SB 456: Criminal threats: discharge of a firearm.
- Session Year: 2015-2016
- House: Senate
- Latest Version Date: 2015-08-27
Existing law requires a person who willfully threatens to commit a crime that will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, and thereby causes that other person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate familys safety, to be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
This bill would make a person who willfully threatens, by specified means, to discharge a firearm on the campus of a school, as defined, or location where a school-sponsored event is or will be taking place and the threat is related both to the school-sponsored event and to the time period in which the school-sponsored event will be taking place, with specific intent and under circumstances that convey a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, guilty of a misdemeanor or felony punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for a specified term.
By creating a 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.
Existing law requires a person who willfully threatens to commit a crime that will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, and thereby causes that other person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate familys safety, to be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
This bill would make a person who willfully threatens, by specified means, to discharge a firearm on the campus of a school, as defined, or location where a school-sponsored event is or will be taking place, place and the threat is related both to the school-sponsored event and to the time period in which the school-sponsored event will be taking place, with specific intent and under circumstances that convey a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, guilty of a misdemeanor or felony punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for a specified term.
By creating a 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.
Existing law requires a person who willfully threatens to commit a crime that will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, and thereby causes that other person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate familys safety, to be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
This bill would provide that make a person who willfully threatens, by specified means, to discharge a firearm on the campus of a school, as defined, or location where a school-sponsored event is or will be taking place, with specific intent and under circumstances where the threat would reasonably be understood as true, and where the person making the threat knows or should know that the threat would be understood as true, is that convey a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, guilty of a misdemeanor or felony punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000, by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. The bill would state that precautionary measures taken by a school or law enforcement agency is evidence that the threat was reasonably understood as true. The bill would also make a person convicted of committing this conduct liable to the public agency for the reasonable costs of the emergency response by that public agency. specified term.
By creating a 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.
Existing law requires a person who willfully threatens to commit a crime that will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, and thereby causes that other person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate familys safety, to be punished by imprisonment in the a county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
This bill would provide that a person who threatens, by specified means, to discharge a firearm on the campus of a school, as defined, or location where a school-sponsored event is taking place, under circumstances where the threat would reasonably be understood as true, and where the person making the threat knows or should know that the threat would be understood as true, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000, by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. The bill would state that precautionary measures taken by a school or law enforcement agency is evidence that the threat was reasonably understood as true. The bill would also make a person convicted of committing this conduct liable to the public agency for the reasonable costs of the emergency response by that public agency.
By creating a 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.
Existing law requires a person who willfully threatens to commit a crime that will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, and thereby causes that other person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate familys safety, to be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
This bill would provide that a person who maliciously threatens threatens, by specified means, to discharge a firearm on the campus of a public or private university, community college, school school, as defined, or location where a school-sponsored event is taking place, and who maliciously causes the report of that threat to be made, orally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, to law enforcement, under circumstances where the threat would reasonably be understood as true, and where the person making the threat knows or should know that the threat would be understood as true, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000, by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. The bill would state that precautionary measures taken by a school or law enforcement agency is evidence that the threat was reasonably understood as true. The bill would also make a person convicted of committing this conduct, based on a report that resulted in an emergency response, conduct liable to the public agency for the reasonable costs of the emergency response by that public agency.
By creating a 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.
Existing law requires a person who willfully threatens to commit a crime that will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, and thereby causes that other person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate familys safety, to be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
This bill would provide that a person who maliciously threatens to discharge a firearm on the campus of a public or private university, community college, school, or location where a school-sponsored event is taking place, and who maliciously causes the report of that threat to be made, orally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, to law enforcement, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000, by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. The bill would also make a person convicted of committing this conduct, based on a report that resulted in an emergency response, liable to the public agency for the reasonable costs of the emergency response by that public agency.
By creating a 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.
(a)A person who willfully threatens to discharge a firearm, which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, on the campus of a school, or location where a school-sponsored event is or will be taking place and the threat is related both to the school-sponsored event and to the time period in which the school-sponsored event will be taking place, with the specific intent that the statement is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of carrying it out, and where the threat, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
(b)A threat to discharge a firearm described in subdivision (a) includes a threat that is communicated orally, in writing, by means of an electronic communication device, including, but not limited to, a telephone, cellular telephone, computer, video recorder, fax machine, text message, and social media, and by any other means.
(c)For purposes of this section, school means a state preschool, private or public elementary school, middle school, vocational school, junior high school, high school, community college, or public or private university.
(d)This section does not preclude or prohibit prosecution under any other law, except that a person shall not be convicted for the same threat under both this section and Section 422.
SEC. 2.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
(a)A person who willfully threatens to discharge a firearm, which will result in death or great bodily injury, injury to another person, on the campus of a school, or location where a school-sponsored event is or will be taking place, place and the threat is related both to the school-sponsored event and to the time period in which the school-sponsored event will be taking place, with the specific intent that the statement is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of carrying it out, and where the threat, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
(b)A threat to discharge a firearm described in subdivision (a) includes a threat that is communicated orally, in writing, by means of an electronic communication device, including, but not limited to, a telephone, cellular telephone, computer, video recorder, fax machine, text message, and social media, and by any other means.
(c)For purposes of this section, school means a state preschool, private or public elementary school, middle school, vocational school, junior high school, high school, community college, or public or private university.
(d)This section does not preclude or prohibit prosecution under any other law. law, except that a person shall not be convicted for the same threat under both this section and Section 422.
SEC. 2.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
(a)A person who willfully threatens to discharge a firearm firearm, which will result in death or great bodily injury, on the campus of a school, or location where a school-sponsored event is or will be taking place, under circumstances where the threat would reasonably be understood as true, and where the person making the threat knows or should know that the threat would be understood as true, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable with the specific intent that the statement is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of carrying it out, and where the threat, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
(b)The fact that precautionary measures were taken by a school or law enforcement agency is evidence that the threat was reasonably understood as true.
(c)
(b)A threat to discharge a firearm described in subdivision (a) includes a threat that is communicated orally, in writing, by means of an electronic communication device, including, but not limited to, a telephone, cellular telephone, computer, video recorder, fax machine, text message, and social media, and by any other means.
(d)
(c)For purposes of this section, school means a state preschool, private or public elementary school, middle school, vocational school, junior high school, high school, community college, or public or private university.
(e)
(d)This section does not preclude or prohibit prosecution under any other law.
(f)A person convicted of violating this section, or adjudged a ward of the juvenile court pursuant to Section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code based upon a violation of this section, is liable to a public agency for any reasonable costs of the emergency response to the persons threat by that public agency.
SEC. 2.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
(a)A person who threatens to discharge a firearm on the campus of a school, or location where a school-sponsored event is taking place, under circumstances where the threat would reasonably be understood as true, and where the person making the threat knows or should know that the threat would be understood as true, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b)The fact that precautionary measures were taken by a school or law enforcement agency is evidence that the threat was reasonably understood as true.
(c)A threat to discharge a firearm described in subdivision (a) includes a threat that is communicated orally, in writing, by means of an electronic communication device, including, but not limited to, a telephone, cellular telephone, computer, video recorder, fax machine, text message, and social media, and by any other means.
