.
Feedback

Social Media Privacy Tops New Laws for 2013

Gov. Jerry Brown signed nearly 1,000 bills signed into law in 2012; here's an overview of what goes into effect Jan. 1, 2013.

Job-hunters no longer need to worry about sanitizing their Facebook pages before applying for work, thanks to two new laws that will go on the books in the coming weeks.

The social media privacy laws protect job-seekers and prospective students from sharing social media user names and password with during the application process.

Those laws are among the 873 regular session bills Gov. Jerry Brown signed in 2012; many will take effect Jan. 1, 2013.

Discrimination

  • Eliminating on-the-job discrimination is the focus of two new laws. One expands the definition of "sex" under the Fair Employment and Housing Act to include breastfeeding. The other clarifies that the state's discrimination laws make reasonable accommodations for religious dress and grooming practices.
  • AB 2370 replaces “mental retardation” with “intellectual disability.”

'Good Samaritan' Overdose Prevention Law

This law encourages people to call 911 and seek medical help for someone experiencing a drug or alcohol overdose without fear of being prosecuted for minor drug crimes.

“Reassuring all Californians that calling 911 is safe and the right thing to do when someone’s life is on the line is essential,” Meghan Ralston, harm reduction manager for the Drug Policy Alliance, said.

She also pointed out that this isn't a get-of-jail-free card. Drug dealers and motorists driving under the influence would still face legal ramifications.

Banning Therapies to 'Cure' Gay Minors

The law states therapists can't provide minors with therapy intended to change their sexual orientation. California is the first in the nation to prohibit such practices.

Motorist and Vehicle Laws

  • A person who has been arrested and is suspected of driving under the influence (DUI) of drugs no longer has the option of a urine test. Prior to this change, a person had the option of submitting either urine or blood to determine the drug content of their blood.
  • California drivers can use hands-free technology to talk and text while driving. This will require the use of a device that is specifically designed and configured to allow voice-operated and hands-free operation to dictate, send or listen to a text-based communication.
  • Drivers will now have the option of providing proof of insurance and registration on an electronic device such as smartphones or tablets.
  • Driverless cars can be operated on public roads for testing purposes, provided that each vehicle has a fully licensed and bonded operator in the driver’s seat to take control if necessary.
  • Similar to an AMBER Alert, the CHP would activate a “Silver Alert” upon request if a person, age 65 or older, is reported missing to a law enforcement agency and that agency determines that certain criteria is met.
  • A new law allows driver’s license applicant who provides satisfactory proof that his or her presence in the U.S. is authorized under federal law, but who is not eligible for a Social Security number, is eligible to receive an original driver's license if he or she meets all other qualifications for licensure.
  • There will be consistency statewide in the operations of red-light enforcement cameras by requiring governmental agencies to follow specified guidelines regarding intersections, signage and the notice to appear.
  • Hospitals, clinics, and birthing centers will now be required to provide and discuss contact information regarding child safety seat requirements, installation, and inspection to parents and caregivers upon discharge of a child, if the child is younger than 8.

Proposition 30

State sales tax increases a quarter-cent Jan. 1, a voter-approved measure that will fund public safety and education. The law also ups income taxes for those who make more than $250,000 of taxable income annually.

Look up all of the new laws in this state database.


Don’t be left out of the conversation taking place in Belmont--Sign up for our daily newsletter|Like Belmont|Patch on Facebook | Follow us on Twitter | Start your own blog

Don’t be left out of the conversation taking place in San Carlos--Sign up for our daily newsletter | Like us on Facebook | Follow us on Twitter| Start a blog

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from San Carlos Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Michael G. Stogner June 15, 2013 at 05:07 pm
Marl Olbert said this right after refusing to second Matt Grocott's motion for 2 week delay of vote.Read More I wasn't here at the time but i talked to various people who were. It's my understanding that when Mr. Maltbie was hired into this position he was offered a significantly below market salary. both in terms of compensation and provision I think part because he has never been a city manager before. and he had to prove himself. you can make a argument that that wasn't fair. if you think the person is capable for doing the job not necessarily the fact that they don't have the experience. it happens all over the place it happened to me personally it's just a part of the accepted process but another part of the accepted process is that if the person proves themselves you have to keep faith with them and if you don't you're actually sending a message You're saying that you can't trust us and i totally think that Mr. Maltbie is worth the pay, but besides that i think it is a issue of integrity and maintaining the integrity of the negotiation process and the hiring process that's why I'm going to vote yes for it.
Michael G. Stogner June 15, 2013 at 05:08 pm
I would like to know who those various people were who gave Mark Olbert that understanding.
Michael G. Stogner June 17, 2013 at 04:54 pm
Council member Mark Olbert one who refused to second Mr. Grocott's motion made an interestingRead More statement. "I wasn't here at the time but i talked to various people who were. It's my understanding that when Mr. Maltbie was hired into this position he was offered a significantly below market salary." I know for a fact that he didn't talk to Matt Grocott who was there. That leaves 3 potentials, 2 of them are deceased and the 3rd was Andy Klein who did not attend that meeting so he didn't vote. I would like to know who the "various people who were" are.
Marc Parent June 11, 2013 at 07:50 am
San Carlos just spent 10 Million after lawsuit from the "Bay Keepers", more activistsRead More wanting more money?
Holly Bell June 8, 2013 at 01:23 pm
Unbelievable!! Many voters are watching this issue closely and will remember this vote. Evidently,Read More these commissioners believe that resident's have no voice in city decision-making. Someone please name those commissioners who disregarded the loud-and-clear preference of the people. Time to clean house.
Bob Farkas June 8, 2013 at 02:01 pm
The two commissioners who voted for turf were John Seiling and Ray Merala. It was Ray's lastRead More meeting as a commissioner since he has termed out after 9+ years of service. I think they felt that the needs of the elite CYSO program should take precedence over neighbors and others who use the park. Youth sports seems a principal influencer at Parks and Rec. as they are the largest organized user of the facilities. I agree with many other opponents of this project that we all need to support adequate fields for youth sports. I just think these needs have to be in balance with those of the rest of the community. It was very disappointing that, although it is field availability which is purportedly driving this initiative, there was no available recent data to demonstrate the problem or an analysis of how much of the problem would be addressed by this measure. To a businessman like me, this seems a very unprofessional approach.
Concerned Taxpayer June 8, 2013 at 07:08 pm
This is purely a NIMBY issue. Lets just all be honest about that. The folks who live across fromRead More Highlands Park were the loudest opponents there and were citing all kinds of crazy issues when they should have just been honest and said,"I really don't want to look at more people and cars at the public park that is across the street from me and was there when I moved in." That is essentially the true gripe. NIMBY!!! A very weak argument and unelectable dishonest. Unless you can create more land we have to extend the use at existing parks and fields. This is very logical. We live in California and having to use astro turf stinks but we also live where there is no more available land to utilize. The commissions punted this to the council pure and simple. Well we already know who will vote against it. I am curious who will vote for it?????
Bill June 5, 2013 at 02:53 pm
This post makes zero sense. Bike lanes are a visual reminder to drivers that they must share theRead More road with riders. For every cyclist who is not observing the rules of traffic, I will show you 100 texting drivers. Removing bike lanes is not the answer.