taken a heavy toll in Orange County. Some families have lost breadwinners to deportation, while others have sought to limit their exposure by quitting jobs and staying indoors. Spending in the county decreased by about one-quarter of a percent immediately after enforcement ramped up last year, according to a separate UC Irvine study. That led to a $4.5 million decline in sales tax over an eight-week period, the study found.

    About 10 people in profile at a protest. One holds a sign that says "I.C.E. breaks bones, laws, freedom, and lives apart."
    Students protest ICE on Jan. 27, 2026 in front of Anaheim City Hall.
    (
    Jill Replogle
    /
    LAist
    )

    A growing number of cities, plus the county itself, have set aside funds to support immigrant residents with basic needs and legal services.

    This support reflects what Gould called a “sea change” in public opinion since 1994, when two-thirds of Orange County voters cast ballots in favor of excluding undocumented immigrants from public education and other public services. That ballot initiative, Proposition 187, was ultimately found to be unconstitutional and never went into effect.

    Gould said the majority of respondents’ positive views on immigration in the recent poll shows how much the county has changed. It’s also a reflection of the vast demographic shifts that have occurred in the county in recent decades as a result of immigration and refugee arrivals from countries like Vietnam.

    Nearly 40% of residents polled said both of their parents were born in another country; 82% of Asians polled said both parents were born in another country.

    Slightly more than one-third of respondents said they personally knew someone who is undocumented.

    Gould thinks the results of the polling bode well for the prospects for immigration reform — despite decades of failure in Washington to strike a deal between Republicans and Democrats. The shift in public opinion might not lead to change in policy yet, Gould said, “but politicians generally follow where the wind’s blowing.”

     “At a time where we're being led to believe that immigration pits people against one another, it's intractable, these battles will go on forever," he said. "I actually think what we're seeing in the data here is that there is a supermajority support for a number of policies on immigration. There is actually potentially a solution here.”

  • Sponsored message
  • Judge Draper up for re-election in June
    An elderly light skinned man wearing a blue jacket and red spotted tie is sitting in an outside space; an official flag is on a flagpole next to him
    Judge Robert Draper

    Topline:

    Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Robert Draper, who is up for reelection in June, is facing accusations of violating ethics rules. A hearing began Monday with the state commission that oversees judicial complaints. The judge says some of the allegations are false, while some are true but missing context.

    What are the allegations: Among the allegations, Draper is accused of making statements about race in court that weren’t pertinent to the case, and sending inappropriate photos to colleagues.

    Why it matters: Superior Court judges oversee courtroom proceedings and trials across L.A. County. These cases cover everything having to do with state and local laws, including family law, such as child custody and divorces, landlord and tenant cases, and small claims.

    Why now: Eleven candidates — of which Draper is one — are vying for your vote on June 2. You can learn more in our Voter Game Plan.

    What's next: It's expected the hearing will continue for at least two weeks, but a decision may not come until after the election.

  • Digital billboards could hit the ballot this fall
    A large digital billboard is displayed on an arch spanning across a street. The billboard reads "I work 24/7 - generating millions for Inglewood" inside a speech bubble next to a cartoon face. Signage about that in large letters reads "Inglewood."
    Digital billboard on Market Street in Inglewood, part of a collaboration with Wow Media.

    Topline:

    Inglewood residents might get a chance to weigh in on the billboards in November’s election, due to a proposed ballot initiative that would bar most advertisements on public streets. But that ballot initiative itself has now prompted its own potentially costly legal fight involving the city, which receives a steadily increasing stream of revenue from billboard companies, and people with ties to the billionaire-owned stadiums.

    The backstory: In February, Inglewood resident Shannon Roberts filed to circulate a petition to prohibit commercial billboards on public streets, sidewalks and medians. The petition, a step towards getting the billboard initiative on the ballot in November, also seeks to prohibit business arrangements for the city to profit from billboard deals.

    Opposition to the initiative: WOW Media is opposing the billboard initiative through its own campaign, Inglewood Residents for Stadium Accountability. CEO Scott Krantz wrote in a statement to The LA Local that the billboard initiative, which does not include stadium billboards, would deprive the city of up to $2 billion in revenue over 40 years.

    Read on... for more on the initiative.

    This story first appeared on The LA Local.

    Jacque Langston was driving down Manchester Boulevard in Inglewood when he came face-to-face with an odd sight: sea creatures floating across one of the city’s new, spiraling digital billboards. 

    “Why am I looking at jellyfish? That has nothing to do with me,” said Langston, an Inglewood native. For Langston, the video billboards that have come to dominate stretches of Inglewood’s major roads are a square peg in a round hole.