(d)For purposes of this section, school means a state preschool, private or public elementary school, middle school, vocational school, junior high school, or high school. school, community college, or public or private university.
(e)This section does not preclude or prohibit prosecution under any other law.
(f)A person convicted of violating this section, or adjudged a ward of the juvenile court pursuant to Section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code based upon a violation of this section, is liable to a public agency for any reasonable costs of the emergency response to the persons threat by that public agency.
SEC. 2.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
(a)A person who maliciously threatens to discharge a firearm on the campus of a public or private university, community college, school, or location where a school-sponsored event is taking place in the state, and who maliciously causes the report of that threat to be made to law enforcement, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b)A threat to discharge a firearm described in subdivision (a) includes a threat that is communicated orally, in writing, by means of an electronic communication device, including, but not limited to, a telephone, cellular telephone, computer, video recorder, fax machine, text message, on social media, or by any other means.
(c)School as used in this section means a preschool, elementary school, middle school, junior high school, high school, or charter school.
(d)This section does not preclude punishing a person for conduct described in subdivision (a) under any other law providing for greater punishment.
(e)A person convicted of violating this section, based upon a report that resulted in an emergency response, is liable to the public agency for the reasonable costs of the emergency response by that public agency.
SECTION 1.Section 422.3 is added to the Penal Code, to read:422.3.(a)A person who threatens to discharge a firearm on the campus of a school, or location where a school-sponsored event is taking place, under circumstances where the threat would reasonably be understood as true, and where the person making the threat knows or should know that the threat would be understood as true, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b)The fact that precautionary measures were taken by a school or law enforcement agency is evidence that the threat was reasonably understood as true.
(c)A threat to discharge a firearm described in subdivision (a) includes a threat that is communicated orally, in writing, by means of an electronic communication device, including, but not limited to, a telephone, cellular telephone, computer, video recorder, fax machine, text message, and social media, and by any other means.
(d)For purposes of this section, school means a state preschool, private or public elementary school, middle school, vocational school, junior high school, or high school.
(e)This section does not preclude or prohibit prosecution under any other law.
(f)A person convicted of violating this section, or adjudged a ward of the juvenile court pursuant to Section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code based upon a violation of this section, is liable to a public agency for any reasonable costs of the emergency response to the persons threat by that public agency.
SEC. 2.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
(a)A person who maliciously threatens to discharge a firearm on the campus of a public or private university, community college, school, or location where a school-sponsored event is taking place in the state, and who maliciously causes the report of that threat to be made to law enforcement, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b)A threat to discharge a firearm described in subdivision (a) includes a threat that is communicated orally, in writing, by means of an electronic communication device, including, but not limited to, a telephone, cellular telephone, computer, video recorder, fax machine, text message, on social media, or by any other means.
(c)School as used in this section means a preschool, elementary school, middle school, junior high school, high school, or charter school.
(d)This section does not preclude punishing a person for conduct described in subdivision (a) under any other law providing for greater punishment.
(e)A person convicted of violating this section, based upon a report that resulted in an emergency response, is liable to the public agency for the reasonable costs of the emergency response by that public agency.
SEC. 2.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Aug 25, 2015 | Ordered to special consent calendar. |
| Jul 9, 2015 | Read second time. Ordered to consent calendar. |
| Jul 13, 2015 | From consent calendar. |
| Jul 13, 2015 | Ordered to third reading. |
| Jul 16, 2015 | Ordered to third reading. |
| Jul 16, 2015 | Read third time and amended. |
| Aug 20, 2015 | In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending. |
| Aug 20, 2015 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. |
| Aug 20, 2015 | Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 2528.) Ordered to the Senate. |
| Jul 8, 2015 | From committee: Do pass. Ordered to consent calendar. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (July 8). |
| Aug 27, 2015 | Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 2206.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling. |
| Aug 27, 2015 | Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 40. Noes 0.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling. |
| Aug 28, 2015 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3:45 p.m. |
| Sep 8, 2015 | In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending. |
| Sep 8, 2015 | Vetoed by the Governor. |
| Sep 9, 2015 | In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending. |
| Apr 19, 2016 | Last day to consider Governors veto pursuant to Joint Rule 58.5. |
| Apr 19, 2016 | Last day to consider Governor’s veto pursuant to Joint Rule 58.5. |
| May 12, 2015 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Feb 26, 2015 | From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 28. |
| Mar 5, 2015 | Referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| Mar 11, 2015 | Set for hearing April 14. |
| Apr 22, 2015 | From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0. Page 595.) (April 14). |
| Apr 22, 2015 | From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (April 14). |
| Apr 23, 2015 | Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| May 1, 2015 | Set for hearing May 11. |
| May 11, 2015 | From committee: Be ordered to second reading pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8. |
| Feb 25, 2015 | Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print. |
| May 18, 2015 | In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk. |
| May 18, 2015 | Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 36. Noes 0. Page 1021.) Ordered to the Assembly. |
| May 18, 2015 | Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 36. Noes 0.) Ordered to the Assembly. |
| May 28, 2015 | Referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| Jun 9, 2015 | From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| Jun 18, 2015 | From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 16). |
| Jun 19, 2015 | Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 27, 2015 | Special Consent #7 SB456 Block | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Aug 20, 2015 | SB 456 Block Senate Third Reading By GONZALEZ | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Jul 8, 2015 | Do pass. To Consent Calendar. | Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Jun 16, 2015 | Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety |
Passed |
|
| May 18, 2015 | Senate 3rd Reading SB456 Block | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Apr 14, 2015 | Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| American Civil Liberties Union of California | ** Against | Jul 16, 2015 |
| Association For Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs | ** Support | Jul 16, 2015 |
| California Chapters of the Brady Campaign | ** Support | Jul 16, 2015 |
| California District Attorneys Association | ** Support | Jul 16, 2015 |
| California Public Defenders Association | ** Against | Jul 16, 2015 |
| California State Sheriffs' Association | ** Support | Jul 16, 2015 |
| Firearms Policy Coalition | ** Against | Jul 16, 2015 |
| Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence | ** Support | Jul 16, 2015 |
| Legal Services for Prisoners with Children | ** Against | Jul 16, 2015 |
| Los Angeles Association of Deputy District Attorneys | ** Support | Jul 16, 2015 |
| Los Angeles County District Attorney'S Office | ** Support | Jul 16, 2015 |
| Los Angeles Police Protective League | ** Support | Jul 16, 2015 |
| Peace Officers Research Association Of California | ** Support | Jul 16, 2015 |
| Public Counsel | ** Against | Jul 16, 2015 |
| San Diego County District Attorney's Office | ** Support | Jul 16, 2015 |
| San Diego District Attorney Bonnie M. Dumanis | ** Support | May 18, 2015 |
SB 456
Page 5
|
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 |
SB 456 |
VETO
Bill No: SB 456
Amended: 7/16/15
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 4/14/15
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Leno, McGuire, Monning, Stone
NO VOTE RECORDED: Liu
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SENATE FLOOR: 36-0, 5/18/15
AYES: Allen, Anderson, Bates, Beall, Block, Cannella, De León, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan, Roth, Runner, Stone, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wolk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Berryhill, Hall, Pavley
SENATE FLOOR: 40-0, 8/27/15
AYES: Allen, Anderson, Bates, Beall, Berryhill, Block, Cannella, De León, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hall, Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan, Pavley, Roth, Runner, Stone, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wolk
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 8/20/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Criminal threats: discharge of a firearm
SOURCE: San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie M. Dumanis
DIGEST: This bill enacts a new misdemeanor prohibiting persons from threatening to discharge a firearm at a school or at a location where a school-sponsored event is or will be taking place, as specified.
