AB 2136: Damages: lead-based paint.
- Session Year: 2017-2018
- House: Assembly
- Latest Version Date: 2018-06-18
Existing law authorizes a person who suffers a loss or harm to person or property from the unlawful act or omission of another to recover from the person at fault money damages.
This bill would allow the injured party, in any action to recover damages for injury to person or property caused by lead-based paint, to establish a prima facie case that a particular lead paint pigment manufacturer is the cause of the injury if the injured party proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the lead paint pigment manufacturer sold, distributed, or promoted in California either the type of lead paint pigment that caused the injury or a product containing the type of lead paint pigment that caused the injury, and would shift the burden of proof to the lead paint pigment manufacturer to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it did not sell, distribute, or promote the lead paint pigment that caused the injury or a product containing the type of lead paint pigment that caused the injury during the relevant time period or in the geographical market in which the injury occurred. The bill would make each lead paint pigment manufacturer jointly and severally liable if more than one lead paint pigment manufacturer is found liable for an injury to person or property caused by lead-based paint. The bill would expressly make these provisions retroactive. The bill would also state various findings and declarations of the Legislature related to these provisions. The bill would provide that its provisions are severable.
Existing law requires each law enforcement agency in the state to develop, adopt, and implement written policies and standards for officers responses to domestic violence calls.This bill would, until January 1, 2024, authorize the County of Alameda to develop a lethality assessment program to develop tools for first responders to assess the lethality of domestic violence perpetrators in order to inform the decisions made by those first responders. The bill would authorize the program to investigate which strategies reduce domestic violence fatalities, the number of domestic violence survivors that have fewer violent incidents with their partner after contact with first responders, and the number of first responders that direct domestic violence survivors to resources. The bill would authorize the Office of the District Attorney in the County of Alameda to prepare a report on the progress of the program.This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Alameda.Existing law requires each law enforcement agency in the state to develop, adopt, and implement written policies and standards for officers responses to domestic violence calls.
This bill would, until January 1, 2024, require authorize the County of Alameda to develop a lethality assessment program to develop tools for first responders to assess the lethality of domestic violence perpetrators in order to inform the decisions made by those first responders. The bill would require authorize the program to investigate which strategies reduce domestic violence fatalities, the number of domestic violence survivors that have fewer violent incidents with their partner after contact with first responders, and the number of first responders that direct domestic violence survivors to resources. The bill would require authorize the Office of the District Attorney in the County of Alameda to annually prepare a report on the progress of the program, as specified, and to prepare a final report to the Legislature on April 1, 2023. By imposing additional duties on a county, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. program.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Alameda.
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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.Existing law requires each law enforcement agency in the state to develop, adopt, and implement written policies and standards for officers responses to domestic violence calls.
This bill would would, until January 1, 2024, require the County of Alameda to develop a lethality assessment program to develop tools for first responders to assess the lethality of domestic violence perpetrators in order to inform the decisions made by those first responders. The bill would require the program to investigate which strategies reduce domestic violence fatalities, the number of domestic violence survivors that have fewer violent incidents with their partner after contact with first responders, and the number of first responders that direct domestic violence survivors to resources. The bill would require the Office of the District Attorney in the County of Alameda to annually prepare a report on the progress of the program, as specified, and to prepare a final report to the Legislature on April 1, 2023. By imposing additional duties on a county, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Alameda.
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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law requires each law enforcement agency in the state to develop, adopt, and implement written policies and standards for officers responses to domestic violence calls.
This bill would require the County of Alameda to develop a lethality assessment program to develop tools for first responders to assess the lethality of domestic violence perpetrators in order to inform the decisions made by those first responders.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Alameda.
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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
The Legislature finds and declares the following:
(a)Lead is highly toxic and causes serious health harms that are irreversible and cumulative. As the American Academy of Pediatrics explained in 2016, [n]o treatments have been shown to be effective in ameliorating the permanent developmental effects of lead toxicity.
(b)Government agencies and health organizations, including the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, agree that there is no safe level of lead exposure.
(c)Young children are especially susceptible to lead due to their smaller size, the vulnerability of their developing nervous systems, and their high rates of lead absorption.
(d)Each year, the State of California identifies tens of thousands of young children in California whose health has been irreversibly harmed due to lead exposure and these children represent the minimum number of children in California whose health has been irreversibly harmed due to lead exposure.
(e)The economic costs of childhood lead exposure are substantial. These costs include: (1) health care costs associated with treating health problems caused by lead exposure; (2) special education costs incurred due to slower development, lower educational success, and behavioral problems caused by lead exposure; (3) loss of tax revenue due to decreased lifetime earnings resulting from decreased intelligence caused by lead exposure; and (4) costs of criminal activity connected to lead exposure. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the estimated annual cost of childhood lead exposure in the United States is $50 billion.
