Existing law defines a lynching as the taking of a person from the lawful custody of a peace officer by means of a riot. Under existing law a person who participates in a lynching is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for 2, 3, or 4 years.

This bill would provide that the taking of a person from the lawful custody of a peace officer is no longer defined as a lynching. This bill would provide that a person who participates in the taking of another person from the lawful custody of a peace officer is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for 2, 3, or 4 years.

Existing law defines a lynching as the taking of a person from the lawful custody of a peace officer by means of a riot. Under existing law a person who participates in a lynching is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for 2, 3, or 4 years.

This bill would provide that the taking of a person from the lawful custody of a peace officer is no longer defined as a lynching. This bill would provide that a person who participates in the taking of another person from the lawful custody of a peace officer is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for 2, 3, or 4 years.

Existing law requires a department or agency that employs peace officers or custodial officers to establish a procedure to investigate complaints by members of the public against those officers. Existing law establishes retention requirements and access privileges, as specified, for those complaints and related reports or findings.

This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to those provisions.

Date of Hearing: June 16, 2015

Chief Counsel: Gregory Pagan

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Bill Quirk, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 629

Author:(Mitchell) – As Amended Ver:April 6, 2015

SUMMARY: Eliminates the characterization of taking of a person from the lawful custody of a peace officer as a "lynching".

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that the taking by means of a riot of any person from the lawful custody of any peace officer is a lynching. (Pen. Code, § 405a.)
   
   

2. States that every person who participates in any lynching is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for two, three, or four years. (Pen. Code, § 405b.)
   
   

3. Provides that any use of force or violence, disturbing the public peace, or any threat to use force or violence, if accompanied by immediate power of execution, by two or more persons acting together, and without authority of law, is a riot. Disturbing the public peace may occur in any place of confinement. Place of confinement means any state prison, county jail, industrial farm, or road camp, or any juvenile hall, juvenile camp, juvenile ranch, or juvenile forestry camp. (Pen. Code, § 404, subds. (a) & (b)
   
   

4. States that every person who participates in any riot is punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. (Pen Code § 405.)
   
   

5. States that every person with the intent to cause a riot does an act or engages in conduct that urges a riot, or urges others to commit acts of force or violence, or the burning or destroying of property, and at a time and place, and under circumstances that produce a clear and present and immediate danger of acts of force or violence or the burning or destroying of property, is guilty of incitement to riot. (Pen. Code § 404.6, subd. (a).)
   
   

6. Makes incitement to riot punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. (Pen. Code § 404.6, subd. (b).)
   
   

7. Provides that every person who incites any riot in the state prison or a county jail that results in serious bodily injury, shall be punished by either imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months, two, or three years. (Pen. Code § 404.6, subd. (c).)
   
   
   

8. States that whenever two or more persons, assembled and acting together, make any attempt or advance toward the commission of an act which would be a riot if actually committed, such assembly is a rout. (Pen. Code, § 406.)
   
   

9. Provides that whenever two or more persons assemble together to do an unlawful act, or to do lawful act in a violent, boisterous, or tumultuous manner, such assembly is an unlawful assembly. (Pen. Code, § 407.)
   
   

10. Makes every person that participates in any rout or unlawful assembly guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by both. (Pen. Code, § 408.)
    
    

11. Provides that every person remaining present at the place of any riot, rout, or unlawful assembly, after the same has been lawfully warned to disperse, except public officers and persons assisting them in attempting to disperse the same is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by both. (Pen. Code, § 409.)

FISCAL EFFECT: None

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, "SB 629 amends Penal Code Sections 405a and 405b to eliminate the reference to ‘lynching’ as used to define the taking by means of a riot of any person from the lawful custody of a peace officer. It does not reduce the penalties associated with this act. The term 'lynching' carries with it cultural significance and its current usage in code is contrary to what the vast majority of people understand the crime of lynching to entail. Lynching is defined in all dictionaries searched by the author’s office as the practice of killing a person or people by extrajudicial mob action."
   
   

2. Background: According to History of Lynching in the United States:

The lynching era encompasses roughly the five decades between the end of Reconstruction and the beginning of the Great Depression. During these years we may estimate that there were 2,018 separate incidents of lynching in which at least 2,462 African-American men, women and children met their deaths in the grasp of southern mobs, comprised mostly of whites. Although lynchings and mob killings occurred before 1880, notably during early Reconstruction when blacks were enfranchised, radical racism and mob violence peaked during the 1890s in a surge of terrorism that did not dissipate until well into the twentieth century.

In addition to the punishment of specific criminal offenders, lynching in the American South had three entwined functions:

• To maintain social order over the black population through terrorism;
  
  

• To suppress of eliminate black competitors for economic, political, or social rewards; and

• To stabilize the white class structure and preserve the privileged status of the white aristocracy.

Lethal mob violence for seemingly minor infractions of the caste codes of behavior was more fundamental for maintaining terroristic social control than punishment for what would seem to be more serious violations of the criminal codes.¹

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Association of Deputy District Attorneys

California District Attorneys Association
Los Angeles Probation Officers Union, AFSCME Local 685

Los Angeles Police Protective League
Riverside Sheriffs Association

Opposition

None

Analysis Prepared by: Gregory Pagan / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 629

Author: Mitchell (D)

Amended: 4/6/15

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/12/15

AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Leno, Liu, McGuire, Monning, Stone

SUBJECT: Crimes: taking person from lawful custody of peace officer

SOURCE: Mayor Kevin Johnson, City of Sacramento

DIGEST: This bill provides that the taking of a person from the lawful custody of a peace officer is no longer defined as a “lynching.” This bill provides that a person who participates in the taking of another person from the lawful custody of a peace officer is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for two, three, or four years.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1) Provides that “the taking by means of a riot of any person from the lawful custody of any peace officer is a lynching.” (Penal Code § 405a.)