ANALYSIS: Existing law provides that “any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family’s safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.” (Penal Code § 422).
This bill:
Provides that a person who willfully threatens to discharge a firearm, which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, on the campus of a school, or location where a school-sponsored event is or will be taking place and the threat is related both to the school-sponsored event and to the time period in which the school-sponsored event will be taking place, with the specific intent that the statement is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of carrying it out, and where the threat, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment, as specified.
Provides that a threat to discharge a firearm [as specified] includes a threat that is communicated orally, in writing, by means of an electronic communication device, including, but not limited to, a telephone, cellular telephone, computer, video recorder, fax machine, text message, and social media, and by any other means.
Defines “school” to mean a state preschool, private or public elementary school, middle school, vocational school, junior high school, high school, community college, or public or private university.
Does not preclude or prohibit prosecution under any other law, except that a person shall not be convicted for the same threat under both this section, [422.3] and Section 422 [of the Penal Code].
Background
Recent media reports have described numerous incidents involving school threats. For example, in San Diego:
…[T]here were 5 percent more suspensions and expulsions in San Diego County related to making terrorist threats in the 2013-14 school year than in the previous school year, and 35 percent more than in the 2011-12 school year. Threats typically surface on social media or are made via phone or email. Once school officials learn of it, police are called in to investigate, and a school might get locked down, with everyone on campus kept behind locked doors until the coast is clear. That could take hours.
Students from high school campuses in Oceanside, San Diego, El Cajon and San Marcos, have been arrested on suspicion of using the app to threaten schools.
The CEO, Jonathan Lucas, said recent changes to the app make it “very clear” that threats of violence and bullying won’t be tolerated. He said users are asked to carefully consider the contents of their posts and are even shown their IP addresses. He said the company has been cooperating with all law enforcement investigations and has a quick process in place to help investigators locate users who commit crimes. (Winkley, Lyndsay, and Pat Maio. “Online Schools Threats Up; Officials Crack down.” U-T San Diego. N.p., 22 Mar. 2015. Web. 07 Apr. 2015.)
Similarly, in Los Angeles, an 11th grade student was arrested for making threats through the social media app, Burnbook, against a Los Angeles County high school. Investigators were informed that the student had published the threat online and was taken into custody the following day. He was charged with making criminal threats after he confessed to threatening to bring a weapon to school. The student told deputies that he was making jokes. (“Student Arrested after Social Media Threats against School.” Student Arrested following Threats on Social Media against Los Angeles County School. The Associated Press, 12 Mar. 2015. Web. 07 Apr. 2015.)
This bill has been narrowed through the process to address 1st Amendment concerns. Constitutional principles required to impose crime penalties for a threat, are that it must be with “specific intent that the statement is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of carrying it out, and where the threat, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat.”
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie M. Dumanis (source)
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
California District Attorneys Association
California State Sheriffs’ Association
Los Angeles Association of Deputy District Attorneys
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Riverside Sheriffs’ Association
OPPOSITION: (Verified 10/27/15)
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Youth Law Center
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:
I am returning Senate Bill 456 without my signature.
No one could be anything but intolerant of threats to cause great bodily injury, especially on school grounds. Certainly not legislators, who voted nearly unanimously for this bill.
While I'm sympathetic and utterly committed to ensuring maximum safety for California's school children, the offensive conduct covered by this bill is already illegal.
In recent decades, California has created an unprecedented number of new and detailed criminal laws. Before we keep enacting more, I think we should pause and reflect on the fact that our bulging criminal code now contains in excess of 5,000 separate provisions, covering almost every conceivable form of human misbehavior.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 8/20/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Chu
Prepared by: Linda Tenerowicz / PUB. S. /
11/4/15 13:34:20
**** END ****
SB 456
Page 5
|
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 |
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 456
Amended: 7/16/15
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 4/14/15
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Leno, McGuire, Monning, Stone
NO VOTE RECORDED: Liu
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SENATE FLOOR: 36-0, 5/18/15
AYES: Allen, Anderson, Bates, Beall, Block, Cannella, De León, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan, Roth, Runner, Stone, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wolk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Berryhill, Hall, Pavley
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 8/20/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Criminal threats: discharge of a firearm
SOURCE: San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie M. Dumanis
DIGEST: This bill enacts a new misdemeanor prohibiting persons from threatening to discharge a firearm at a school or at a location where a school-sponsored event is or will be taking place, as specified.
Assembly Amendments specify that no person shall be convicted for the same threat under both Sections 422 and 422.3 of the Penal Code and that a threat made at a school-sponsored event must be related to both the school-sponsored event and to the time period in which the school-sponsored event will occur.
ANALYSIS: Existing law provides that “any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family’s safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.” (Penal Code § 422).
This bill:
Provides that a person who willfully threatens to discharge a firearm, which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, on the campus of a school, or location where a school-sponsored event is or will be taking place and the threat is related both to the school-sponsored event and to the time period in which the school-sponsored event will be taking place, with the specific intent that the statement is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of carrying it out, and where the threat, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment, as specified.
Provides that a threat to discharge a firearm [as specified] includes a threat that is communicated orally, in writing, by means of an electronic communication device, including, but not limited to, a telephone, cellular telephone, computer, video recorder, fax machine, text message, and social media, and by any other means.
Defines “school” to mean a state preschool, private or public elementary school, middle school, vocational school, junior high school, high school, community college, or public or private university.
Does not preclude or prohibit prosecution under any other law, except that a person shall not be convicted for the same threat under both this section, [422.3] and Section 422 [of the Penal Code].
Background
Recent media reports have described numerous incidents involving school threats. For example, in San Diego:
…[T]here were 5 percent more suspensions and expulsions in San Diego County related to making terrorist threats in the 2013-14 school year than in the previous school year, and 35 percent more than in the 2011-12 school year. Threats typically surface on social media or are made via phone or email. Once school officials learn of it, police are called in to investigate, and a school might get locked down, with everyone on campus kept behind locked doors until the coast is clear. That could take hours.
Students from high school campuses in Oceanside, San Diego, El Cajon and San Marcos, have been arrested on suspicion of using the app to threaten schools.
The CEO, Jonathan Lucas, said recent changes to the app make it “very clear” that threats of violence and bullying won’t be tolerated. He said users are asked to carefully consider the contents of their posts and are even shown their IP addresses. He said the company has been cooperating with all law enforcement investigations and has a quick process in place to help investigators locate users who commit crimes. (Winkley, Lyndsay, and Pat Maio. “Online Schools Threats Up; Officials Crack down.” U-T San Diego. N.p., 22 Mar. 2015. Web. 07 Apr. 2015.)
