How can a speeding ticket 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 felony case from existence, protecting people charged with “low-level” crimes from the stigma of having a conviction on their record, something that can limit employment and housing opportunities.

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

This means you can get more penalties for a speeding ticket than for running someone over.

• Allison Limanwhose 23-year-old son, Connor Lopez, was killed when a woman crashed his motorcycle in April: “I’m 43 and I’m going to have to live the rest of my life without my son. But there’s not going to be a record of that for her?”

It’s part of Lyman’s larger anger and frustration with the way the system handled her son’s death. She said she spoke with police and one of the officers continued to refer to the case as “low-level.”

• Lyman: “She took my son’s life, but that’s how they’re looked at – at a low level.”

The 2020 law went further than typical diversion programs, which typically allow a judge to stay the case and order the defendant to meet certain requirements. The law allows judges to order diversion for almost all misdemeanors, with few, if any, requirements for defendants to meet, and over the prosecutor’s objection.

Read the full storywhich is part 5 of our ongoing License to kill an investigation.

Health insurer Aetna will cover infertility treatment for same-sex couples following a preliminary settlement approved last week by a federal judge in Northern California. The remarkable settlementstemming from a class-action lawsuit, is the first to require a health insurer to implement the policy nationally for all of its enrollees, CalMatters’ Kristen Huang reports.

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

The judge sided with attorneys who argued the policy treats LGBTQ members differently and denies them access to the benefit. Approximately 91,000 Californians will benefit from the terms.

Read more here.

From CalMatters homelessness reporter Marissa Kendall:

A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from implementing its plan to drastically cut the amount of federal funds that can be spent on permanently housing homeless individuals. The Trump administration wants to direct that money to emergency shelters, especially those that require people to stay sober or adhere to other behavioral restrictions.

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

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

Starting in early January, California and Los Angeles County will ban local and federal law enforcement officers not to cover their faceswith some exceptions, writes CalMatters’ Nigel Duara. California passed the law in response to federal immigration sweeps last year by undercover agents.

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

The law would require local and state police to enforce the mask ban for federal employees. But California police leaders say the new law is likely unconstitutional, so it’s unclear whether state police can enforce the new provision.

Read more here.

Catch up on two CalMatters stories you may have missed:

• California researchers are sounding the alarm after the Trump administration said it planned to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Scientists say without the crucial weather, wildfire and climate science research center, it will be harder for the state to respond to extreme weather events. Read more by Rachel Becker.

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