How a speeding ticket can be worse than running someone over

You can kill someone with your car in California and not even have a point on your license. 

A criminal justice reform bill passed in 2020 allows judges to effectively erase a misdemeanor case from existence, shielding people accused of “low-level” crimes from the stigma of having a conviction on their record, something that can limit work and housing opportunities. 

But CalMatters investigative reporters Robert Lewis and Lauren Hepler found that the new misdemeanor diversion program has also had an unintended consequence: It allows some people charged with vehicular manslaughter to keep the case off of their driving record. 

That means you could face more penalties for a speeding ticket than for running someone over.

• Allison Lyman, whose 23-year-old son, Connor Lopez, was killed when a woman hit his motorcycle in April: “I’m 43 and I will have to live the rest of my life without my son. But there’ll be no record of it for her?”

It’s part of a larger anger and frustration Lyman has at how the system is treating her son’s death. She said she was talking to police and one of the officers kept referring to the case as “low-level.”

• Lyman: “She took my son’s life, but that’s how they’re seen — low-level.”

The 2020 law went further than typical diversion programs, which normally let a judge pause a case and order a defendant to meet certain requirements. The law allows judges to order diversion for almost all misdemeanors, with few, if any, requirements that defendants have to fulfill, and over the objection of a prosecutor. 

Read the full story, which is Part 5 of our ongoing License to Kill investigation. 

Health insurer Aetna will cover fertility treatments for same-sex couples following a preliminary agreement approved last week by a federal Northern California judge. The landmark settlement, stemming from a class action lawsuit, is the first to require a health insurer to apply this policy nationally across all of its enrollees, reports CalMatters’ Kristen Hwang.

To qualify for fertility treatments — such as artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization — Aetna previously required enrollees to partake in up to 12 months of “unprotected heterosexual sexual intercourse” without successfully conceiving, according to the class action complaint. The policy allowed for women “without a male partner” to access benefits only after undergoing up to 12 unsuccessful cycles of artificial insemination.

The judge sided with lawyers who argued that the policy treated LGBTQ members differently and denied them access to the benefit. An estimated 91,000 Californians will benefit from the terms. 

Read more here.

From CalMatters homelessness reporter Marisa Kendall:

A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from going through with its plan to drastically cut the amount of federal funds that can be spent on permanent housing for homeless individuals. The Trump administration wants to put that money toward emergency shelters, especially those that require people to stay sober or adhere to other limits on their behavior.

Two lawsuits have challenged Trump’s proposed funding shift. California is a plaintiff in one, and Santa Clara County and San Francisco are plaintiffs in the other. After those lawsuits were filed, the federal government withdrew its proposed funding changes, but said it would issue a new, revised funding notice.

The judge who issued the temporary block last week agreed with plaintiffs’ arguments that Trump’s last-minute changes would have forced people out of housing and back onto the streets in the middle of winter, according to NPR.

Beginning January, California and Los Angeles County will ban local and federal law enforcement officers from covering their faces, with some exceptions, writes CalMatters’ Nigel Duara. California passed the law in response to federal immigration raids over the course of the year carried out by masked agents.

Citing that it threatens the safety of federal agents, the Trump administration is suing California to block the law. Organizations representing California law officers also opposed the legislation as it made its way through the Legislature, arguing that it would put “unnecessary burdens” on officers.

The law will require local and county police to enforce the mask ban for federal officers. But California police leaders say the new law is likely unconstitutional, so it’s unclear if police in the state can enforce the new provision.

Read more here.

Catch up on two CalMatters stories you may have missed:

• California researchers are ringing alarm bells after the Trump administration said it plans to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Scientists argue that without the crucial research hub for weather, wildfire and climate science, it will be harder for the state to respond to extreme weather events. Read more from Rachel Becker.

• State regulators approved a slight reduction to the profits shareholders are allowed to receive from three major California utility companies. The decision was criticized by the companies, and it is unlikely that the move will significantly lower customer bills. Read more from Malena Carollo.