Similarly, in Los Angeles, an 11th grade student was arrested for making threats through the social media app, Burnbook, against a Los Angeles County high school. Investigators were informed that the student had published the threat online and was taken into custody the following day. He was charged with making criminal threats after he confessed to threatening to bring a weapon to school. The student told deputies that he was making jokes. (“Student Arrested after Social Media Threats against School.” Student Arrested following Threats on Social Media against Los Angeles County School. The Associated Press, 12 Mar. 2015. Web. 07 Apr. 2015.)
This
bill has been narrowed through the process to address 1st
Amendment concerns. Constitutional principles required to impose
crime penalties for a threat, are that it must be with “specific
intent that the statement is to be taken as a threat, even if there
is no intent of carrying it out, and where the threat, on its face
and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal,
unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey a gravity of
purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat.”
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
San Diego District Attorney Bonnie M. Dumanis (source)
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
California District Attorneys Association
California State Sheriffs’ Association
Los Angeles Association of Deputy District Attorneys
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Riverside Sheriffs’ Association
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/20/15)
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Youth Law Center
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:
The author writes:
SB 456 criminalizes the making of a threat to commit a school shooting, whether directed to a specific individual, or whether posted on social media for an invited or general viewing population.
A recent study of threats from August-December of 2014 by the President of National School Safety and Security Services shows some alarming trends. The number of threats in that time period was up 158% from last year, with 37% of those threats sent electronically via social media, e-mail, text messaging and other online resources. Nearly 30% of the threats analyzed resulted in a school evacuation, and 10% resulted in school closures for at least a portion of the day. In the San Diego Unified School District, alone, there have been 138 reported threats in the past year.
There are significant costs associated with threats that target schools—both in the initial response required to insure that the community is safe by shutting down the targeted schools, but also in the subsequent investigation that may require substantial time, resources, and opportunity costs.
SB 456 applies specifically to school-shooting threats, and does not require proof of a specifically targeted individual, or a demonstration of sustained fear by any one particular person, thus filling the gap left by statutes that proscribe bomb threats and criminal threats, SB 456 holds offenders accountable, deters future conduct, and shifts the burden of costs by authorizing the court to order restitution.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Opponents generally argue that minors should be disciplined through community-based services as an alternative to incarceration. Youth exposure to the criminal justice system heightens the likelihood that youth offenders will recidivate in adulthood, further aggravating prison overcrowding. Additionally, Penal Code Section 422 addresses criminal threats including those made through electronic means.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 8/20/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Chu
Prepared by: Linda Tenerowicz / PUB. S. /
8/21/15 13:19:10
SB 456
Page 2
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 456
(Block)
As Amended July 16, 2015
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: 36-0
Committee |
Votes |
Ayes |
Noes |
Public Safety |
7-0 |
Quirk, Melendez, Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Lopez, Low, Santiago |
|
Appropriations |
14-0 |
Gomez, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Chang, Eggman, Gallagher, Eduardo Garcia, Jones, Quirk, Rendon, Weber, Wood |
|
SUMMARY: Provides that any person who threatens to discharge a firearm on the campus of a school, as defined, or location where a school-sponsored event is or will be taking place, is guilty of an alternate felony-misdemeanor. Specifically, this bill:
States that any person who threatens to discharge a firearm which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person on the campus of a school, or location where a school-sponsored event is or will be taking place, with the specific intent that the statement is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of carrying it out, and where the threat, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to convey a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, is guilty of a misdemeanor or a county-jail eligible felony.
States that a threat to discharge a firearm at a location where a school-sponsored event is or will be taking place must be both related to the school-sponsored event and to the time period in which the school-sponsored event will be taking place.
Provides that a threat to discharge a firearm includes a threat that is communicated orally, in writing, by means of an electronic communication device, including, but not limited to, a telephone, cellular telephone, computer, video recorder, fax machine, text message, and social media, and by any other means.
Defines "school" as a state preschool, private or public elementary school, middle school, vocational school, junior high school, high school, community college, or public or private university.
Specifies that the provisions of this bill do not preclude or prohibit prosecution under any other law, except that a person shall not be convicted for the same threat under both the provisions created by this bill and the existing Penal Code section related to criminal threats.
EXISTING LAW:
States that any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family’s safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
States that any person who knowingly and willingly threatens the life of, or threatens serious bodily harm to, any elected public official, as specified, or the staff or immediate family of any of the specified elected public officials, with the specific intent that the statement is to be taken as a threat, and the apparent ability to carry out that threat by any means, is guilty of a public offense, punishable as either a misdemeanor or felony, as specified.
Provides that any person who knowingly threatens to use a weapon of mass destruction with the specific intent that the statement as defined or a statement made by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety shall be punished by either a misdemeanor or felony, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
Likely minor General Fund costs for increased state prison commitments for persons with a current or prior violent felony conviction who are convicted for a felony under the provisions of this bill. The universe of these individuals is expected to be very small. Assuming the annual contracted bed rate of $29,000 per inmate, the annual General Fund costs would be $29,000 per each additional year served under such conviction.
Moderate nonreimbursable local costs for incarceration for misdemeanor convictions, or felony convictions of individuals without a current or prior violent felony.
COMMENTS: According to the author, "Senate Bill 456 addresses oral, written, or electronically delivered threats of gun violence on school property – including elementary schools, community colleges, public and private universities, and locations where school functions are taking place. Threats of gun violence are costly to schools and law enforcement, and result in lost learning time for our students. These threats also create anxiety and fear for students, school staff, and parents. SB 456 will provide an important tool for law enforcement to deter future threats of gun violence in our schools."
Analysis Prepared by: Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0001262
SB 456
Page 2
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 456
(Block)
As Amended June 19, 2015
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: 36-0
Committee |
Votes |
Ayes |
Noes |
Public Safety |
7-0 |
Quirk, Melendez, Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Lopez, Low, Santiago |
|
Appropriations |
14-0 |
Gomez, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Chang, Eggman, Gallagher, Eduardo Garcia, Jones, Quirk, Rendon, Weber, Wood |
|
SUMMARY: Provides that any person who threatens to discharge a firearm on the campus of a school, as defined, or location where a school-sponsored event is or will be taking place, is guilty of an alternate felony-misdemeanor. Specifically, this bill:
States that any person who threatens to discharge a firearm which will result in death or great bodily injury on the campus of a school, or location where a school-sponsored event is or will be taking place, with the specific intent that the statement is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of carrying it out, and where the threat, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to convey a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, is guilty of a misdemeanor or a county-jail eligible felony.
Provides that a threat to discharge a firearm includes a threat that is communicated orally, in writing, by means of an electronic communication device, including, but not limited to, a telephone, cellular telephone, computer, video recorder, fax machine, text message, and social media, and by any other means.
Defines "school" as a state preschool, private or public elementary school, middle school, vocational school, junior high school, high school, community college, or public or private university.
Specifies that the provisions of this bill do not preclude or prohibit prosecution under any other law.
EXISTING LAW:
States that any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family’s safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
States that any person who knowingly and willingly threatens the life of, or threatens serious bodily harm to, any elected public official, as specified, or the staff or immediate family of any of the specified elected public officials, with the specific intent that the statement is to be taken as a threat, and the apparent ability to carry out that threat by any means, is guilty of a public offense, punishable as either a misdemeanor or felony, as specified.