    “The city has never been touched like that,” Langston said. “Now you’ve got a mini-Vegas.” 

    A large digital billboard stretches across a street as cars pass by next to large signage that reads "Welcome to Inglewood."
    A digital billboard is seen on La Cienega Blvd. at Florence Ave. in Inglewood on April 18, 2026, in Los Angeles.
    (
    Dania Maxwell
    /
    The LA Local
    )

    Video billboards have proliferated in Inglewood in recent years, targeting the influx of people driving into the city for concerts and sporting events at SoFi Stadium, the Intuit Dome and the Kia Forum. 

    Last summer, though, they became a flashpoint for a series of lawsuits that revealed fractures in the once-close relationship between the city and its major entertainment venues. The various parties are now fighting over lucrative advertising territory as major international sporting events approach.

    That legal drama — reported last week by The LA Local — also threatens to undo the contract that underpins SoFi Stadium’s financial relationship with the city. 

    Langston and other Inglewood residents might get a chance to weigh in on the billboards in November’s election, due to a proposed ballot initiative that would bar most advertisements on public streets. But that ballot initiative itself has now prompted its own potentially costly legal fight involving the city, which receives a steadily increasing stream of revenue from billboard companies, and people with ties to the billionaire-owned stadiums.

    Meanwhile, the bright LED video screens have divided local opinion. 

    Vanessa Cowan, an Inglewood resident, said the gleaming screens are a sign of progress in the city. “I like them,” she said. “It has a different look.” 

    A low angle view of a person walking down a sidewalk towards a vertical digital billboard. There are homes and apartments on the side of the sidewalk and large buildings and a stadium in the other side.
    A person walks past a digital billboard on Prairie Avenue in Inglewood on April 18, in Los Angeles.
    (
    Dania Maxwell
    /
    The LA Local
    )

    Khnum Alexander, owner of Swank Men’s Fashion on Manchester, called the billboards “monstrosities” and said advertising on the screens is too expensive for small businesses like his. He also questioned the new, twisting screens that billboard company WOW Media has recently begun to install in groups of three across the city.

    “Do we really need more?” he asked. 

    Down the street from Alexander’s menswear store, EZ Will Driving School owner Will McDaniel felt differently.

    “I’m all for it,” McDaniel said. “People are afraid of change. Change to them feels awkward.” 

    A bar chart showing years starting from 2014-15 and ending with 2023-24. The chart header reads "Billboard revenue in Inglewood, 2014-2024" and shows an increase in revenue over those years, where 2022-23 had the most revenue and 2023-24 dropped lower.

    If city leaders have their way, the Billboard Blight Elimination and Neighborhood Preservation Initiative won’t make it to voters this fall.

    “What is packaged as an initiative by and for Inglewood residents appears to be a product of avaricious puppeteering by a billionaire developer,” lawyers retained by the city wrote in a March 4 court complaint filed in an attempt to block the initiative. 

    That developer, the city’s lawyers contend, was SoFi Stadium owner Stan Kroenke. Attorneys later amended the complaint to include Intuit Dome owner Steve Ballmer.

    “Voter suppression”

    In February, Inglewood resident Shannon Roberts filed to circulate a petition to prohibit commercial billboards on public streets, sidewalks and medians. The petition, a step towards getting the billboard initiative on the ballot in November, also seeks to prohibit business arrangements for the city to profit from billboard deals. 

    “Public spaces belong to people, not billboard companies,” Roberts wrote, adding advertising should instead prioritize public safety messaging, such as emergency alerts, not advertising for profit.

    “Inglewood should not be for sale to billboard companies for decades at a time — especially when such arrangements permanently alter the character of our beautiful city and erase the legacy of those who fought to preserve our neighborhoods,” Roberts wrote.

    Roberts did not respond to a request for comment. When The LA Local reached out to her lawyer, a veteran campaign spokesperson responded.  

    John Shallman has been a consultant in Southern California politics for decades and formerly worked for the Clippers when they moved to the Intuit Dome. 

    He is now working with Roberts to get the anti-billboard initiative on the ballot; their website and campaign are called Inglewood Not for Sale.

    He said he’s never seen a city sue one of its residents over an idea they’re attempting to put before voters.

    “It’s voter suppression,” Shallman told The LA Local. “You can run a campaign against it, but trying to stop it from getting in front of citizens at all, that’s a big red flag. We’re all about voter empowerment. They’re the public’s streets, parks and medians. They control how they’re used and how they’re sold.”

