AB 595: Forfeiture.
- Session Year: 2015-2016
- House: Assembly
Existing law subjects property acquired through or as proceeds of criminal profiteering activity to forfeiture. Existing law defines criminal profiteering activity as any specified acts or threats made for financial gain or advantage. Existing law requires a prosecuting agency to file a petition of forfeiture in conjunction with the criminal proceeding for the underlying offense.
This bill would allow the prosecuting agency to file a petition of forfeiture prior to the commencement of the underlying criminal proceeding if the value of the assets seized exceeds $100,000, there is a substantial probability that the prosecuting agency will file a criminal complaint, there is a substantial probability the prosecuting agency will prevail on the issue of forfeiture and failure to enter the order will result in the property being destroyed or otherwise removed from the jurisdiction of the court, the need to preserve the property outweighs the hardship on any party against whom the order is entered, and there is a substantial probability that the assets subject to forfeiture represent direct or indirect proceeds of criminal activity committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a transnational criminal organization, as defined. The bill would allow a person claiming an interest in the property or proceeds to move for return of the property on the grounds there is not probable cause to believe that the property is subject to forfeiture, and if the prosecuting agency does not establish substantial probability that the property is subject to forfeiture the court would be required to order the seized property returned. The bill would require the Attorney General, on or before January 1, 2019, to report to the Governor and specified committees on the use of these proceedings. The bill would provide for the repeal of these changes on January 1, 2020.
(1)The Optometry Practice Act provides for the licensure and regulation of the practice of optometry by the State Board of Optometry, and makes a violation of the act a crime. Existing law requires individuals, corporations, and firms engaged in the business of filling prescriptions of physicians and surgeons and optometrists for prescription lenses and kindred products to register with the Division of Licensing of the Medical Board of California as a registered dispensing optician, and makes a violation of the provisions governing registered dispensing opticians a crime.
(2)Existing law prohibits a licensed optometrist from having any membership, proprietary interest, coownership, landlord-tenant relationship, or any profit-sharing arrangement, in any form, whether directly or indirectly, with any person licensed as a registered dispensing optician, and prohibits a registered dispensing optician from having any membership, proprietary interest, coownership, landlord-tenant relationship, or any profit-sharing arrangement in any form directly or indirectly with a licensed optometrist. Existing law also prohibits a licensed optometrist from having any membership, proprietary interest, coownership, landlord-tenant relationship, or any profit-sharing arrangement in any form, directly or indirectly, either by stock ownership, interlocking directors, trusteeship, mortgage, trust deed, or otherwise with any person who is engaged in the manufacture, sale, or distribution to physicians and surgeons, optometrists, or dispensing opticians of lenses, frames, optical supplies, optometric appliances or devices or kindred products. Under existing law, a violation of the above provisions by a licensed optometrist and any person, whether or not licensed, who participates with a licensed optometrist in violating those provisions constitutes a misdemeanor.
This bill would delete those provisions. The bill instead would prohibit a licensed registered dispensing optician or a manufacturer or distributor of optical goods that is renting or leasing office space to or from, sharing office space with, or receiving space from an optometrist from engaging in conduct that would influence or interfere with the clinical decisions, as defined, of that optometrist, as specified. The bill would prohibit an optometrist that is using or sharing office space with a registered dispensing optician from giving or receiving, among other things, a fee or thing of material value, to or from any person in return for referral of patients or to secure patients. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable as a misdemeanor.
(3)Existing law permits a certificate of a registered dispensing optician to be suspended, revoked, or subjected to probation for violation of regulations or laws, as specified, or for incompetence, gross negligence, or repeated similar negligent acts by the registrant or an employee, as provided.
This bill would delete those provisions. The bill similarly would permit a certificate of a registered dispensing optician to be suspended, revoked, or subjected to probation for violation of regulations or laws, as specified, or for incompetence, gross negligence, or repeated negligent acts by the registrant or an employee, as provided, and additionally would permit the certificate to be suspended, revoked, or subjected to probation for unprofessional conduct, which includes repeated interference with the optometrists clinical judgment or compliance with prevailing clinical standards. The bill authorizes assessment of administrative fines for violation of specified provisions of law and requires registered dispensing opticians to cooperate with investigations into a complaint or alleged violation of law.
(4)Under existing law, it is unlawful for a registered dispensing optician to advertise the furnishing of, or to furnish, the services of a refractionist, an optometrist, or a physician and surgeon; to directly or indirectly employ or maintain on or near the premises used for optical dispensing a refractionist, an optometrist, a physician and surgeon, or a practitioner of any other profession for the purpose of any examination or treatment of the eyes; or to duplicate or change lenses without a prescription or order from a person duly licensed to issue the same.
This bill would delete those prohibitions.
(5)The Optometry Practice Act prohibits a person from having an office for the practice of optometry unless he or she is licensed to practice optometry, and requires an optometrist that has more than one office to comply with certain provisions of the act, including, among others, that an optometrist obtain a branch office license for any additional office. The act prohibits more than one branch office license from being issued to an optometrist or any 2 or more optometrists, jointly. The act requires an optometrist that had a branch office prior to January 1, 1957, and who wants to continue that branch office on or after that date to notify the board, as specified.
The bill would delete the prohibition of an optometrist or 2 or more optometrists, jointly, from having more than one branch office, and would delete the requirement that an optometrist that had a branch office prior to January 1, 1957, and who wants to continue that branch office to notify the board. The bill would prohibit a person from having any proprietary interest in an office for the practice of optometry unless he or she is licensed to practice optometry. The bill would specify that a branch office is any additional office that is not the principal place of business of an optometrist, as specified.
(6)The Optometry Practice Act prohibits an optometrist from directly or indirectly accepting employment from any person not having a valid, unrevoked license as an optometrist, except that the act authorizes an optometrist to be employed by a physician and surgeon who practices in the specialty of ophthalmology or by a health care service plan.
This bill would require an optometrist to report to the State Board of Optometry any action or circumstance that the optometrist reasonably and in good faith believes is an attempt by a registered dispensing optician, or an employee or agent thereof, to interfere with the optometrists independent clinical judgment or compliance with prevailing clinical standards. The bill would require the State Board of Optometry to report these complaints to the Division of Licensing of the Medical Board of California.
(7)The bill also would require the State Board of Optometry to receive any complaint made to a state board or department related to care provided to a patient by a licensed optometrist.
(8)A violation of the optometry laws and the law governing registered dispensing opticians is a crime. Therefore, by expanding the scope of an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