Provides that any person who knowingly threatens to use a weapon of mass destruction with the specific intent that the statement as defined or a statement made by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety shall be punished by either a misdemeanor or felony, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
Likely minor General Fund costs for increased state prison commitments for persons with a current or prior violent felony conviction who are convicted for a felony under the provisions of this bill. The universe of these individuals is expected to be very small. Assuming the annual contracted bed rate of $29,000 per inmate, the annual General Fund costs would be $29,000 per each additional year served under such conviction.
Moderate nonreimbursable local costs for incarceration for misdemeanor convictions, or felony convictions of individuals without a current or prior violent felony.
COMMENTS: According to the author, "Senate Bill 456 addresses oral, written, or electronically delivered threats of gun violence on school property – including elementary schools, community colleges, public and private universities, and locations where school functions are taking place. Threats of gun violence are costly to schools and law enforcement, and result in lost learning time for our students. These threats also create anxiety and fear for students, school staff, and parents. SB 456 will provide an important tool for law enforcement to deter future threats of gun violence in our schools."
Analysis Prepared by: Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0001219
Date of Hearing: July 8, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
SB 456
(Block) – As Amended June 19, 2015
Policy Committee: |
Public Safety |
Vote: |
7 - 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill enacts a new alternate felony-misdemeanor crime for a threat to discharge a firearm on the grounds of a school or when a school event is taking place, punishable by up to one year in county jail, or prison if the individual has a prior qualifying felony.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Likely minor GF costs for increased state prison commitments for persons with a current or prior violent felony conviction who are convicted for a felony under the provisions of this bill. The universe of these individuals is expected to be very small. Assuming the annual contracted bed rate of $29,000 per inmate, the annual General Fund costs would be $29,000 per each additional year served under such conviction.
Moderate nonreimbursable local costs for incarceration for misdemeanor convictions, or felony convictions of individuals without a current or prior violent felony.
COMMENTS:
Purpose. According to the author, "Senate Bill 456 addresses oral, written, or electronically delivered threats of gun violence on school property – including elementary schools, community colleges, public and private universities, and locations where school functions are taking place. Threats of gun violence are costly to schools and law enforcement, and result in lost learning time for our students. These threats also create anxiety and fear for students, school staff, and parents. SB 456 will provide an important tool for law enforcement to deter future threats of gun violence in our schools."
Background. Under current law, any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family’s safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
This bill creates the specific crime of criminal threats when the threat is to discharge a firearm on the campus of a school or where a school-sponsored event is taking place. This bill incorporates all of the elements from the general criminal threats statute with the exception of the requirement that the person threatened must be in sustained fear for his or her own safety. The sponsor of this bill has expressed that this element does not fit well into instances of threats of shootings at schools because often times these threats do not specify who the target is. Rather, the threat typically applies to all students or staff at the school.
Argument in Support: According to the San Diego County District Attorney's Office, "SB 456 criminalizes the making of a threat to commit a school shooting, whether directed to a specific individual, or whether posted on social media for an invited or general viewing population.
Argument in Opposition: According to Public Counsel, "SB 456 is unnecessary and ultimately will not help the safety or long-term well-being of our students or our state. Students who make these threats aimed at a school or other youth – whether by electronic means or otherwise – can be subjected to discipline, including suspension or expulsion."
"Criminalizing students in addition to punishing them at school
will cause significant and long-lasting harms to our young people and
hurt their ability to develop into productive adults. Research shows
being stopped or arrested actually increases the chances that
a youth will engage in delinquency. Further, a first-time arrest
doubles the chances that a student will drop out of high school, and
a first-time court appearance quadruples those chances. Studies have
also shown that involvement with the juvenile justice system can
limit a young person's ability to obtain future employment or attend
college."
Related Legislation: SB 110 (Fuller), also on today's agenda, makes it an alternate felony-misdemeanor offense for any person to willfully threaten unlawful violence that will result in death or great bodily injury to occur on the grounds of a school, as defined, where the threat creates a disruption at the school.
Analysis Prepared by: Pedro R. Reyes / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
SB 456
Page 6
Date of Hearing: June 16, 2015
Counsel: Stella Choe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Bill Quirk, Chair
SB 456
(Block) – As Amended June 9, 2015
As Proposed to be Amended in Committee
SUMMARY:
Provides that any person who threatens to
discharge a firearm on the campus of a school, as defined, or
location where a school-sponsored event is or will be taking place,
is guilty of an alternate felony-misdemeanor. Specifically, this
bill:
States that any person who threatens to discharge a firearm which will result in death or great bodily injury on the campus of a school, or location where a school-sponsored event is or will be taking place, with the specific intent that the statement is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of carrying it out, and where the threat, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to convey a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, is guilty of a misdemeanor or a county-jail eligible felony.
Provides that a threat to discharge a firearm includes a threat that is communicated orally, in writing, by means of an electronic communication device, including, but not limited to, a telephone, cellular telephone, computer, video recorder, fax machine, text message, and social media, and by any other means.
Defines "school" as a state preschool, private or public elementary school, middle school, vocational school, junior high school, high school, community college, or public or private university.
Specifies that the provisions of this bill do not preclude or prohibit prosecution under any other law.
EXISTING LAW:
States that any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family’s safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison. (Pen. Code, § 422.)
States that any person who knowingly and willingly threatens the life of, or threatens serious bodily harm to, any elected public official, as specified, or the staff or immediate family of any of the specified elected public officials, with the specific intent that the statement is to be taken as a threat, and the apparent ability to carry out that threat by any means, is guilty of a public offense, punishable as either a misdemeanor or felony, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 76.)
Provides that any person who knowingly threatens to use a weapon of mass destruction with the specific intent that the statement as defined or a statement made by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety shall be punished by either a misdemeanor or felony, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 11418.5, subd. (a).)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
Author's Statement: According to the author, "Senate Bill 456 addresses oral, written, or electronically delivered threats of gun violence on school property – including elementary schools, community colleges, public and private universities, and locations where school functions are taking place. Threats of gun violence are costly to schools and law enforcement, and result in lost learning time for our students. These threats also create anxiety and fear for students, school staff, and parents. SB 456 will provide an important tool for law enforcement to deter future threats of gun violence in our schools."
First Amendment: Restrictions on Threatening Speech: The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . ." This fundamental right is applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal. 4th 121, 133-134, citing Gitlow v. People of New York (1925) 268 U.S. 652, 666.) Article I, section 2, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution provides that: "Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press."
While these guarantees are stated in broad terms, "the right to free speech is not absolute." (Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., supra, 21 Cal. 4th at p. 134, citing Near v. Minnesota (1931) 283 U.S. 697, 708; and Stromberg v. California (1931) 283 U.S. 359.) As the United States Supreme Court has acknowledged: "Many crimes can consist solely of spoken words, such as soliciting a bribe (Pen. Code, § 653f), perjury (Pen. Code, § 118), or making a terrorist threat (Pen. Code, § 422)." In In re M.S. (1995) 10 Cal. 4th 698, 710, the court held that "the state may penalize threats, even those consisting of pure speech, provided the relevant statute singles out for punishment threats falling outside the scope of First Amendment protection." Nonetheless, statutes criminalizing threats must be narrowly directed against only those threats that truly pose a danger to society. (People v. Mirmirani (1981) 30 Cal. 3d 375, 388, fn. 10.)