2) Provides that “every person who participates in any lynching is punishable by imprisonment, as specified, for two, three, or four years.” (Penal Code § 405b.)

This bill:

1. Provides that the taking of a person from the lawful custody of a peace officer is no longer defined as a “lynching.”

2. Provides that a person who participates in the taking of another person from the lawful custody of a peace officer is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for two, three, or four years.

Background

According to History of Lynching in the United States (http://www.umass.edu/
complit/aclanet/USLynch.html):

The lynching era encompasses roughly the five decades between the end of Reconstruction and the beginning of the Great Depression. During these years we may estimate that there were 2,018 separate incidents of lynching in which at least 2,462 African-American men, women and children met their deaths in the grasp of southern mobs, comprised mostly of whites. Although lynchings and mob killings occurred before 1880, notably during early Reconstruction when blacks were enfranchised, radical racism and mob violence peaked during the 1890s in a surge of terrorism that did not dissipate until well into the twentieth century (17).

In addition to the punishment of specific criminal offenders, lynching in the American South had three entwined functions:

• To maintain social order over the black population through terrorism;

• To suppress of eliminate black competitors for economic, political, or social rewards; and

• To stabilize the white class structure and preserve the privileged status of the white aristocracy (18-19).

Lethal mob violence for seemingly minor infractions of the caste codes of behavior was more fundamental for maintaining terroristic social control than punishment for what would seem to be more serious violations of the criminal codes.

Comments

As noted in the author’s statement, the term ‘lynching’ is understood as meaning an extrajudicial hanging. This bill eliminates any confusion caused by the conflict between the statutory meaning, the taking of a person from the lawful custody of a peace officer by means of a riot, and the commonly accepted meaning of the term. This bill does not change the penalty.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/14/15)

Mayor Kevin Johnson, City of Sacramento (source)

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 685

Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs

Association of Deputy District Attorneys

California Narcotic Officers Association

California State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

Los Angeles Police Protective League

Los Angeles Probation Officers Union

Riverside Sheriffs Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/14/15)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author writes, “SB 629 amends CA Penal Code § 405 (a) & (b) to eliminate the reference to ‘lynching’ as used to define the taking by means of a riot of any person from the lawful custody of a peace officer. It does not reduce the penalties associated with this act. The term ‘lynching’ carries with it cultural significance and its current usage in code is contrary to what the vast majority of people understand the crime of lynching to entail. Lynching is defined in all dictionaries searched by the author’s office as the practice of killing a person or people by extrajudicial mob action.”

Prepared by: Linda Tenerowicz / PUB. S. /

5/15/15 15:24:37

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Loni Hancock, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: SB 629 Hearing Date: May 12, 2015

Subject: Crimes: Taking Person From Lawful Custody of Peace Officer

HISTORY

Source: Mayor Kevin Johnson, Sacramento

Prior Legislation: None

Support: Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; Association of Deputy District Attorneys; California State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; California Narcotic Officers Association; Los Angeles Police Protective League; Riverside Sheriffs Association; Los Angeles Probation Officers Union; AFSCME Local 685

Opposition: None known

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to eliminate the term ‘lynching’ from the Penal Code.

Existing law provides that “the taking by means of a riot of any person from the lawful custody of any peace officer is a lynching.” (Penal Code § 405a.)

Existing law provides that “every person who participates in any lynching is punishable by imprisonment, as specified, for two, three, or four years.” (Penal Code § 405b.)

This bill would amend this section to read, “A person who participates in the taking by means of a riot of another person from the lawful custody of a peace officer is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment, as specified, for two, three, or four years.”

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

1. Stated Need for This Bill

The author states:

SB 629 amends CA Penal Code § 405 (a) & (b) to eliminate the reference to ‘lynching’ as used to define the taking by means of a riot of any person from the lawful custody of a peace officer. It does not reduce the penalties associated with this act. The term “lynching” carries with it cultural significance and its current usage in code is contrary to what the vast majority of people understand the crime of lynching to entail. Lynching is defined in all dictionaries searched by the author’s office as the practice of killing a person or people by extrajudicial mob action.

2. What This Bill Would Do

As noted in the author’s statement, the term ‘lynching’ is understood as meaning an extrajudicial hanging. This bill would eliminate any confusion caused by the conflict between the statutory meaning, the taking of a person from the lawful custody of a peace officer by means of a riot, and the commonly accepted meaning of the term. This bill would not change the penalty.

3. Background

According to History of Lynching in the United States:

The lynching era encompasses roughly the five decades between the end of Reconstruction and the beginning of the Great Depression. During these years we may estimate that there were 2,018 separate incidents of lynching in which at least 2,462 African-American men, women and children met their deaths in the grasp of southern mobs, comprised mostly of whites. Although lynchings and mob killings occurred before 1880, notably during early Reconstruction when blacks were enfranchised, radical racism and mob violence peaked during the 1890s in a surge of terrorism that did not dissipate until well into the twentieth century (17).

In addition to the punishment of specific criminal offenders, lynching in the American South had three entwined functions:

• To maintain social order over the black population through terrorism;

• To suppress of eliminate black competitors for economic, political, or social rewards; and

• To stabilize the white class structure and preserve the privileged status of the white aristocracy (18-19).

Lethal mob violence for seemingly minor infractions of the caste codes of behavior was more fundamental for maintaining terroristic social control than punishment for what would seem to be more serious violations of the criminal codes (19).¹

--END –