    Inglewood Mayor James Butts did not return a request for comment. The city’s lawyers argued in court filings that the initiative shouldn’t be allowed to go before voters because it would unconstitutionally restrict speech, lay out illegal zoning guidelines and hurt the city’s contract with WOW Media, the company that controls many of Inglewood’s billboards. 

    Shallman believes that the Inglewood City Council cut a bad deal in April 2025 with WOW Media when the city approved a 20-year contract, which can be extended for decades. “It’s sort of biblical in its length of time,” he said. “The city decided that the profit of one company is far more important than the residents who will have to live with these billboards.”

    The campaign has already collected several thousand signatures, Shallman said. 

    Shallman dismissed the city’s accusations that the coalition he works with does not authentically represent Inglewood’s residents. Though Roberts’ name is on the initiative, the filing fee was paid for by Gerard McCallum II, a longtime associate of Hollywood Park.

    Shallman said the initiative is raising money from all sorts of supporters, including those tied to the Rams and Clippers professional sports teams.

    “You’re talking about an insignificant sum of money that pales in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars that will be spent to sue this Inglewood resident,” Shallman said of the filing fee.

    Inglewood’s November election could be packed

    WOW Media is opposing the billboard initiative through its own campaign, Inglewood Residents for Stadium Accountability. 

    CEO Scott Krantz wrote in a statement to The LA Local that the billboard initiative, which does not include stadium billboards, would deprive the city of up to $2 billion in revenue over 40 years.

    “The stadiums share none of their advertising revenue with Inglewood residents. We trust the people of Inglewood to see the stadium owner billionaire’s scam for exactly what it is,” Krantz wrote.

    Krantz and Inglewood Residents for Stadium Accountability are also backing a pair of initiatives that could have a big impact on stadiums’ bottom line: The initiatives seek to remove admissions tax caps for large venues and limit how much some parking lots can charge during major events. 

    Longtime Mayor Butts is also up for reelection in November, as are Councilmembers Gloria Gray and Alex Padilla and a few school board members. 

    Wherever the votes land, Inglewood’s rapid transformation doesn’t appear to be slowing down. 

    “Times are changing around here,” said Rick Todd, who sat at a table on Manchester Boulevard on Thursday, selling jugs of soursop tea. Up the street, a video billboard flicked between an Inglewood police recruitment poster and an ad for “The Devil Wears Prada 2.” “This goes along with it.”

  • Lawmaker has two proposals to fix shortfalls
    A homeless encampment on first street across from city hall in downtown Los Angeles.
    A homeless encampment on first street across from city hall in downtown Los Angeles.

    Topline:

    Gov. Gavin Newsom promised to help thousands of homeless Californians when he launched a new mental health court in 2023. So far, it has struggled to help the sickest, most vulnerable people, but a Southern California lawmaker is carrying two proposals this year that she hopes will fix gaps in the program.

    About the bills: One bill would create a pathway for the most severely incapacitated people to go directly from Newsom’s voluntary mental health court into involuntary treatment in a hospital. The other would make it easier for EMTs and other first responders to refer people to mental health court. Both bills recently passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee, despite concerns from disability rights advocates that they would force more people into unwanted treatment.

    The backstory: CARE Court launched in 2023 as a major piece of Newsom’s strategy to get people in the grip of psychosis off the streets. It allows family members of people with untreated schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders to refer them into the court-based program, where they can work with a judge, a public defender and a case worker on a plan for medication, therapy, housing, and whatever other help they may need. As of January, California courts had received 3,817 petitions on behalf of prospective CARE Court participants and approved just 893 treatment agreements. At its outset, the Newsom administration estimated between 7,000 and 12,000 Californians would qualify for the program.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom promised to help thousands of homeless Californians when he launched a new mental health court in 2023. So far, it has struggled to help the sickest, most vulnerable people, but a Southern California lawmaker is carrying two proposals this year that she hopes will fix gaps in the program.

    Both bills reopen the debate among families and advocates over when it’s appropriate to put someone into mental health treatment without their consent.

    One bill would create a pathway for the most severely incapacitated people to go directly from Newsom’s voluntary mental health court into involuntary treatment in a hospital. The other would make it easier for EMTs and other first responders to refer people to mental health court. Both bills recently passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee, despite concerns from disability rights advocates that they would force more people into unwanted treatment.

    “While early implementation shows promise,” Sen. Catherine Blakespear, a Democrat from Encinitas, said during a recent committee hearing, “barriers in the current petition process are preventing the program from reaching many of the individuals it was designed to serve.”

    CARE Court launched in 2023 as a major piece of Newsom’s strategy to get people in the grip of psychosis off the streets. It allows family members of people with untreated schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders to refer them into the court-based program, where they can work with a judge, a public defender and a case worker on a plan for medication, therapy, housing, and whatever other help they may need.