The First Amendment permits states to ban a true threat. (Watts v. United States (1969) 394 U.S. 705, 708.) True threats are "statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals." (Virginia v. Black (2003) 538 U.S. 343, 359, citing Watts v. United States, supra, 394 U.S. at 708.)
Recently, the Supreme Court again reviewed criminal threats and the mental state required. (Elonis v. United States, No. 13-983, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 3719 (2015).) Elonis was convicted of making criminal threats against his soon-to-be ex-wife and others after he posted several rap lyrics that included graphically violent language and imagery on his Facebook page. There were added disclaimers that the lyrics were "fictitious" and his writings were "therapeutic" and helped him "deal with the pain." (Id. at *6-7.) At trial, the court instructed the jury that Elonis could be found guilty if a reasonable person would foresee that his statements would be interpreted as a threat. (Id. at *1.) The prosecution's closing argument also emphasized that it was irrelevant whether Elonis intended the Facebook postings to be threats. (Id. at *13.) The appellate court held that the prosecution only had to show that Elonis intentionally made the communication, not that he intended to make a threat. The Supreme Court reversed that decision and overturned Elonis' conviction finding that the prosecution failed to make a showing of Elonis' subjective intent.
Elonis' conviction was based on how his Facebook posts would be understood by a reasonable person, rather than his subjective intent. The Court rejected the use of this standard, asserting that "[h]aving liability turn on whether a 'reasonable person' regards the communication as a threat—regardless of what the defendant thinks— 'reduces culpability on the all-important element of the crime to negligence,' and we 'have long been reluctant to infer that a negligence standard was intended in criminal statutes.' Under these principles, 'what [Elonis] thinks' does matter." (Elonis v. United States, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 3719, at *22-23.)
This bill requires a showing of specific intent on the part of the person communicating the threat, rather than negligence or even recklessness. This is the highest level of culpability required for a crime, which satisfies the Supreme Court's ruling in both Elonis v. United States, supra, and Virginia v. Black, supra. Additionally, the bill requires that the threat on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat. This language is contained in current statutes punishing true threats and has been accepted by the California Supreme Court. (People v. Mirmirani, supra, 30 Cal. 3d at p. 388, fn. 10, quoting United States v. Kelner, (1976 2nd Cir.) 534 F.2d 1020.) Thus, it appears that the provisions in this bill would pass constitutional muster.
Elements Required for Criminal Threat Prosecutions: In order to convict a person under the current criminal threat statute, Penal Code section 422, the prosecutor must prove the following:
that the defendant willfully threatened to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person;
that the defendant made the threat;
that the defendant intended that the statement is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out;
that the threat was so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat;
that the threat actually caused the person threatened to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family's safety; and
that the threatened person's fear was reasonable under the circumstances. (Pen. Code, §422; CALCRIM No. 1300.)
The language in the current criminal threats statute was
carefully crafted to avoid constitutional issues. In People
v. Mirmirani, supra, 30 Cal. 3d 375,
the California Supreme Court held that the former Penal Code
section 422 was void for vagueness in violation of the due
process clause of the California constitution. The Court's
opinion noted that the federal circuit court decision in United
States v. Kelner, supra, 534 F.2d 1020, held that a
"threat can be penalized only if, 'the threat ' 'on its face and
in the circumstances in which it is made . . . is so unequivocal,
unconditional, immediate and specific as to the person threatened, as
to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution . .
. .'" (People
v. Mirmirani, supra, 30 Cal. 3d at p. 388, fn. 10,
quoting United
States v. Kelner, supra, 534 F.2d at p. 1027; see also
People v. Toledo (2001) 26 Cal. 4th
221.)
Following the Court's decision in People v.
Mirmirani, the California Legislature repealed Penal Code section
422 and replaced it with a new criminal threats statute adopting the
specific language referenced in the case in order to limit the type
of threat covered by the statute.
Penal Code section 422 applies to all criminal threats which
will result in death or great bodily injury regardless of location or
the exact type of violence that is threatened. This bill creates the
specific crime of criminal threats when the threat is to discharge a
firearm on the campus of a school or where a school-sponsored event
is taking place. This bill incorporates all of the elements from the
general criminal threats statute with the exception of the
requirement that the person threatened must be in sustained fear for
his or her own safety. The sponsor of this bill has expressed that
this element does not fit well into instances of threats of shootings
at schools because often times these threats do not specify who the
target is. Rather, the threat typically applies to all students or
staff at the school.
Argument in Support: According to the San Diego County District Attorney's Office, "SB 456 criminalizes the making of a threat to commit a school shooting, whether directed to a specific individual, or whether posted on social media for an invited or general viewing population.
"With the increased availability of anonymized software applications, threats against schools have escalated, and whether the threats are legitimate or not, they have an enormous impact on the community. Noted school safety expert, Kenneth S. Trump, President of National School Safety and Security Services directed a study of school threats across the country. Over 812 school threats from August to September 2014 were studied, including 60 in California alone. The number of threats was up 158% from last year, with 37% of those threats sent electronically via social media, e-mail, text messaging and other online resources. Almost 30% of the threats analyzed resulted in the evacuation of schools and 10% resulted in school closures for at least a part of the day. In the San Diego School District, alone, there have been 138 reported threats in the past year; and in March 2015, officers responded to threats involving ten different schools. At least four of those reported in March involved a threat of a school shooting.
"Significant costs are often associated with threats that target schools. The costs range from hundreds to hundreds of thousands of dollars depending on the response. Additionally, the diversion of law enforcement staff and resources to attend to the exigencies of some threats are immense. Not only may officers expend effort penetrating the walls of anonymity to conduct an effective investigation, but additional resources, time, and opportunity costs, are often required to insure the community is safe by shutting down the targeted schools and sometimes even their surrounding neighborhoods, in order to avoid a catastrophe in the even the threat is legitimate.
"SB 456 specifically applies to school-shooting threats, and does not require proof of a specifically targeted individual, or a demonstration of sustained fear by any one particular person, thus filling the gap left by statutes that proscribe bomb threats and criminal threats. SB 456 is necessary; not only to hold offenders accountable and to shift the burden of the costs they create back to them by authorizing the court to order restitution for the costs of the emergency responses to the threats, but to deter such conduct as well."
Argument in Opposition: According to Public Counsel, "SB 456 is unnecessary and ultimately will not help the safety or long-term well-being of our students or our state. Students who make these threats aimed at a school or other youth – whether by electronic means or otherwise – can be subjected to discipline, including suspension or expulsion. See Cal. Educ. Code §§ 48900.4, 48900.7; see also Cal. Educ. Code § 48900(r). Further, state law already punishes threats of death or other serious harm that reasonably cause fear and other harassing threats, whether at school or otherwise. See Cal. Penal Code §§ 422, 653m.
"Criminalizing students in addition to punishing them at school
will cause significant and long-lasting harms to our young people and
hurt their ability to develop into productive adults. Research shows
being stopped or arrested actually increases the chances that
a youth will engage in delinquency. Further, a first-time arrest
doubles the chances that a student will drop out of high school, and
a first-time court appearance quadruples those chances. Studies have
also shown that involvement with the juvenile justice system can
limit a young person's ability to obtain future employment or attend
college."
Related Legislation: SB 110 (Fuller) makes it a misdemeanor offense for any person to threaten unlawful violence to occur upon the grounds of a school where the threat creates a disruption at the school. SB 110 is pending hearing by this Committee.
Prior Legislation:
AB 2355 (Aghazarian), of the 2007-2008 Legislative Session, would have removed the requirement that a threat made against a public official must cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her immediate family. AB 2355 was held in the Committee on Appropriations' suspense file.
AB 140 (Hertzberg), Chapter 563, Statutes of 1999, among other provisions related to terrorism, made it a crime for any person to knowingly threaten to use a weapon of mass destruction, as specified, and resulting in an isolation, quarantine, or decontamination effort.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
San Diego County District Attorney's Office (Sponsor)
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California Chapters of the Brady Campaign
California District Attorneys Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Los Angeles
Association of Deputy District Attorneys
Los Angeles County
District Attorney's Office
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Riverside Sheriffs Association
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union of California
California Public Defenders Association
Firearms Policy Coalition
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Public Counsel
Analysis Prepared by: Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744
SB 456
Page 4
|
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 |
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 456
Amended: 4/23/15
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 4/14/15
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Leno, McGuire, Monning, Stone
NO VOTE RECORDED: Liu
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: Criminal threats: discharge of a firearm
SOURCE: San Diego District Attorney Bonnie M. Dumanis
DIGEST: This bill enacts a new misdemeanor prohibiting persons from threatening to discharge a firearm at a school, as specified.
ANALYSIS: Existing law provides that willfully threatening to commit a crime that results in death or great bodily injury shall be punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison. (Penal Code § 422)
This bill:
Enacts a new crime to provide that a person who threatens to discharge a firearm on the campus of a school or at a school sponsored event in which the threat would be reasonably understood as true is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Provides that “a threat to discharge a firearm, [as specified], includes a threat that is communicated orally, in writing, by means of an electronic communication device, including, but not limited to, a telephone, cellular telephone, computer, video recorder, fax machine, text message, and social media, and by any other means.”
Provides that precautionary measures taken by a school or law enforcement agency is evidence that the threat was reasonably understood as true.
Defines “school” to mean a state preschool, private or public elementary school, middle school, vocational school, junior high school, or high school.
Provides that a person convicted of violating this section, or adjudged a ward of the juvenile court is liable to a public agency for the reasonable costs of the emergency response by any public agency.
Does not preclude punishing a person for conduct under any other law.
Background
Recent media reports have described numerous incidents involving school threats. For example, in San Diego:
…there were 5 percent more suspensions and expulsions in San Diego County related to making terrorist threats in the 2013-14 school year than in the previous school year, and 35 percent more than in the 2011-12 school year. Threats typically surface on social media or are made via phone or email. Once school officials learn of it, police are called in to investigate, and a school might get locked down, with everyone on campus kept behind locked doors until the coast is clear. That could take hours.
Students from high school campuses in Oceanside, San Diego, El Cajon and San Marcos, have been arrested on suspicion of using the app to threaten schools.
The CEO, Jonathan Lucas, said recent changes to the app make it “very clear” that threats of violence and bullying won’t be tolerated. He said users are asked to carefully consider the contents of their posts and are even shown their IP addresses. He said the company has been cooperating with all law enforcement investigations and has a quick process in place to help investigators locate users who commit crimes. (Winkley, Lyndsay, and Pat Maio. “Online Schools Threats Up; Officials Crack down.” U-T San Diego. N.p., 22 Mar. 2015. Web. 07 Apr. 2015.)
Similarly, in Los Angeles, an 11th grade student was arrested for making threats through the social media app, Burnbook, against a Los Angeles County high school. Investigators were informed that the student had published the threat online and was taken into custody the following day. He was charged with making criminal threats after he confessed to threatening to bring a weapon to school. The student told deputies that he was making jokes. (“Student Arrested after Social Media Threats against School.” Student Arrested following Threats on Social Media against Los Angeles County School. The Associated Press, 12 Mar. 2015. Web. 07 Apr. 2015.)
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
San Diego District Attorney Bonnie M. Dumanis (source)
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
California District Attorneys Association
California State Sheriffs’ Association
Los Angeles Association of Deputy District Attorneys
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Riverside Sheriffs Association
OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/11/15)
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:
The author writes:
SB 456 criminalizes the making of a threat to commit a school shooting, whether directed to a specific individual, or whether posted on social media for an invited or general viewing population.
A recent study of threats from August-December of 2014 by the President of National School Safety and Security Services shows some alarming trends. The number of threats in that time period was up 158% from last year, with 37% of those threats sent electronically via social media, e-mail, text messaging and other online resources. Nearly 30% of the threats analyzed resulted in a school evacuation, and 10% resulted in school closures for at least a portion of the day. In the San Diego Unified School District, alone, there have been 138 reported threats in the past year.
There are significant costs associated with threats that target schools—both in the initial response required to insure that the community is safe by shutting down the targeted schools, but also in the subsequent investigation that may require substantial time, resources, and opportunity costs.
SB 456 applies specifically to school-shooting threats, and does not require proof of a specifically targeted individual, or a demonstration of sustained fear by any one particular person, thus filling the gap left by statutes that proscribe bomb threats and criminal threats, SB 456 holds offenders accountable, deters future conduct, and shifts the burden of costs by authorizing the court to order restitution.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Legal Services for Prisoners with Children argues generally that minors should be disciplined through community-based services as an alternative to incarceration. Youth exposure to the criminal justice system heightens the likelihood that youth offenders will recidivate in adulthood, further aggravating prison overcrowding. Additionally, there is concern surrounding the ability to pay financial penalties that would disproportionately affect lower income children and families.
Prepared by: Linda Tenerowicz / PUB. S. /
5/13/15 16:37:51
SB 456 (Block ) Page 5 of 5
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 456 Hearing Date: April 14, 2015
Author: |
Block |
||
Version: |
February 25, 2015 |
||
Urgency: |
No |
Fiscal: |
Yes |
Consultant: |
LT |
||
Subject: Criminal Threats: Discharge of a Firearm
HISTORY
Source: San Diego County District Attorney
Prior Legislation: None known
Support: California District Attorneys Association; Peace Officers Research Association of
California; California State Sheriffs’ Association; California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence; Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; Los Angeles Police Protective League; Riverside Sheriffs Association; Los Angeles Association of Deputy District Attorneys
Opposition: Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to enact a new misdemeanor prohibiting persons from threatening to discharge a firearm at a school, as specified.
Existing law provides that “any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family’s safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison” (Penal Code § 422).
This bill would enact a new crime to provide that “a person who maliciously threatens to discharge a firearm on the campus of a public or private university, community college, school, or location where a school-sponsored event is taking place in the state, and who maliciously causes the report of that threat to be made to law enforcement, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
This bill would provide that “a threat to discharge a firearm, [as specified], includes a threat that is communicated orally, in writing, by means of an electronic communication device, including but not limited to, a telephone, cellular telephone, computer, video recorder, fax machine, text message, on social media, or by any other means.”