    But a CalMatters investigation found the program is falling short of expectations. As of January, California courts had received 3,817 petitions on behalf of prospective CARE Court participants and approved just 893 treatment agreements. At its outset, the Newsom administration estimated between 7,000 and 12,000 Californians would qualify for the program.

    Some families who attempted to use CARE Court to help their severely ill loved ones told CalMatters they were disappointed by the results. They thought a judge could order their family members into treatment. But that turned out not to be the case. If someone is too sick to realize they need treatment, CARE Court can’t help, which means that their case can be dismissed while the person continues to languish on the street.

    That’s the problem Blakespear is attempting to tackle with Senate Bill 1016. It would allow anyone filing a CARE Court petition to request that a judge order a mental health assessment to determine if the subject of the petition is “gravely disabled” or a danger to themselves or others – if the subject can’t comply with voluntary treatment.

    Depending on the results of the assessment, a judge could order that person into a conservatorship, which would likely mean a stay in a locked psychiatric facility and mandatory medication.

    The idea is to create a formal bridge between voluntary treatment under CARE Court and involuntary treatment through a conservatorship.

    Adding the specter of forced care will make people with mental illness less likely to accept help from CARE Court, Samuel Jain of Disability Rights California said during the committee hearing.

    “SB 1016 adds an expensive, coercive and convoluted layer to CARE Court that will drive up costs and further erode the rights and trust of the Californians that our system is supposed to help,” he said.

    An unhoused person secures their belongings on a bicycle near a homeless camp in north Sacramento on Jan. 26, 2026. Photo by Miguel Gutierrez Jr., CalMatters

    Family 'frustrated' by CARE Court

    Jennifer Farrell, who filed a CARE Court petition in late 2024 for her brother in Alameda County, sees it differently. Farrell’s 59-year-old brother, who struggles with schizophrenia and meth use, had been homeless off and on since 2017. He was able to stay housed via CARE Court for a few months, but then he left his placement in September and disappeared into the streets.

    It was clear he needed more help than CARE Court could provide, but the program had no way to elevate him to a higher level of care, Farrell said.

    “I was really frustrated at that point,” she told CalMatters.

    Farrell’s brother spent three months deteriorating on the street before a case worker found him in December. He was hospitalized on a temporary psychiatric hold and eventually placed on a conservatorship. He’s still in a locked facility, where he’s medicated and seems to be doing much better, Farrell said.

    To Farrell, it’s “absurd” that there isn’t already a direct link between CARE Court and a conservatorship — a connection that she thinks could have saved her family some grief.

    At CARE Court’s inception, Newsom said people who didn’t follow their CARE plans could be moved into a conservatorship. But Farrell and other families CalMatters spoke with said if their loved one couldn’t consent to treatment, there was no clear path forward.

    Technically, CARE Court judges can order participants to follow mandatory “CARE plans” — something that happened just 32 times between late 2023 and January — but judges can’t force participants to comply.

    Easier CARE Court petitions

    Blakespear’s other bill, SB 989, addresses another CARE Court challenge: the low number of people participating.

    Filing a CARE Court petition is a complicated, time-consuming process. Whoever is filing the request needs the person’s medical records. Then, they need to appear at the first court hearing — something overworked first responders don’t always have time to do.

    That’s a key reason that people who work in public safety, such as firefighters and EMTs, say they don’t file CARE Court petitions, said Meagan Subers of California Professional Firefighters, who spoke in support of the bill at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

    SB 989 would create a framework for first responders to refer clients directly to their county behavioral health department, which could then file a CARE Court petition on their behalf. The county would have 30 days to decide whether to file.

    Some counties already make an effort to train and support their first responders in filing CARE Court petitions. Stanislaus County allows first responders to refer CARE Court clients directly to the county.

    But that collaboration isn’t happening in a systematic way across the state, Subers said. This bill could help fix a broken system where first responders are constantly cycling people with severe mental illnesses in and out of emergency rooms, she said.

    “When our members have to run these calls repeatedly on individuals and take them to the hospital, knowing that they’re going to have to respond to that person again, my members tell me that they feel helpless,” she said. “We see this pathway as another option for them.”

    Blakespear’s bills follow a similar effort last year by Sen. Tom Umberg of Santa Ana to make CARE Court more effective. His new law, which went into effect in January, expanded CARE Court to include people who experience psychosis as a result of bipolar disorder. The program initially was exclusively for people diagnosed with schizophrenia and other limited psychotic disorders.

    This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.