This bill would define “‘school’ to mean a preschool, elementary school, middle school, junior high school, high school, or charter school.”
This bill would provide that “a person convicted of violating its provisions, based upon a report that resulted in an emergency response, is liable to a public agency for the reasonable costs of the emergency response by any public agency.”
This bill would provide that its provisions would “not preclude punishing a person for conduct under any other law providing for greater punishment.”
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past eight years, this Committee has scrutinized legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the state’s ability to provide a constitutional level of health care to its inmate population and the related issue of prison overcrowding, this Committee has applied its “ROCA” policy as a content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
In February of this year the administration reported that as “of February 11, 2015, 112,993 inmates were housed in the State’s 34 adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6% of design bed capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities. This current population is now below the court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed capacity.”( Defendants’ February 2015 Status Report In Response To February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison population, the state now must stabilize these advances and demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place the “durable solution” to prison overcrowding “consistently demanded” by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Request For Extension of December 31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee’s consideration of bills that may impact the prison population therefore will be informed by the following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed to reducing the prison population;
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety or criminal activity for which there is no other reasonable, appropriate remedy;
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
SB 456 criminalizes the making of a threat to commit a school shooting, whether directed to a specific individual, or whether posted on social media for an invited or general viewing population.
A recent study of threats from August-December of 2014 by the President of National School Safety and Security Services shows some alarming trends. The number of threats in that time period was up 158% from last year, with 37% of those threats sent electronically via social media, e-mail, text messaging and other online resources. Nearly 30% of the threats analyzed resulted in a school evacuation, and 10% resulted in school closures for at least a portion of the day. In the San Diego Unified School District, alone, there have been 138 reported threats in the past year.
There are significant costs associated with threats that target schools—both in the initial response required to insure that the community is safe by shutting down the targeted schools, but also in the subsequent investigation that may require substantial time, resources, and opportunity costs.
SB 456 applies specifically to school-shooting threats, and does not require proof of a specifically targeted individual, or a demonstration of sustained fear by any one particular person, thus filling the gap left by statutes that proscribe bomb threats and criminal threats, SB 456 holds offenders accountable, deters future conduct, and shifts the burden of costs by authorizing the court to order restitution.
2. What the Bill Does
As explained in detail above, this bill will enact a new crime, punishable as a misdemeanor, to threaten to discharge a firearm on the campus of a public or private university, community college, school, or location where a school-sponsored event is taking place. Under current law it is a crime to make a credible threat of death or great bodily injury, which includes the following elements: The defendant made the threat “verbally,” in writing or by means of an electronic communication device and with the intent that it be taken as a threat; and it appears that that the defendant had the means and intent to carry out the threat such that the victim was placed in sustained fear for his or her own safety or that of his or her immediate family.
This crime is an alternate felony-misdemeanor, punishable by a jail term of up to one year, a fine of up to $1000, or both, or by imprisonment in a state prison for 16 months, 2 or 3 years and a fine of up to $10,000.
3. First Amendment Issues—Free Speech and Limits on Threatening Speech
Courts have long held that speech concerning public issues is entitled to great protection under the First Amendment. (Burson v. Freeman (1992) 504 U.S. 191.) The California Constitution also protects free speech. (Cal. Const. Art. I, § 2.) The First Amendment protects the free trade in ideas. “[T]he government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” (Texas v. Johnson (1989) 491 U.S. 397, 414.)
The First Amendment is not absolute. “There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem.” (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) 315 U.S. 568, 571-572.) The First Amendment permits “restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas, which are ‘of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality’.” (R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) 505 U.S. 377, 382-383. quoting Chaplinsky at p. 572). In particular, expressive conduct intended to intimidate is not protected by the First Amendment. (Virginia v. Black (2003) 538 U.S. 343.)
A
specific form of unprotected, intimidating speech is called “true
threats” in First Amendment jurisprudence. “A threat is an
expression of an intention to inflict evil, injury or damage on
another. Alleged threats should be considered in light of their
entire factual context, including the surrounding events and
reactions of the listeners. … A true threat, that is one where a
reasonable person would foresee that the listener will believe he
will be subjected top physical violence upon his person, is
unprotected by the First Amendment.” (Planned
Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette v.
American Coalition of Life Activists
(2002) 290 F.3rd
1058, 1077.)
4. Author’s Amendments
The author intends to amend this bill in Committee as follows:
Revise the bill’s provisions to remove the word “maliciously,” and instead require that a person who threatens to discharge a firearm on the campus of a school, as specified who knew or should have known that the threat could be taken as true, causing others to reasonably believe that a shooting is likely to occur, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Revise the bill’s provisions to provide that the fact that precautionary measures were taken by a school or law enforcement agency is evidence of a reasonable belief that a shooting was likely to occur.
Revise the bill’s provisions for this new crime to include a minor adjudged to be a delinquent ward of the juvenile court, based upon a violation of this section is liable to a public agency for any reasonable costs of the emergency response to the person’s threat by that public agency.
Members may wish to discuss whether these amendments strengthen the bill with respect to the constitutional considerations noted above.
5. Background: School Threats
Recent media reports have described numerous incidents involving school threats. For example, in San Diego:
…there were 5 percent more suspensions and expulsions in San Diego County related to making terrorist threats in the 2013-14 school year than in the previous school year, and 35 percent more than in the 2011-12 school year. Threats typically surface on social media or are made via phone or email. Once school officials learn of it, police are called in to investigate, and a school might get locked down, with everyone on campus kept behind locked doors the coast is clear. That could take hours.
Students from high school campuses in Oceanside, San Diego, El Cajon and San Marcos, have been arrested on suspicion of using the app to threaten schools.
The CEO, Jonathan Lucas, said recent changes to the app make it “very clear” that threats of violence and bullying won’t be tolerated. He said users are asked to carefully consider the contents of their posts and are even shown their IP addresses. He said the company has been cooperating with all law enforcement investigations and has a quick process in place to help investigators locate users who commit crimes. (Winkley, Lyndsay, and Pat Maio. "Online Schools Threats Up; Officials Crack down." U-T San Diego. N.p., 22 Mar. 2015. Web. 07 Apr. 2015.)
Similarly, in Los Angeles, an 11th grade student was arrested for making threats through the social media app, Burnbook, against a Los Angeles county high school. Investigators were informed that the student had published the threat online and was taken into custody the following day. He was charged with making criminal threats after he confessed to threatening to bring a weapon to school. The student told deputies that he was making jokes. ("Student Arrested after Social Media Threats against School." Student Arrested following Threats on Social Media against Los Angeles County School. The Associated Press, 12 Mar. 2015. Web. 07 Apr. 2015.)
Based on these reports, it appears current law already addresses the kinds of threats this bill seeks to address. Members may wish to discuss why current law is not adequate, and how this bill would enhance campus safety against credible threats.
6. Related Bill
SB 110 (Fuller), scheduled to be heard the same day as this bill, similarly addresses threats relating to schools. That bill is broader, however targeting threats of “unlawful violence,” and does not include the more specific “true threat” language proposed by this bill.
-- END –
Discussed in Hearing
1MIN
Assembly Floor
39SEC
Assembly Floor
7MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety
2MIN
Senate Floor
Bill Author
Bill Co-Author(s):