(f)The substantial economic costs of childhood lead exposure fall disproportionately on the state and local governments in California. Because young children who suffer from lead exposure are often poor, their health care and special education costs are typically borne by the state and local governments. Likewise, many of the economic costs of criminal behavior closely connected to lead exposure are shouldered by the state and local governments. Finally, the costs to the state and local governments in California from childhood lead exposure are exacerbated by the loss of tax revenues due to loss of income associated with childhood lead exposure.
(g)Studies indicate that lead-based paint is the source of approximately 70 percent of childhood exposure to lead in the United States, including California.
(h)Virtually all government agencies, scientists, and public health officials agree that lead-based paint on residential surfaces is the predominant source of lead exposure in young children.
(i)Based on extensive evidence presented at trial, a California judge in 2014 found that certain lead pigment paint manufacturers caused lead-based paint to be applied on certain residential surfaces by promoting that paint for use on those surfaces even though they knew about the serious health harms to children that would result (Superior Court, Santa Clara County, No. CV788657).
(j)A California appellate court unanimously affirmed that finding by the judge in 2017 (People v. Conagra Grocery Products Company (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 51).
(k)Although at least tens of thousands of young children in California continue to suffer serious and irreversible health harms due to their ingestion of lead-based paint each year, these children are unable to identify the precise manufacturer of the lead paint pigment they ingested due to the number of manufacturers, the passage of time, and the loss of records.
(l)As a result, these children are unable to establish causation under traditional common law tort principles.
(m)Recognizing that this would exempt lead paint pigment manufacturers from liability even though they likely contributed to the actual injury to these children and would unfairly shift the cost of the injury to the innocent child, the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Thomas ex rel. Gramling v. Mallett ((2005) 285 Wis.2d 236) applied a risk contribution theory of liability to injuries caused by lead-based paint.
(n)The reasoning of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Thomas solely as applied to injuries to person or property caused by lead-based paint is both fair and appropriate and should be applied in California.
SEC. 2.Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 3362) is added to Title 2 of Part 1 of Division 4 of the Civil Code, to read:3.Lead-Based Paint3362.(a)In any action to recover damages for injury to person or property caused by lead-based paint, the injured party may establish a prima facie case that a particular lead paint pigment manufacturer is the cause of the injury if the injured party proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the lead paint pigment manufacturer sold, distributed, or promoted in California either the type of lead paint pigment that caused the injury or a product containing the type of lead paint pigment that caused the injury.
(b)If the injured party establishes a prima facie case of causation under subdivision (a), the burden of proof shall shift to the lead paint pigment manufacturer to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it did not sell, distribute, or promote the lead paint pigment that caused the injury or a product containing the type of lead paint pigment that caused the injury during the relevant time period or in the geographical market in which the injury occurred.
(c)If more than one lead paint pigment manufacturer is found liable for an injury to person or property caused by lead-based paint, each lead paint pigment manufacturer shall be jointly and severally liable.
(d)The provisions of this section are made expressly retroactive.
SEC. 3.The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
SECTION 1.Section 13703 is added to the Penal Code, to read:13703.(a)The County of Alameda may develop a domestic violence lethality assessment program. The program may develop tools for first responders to assess the lethality of domestic violence perpetrators in order to inform the decisions made by those first responders.(b)The program may investigate which strategies reduce domestic violence fatalities, the number of domestic violence survivors that have fewer violent incidents with their partner after contact with first responders, and the number of first responders that direct domestic violence survivors to resources.(c)The Office of the District Attorney in the County of Alameda may prepare a report on the progress of the program and the findings of the investigation described in subdivision (b).(d)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2024, and as of that date is repealed.SEC. 2.The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique need to develop tools to respond to domestic violence in the County of Alameda.(a)The County of Alameda shall may develop a domestic violence lethality assessment program. The program shall may develop tools for first responders to assess the lethality of domestic violence perpetrators in order to inform the decisions made by those first responders.
(b)The program shall may investigate which strategies reduce domestic violence fatalities, the number of domestic violence survivors that have fewer violent incidents with their partner after contact with first responders, and the number of first responders that direct domestic violence survivors to resources.
(c)(1)The Office of the District Attorney in the County of Alameda shall annually may prepare a report on the progress of the program and the findings of the investigation described in subdivision (b), and shall make that report available to the public. On April 1, 2023, the Office of the District Attorney in the County of Alameda shall send a final report to the Legislature on the progress of the program and the findings of the investigation described in subdivision (b). (b).
(2)A report to be submitted to the Legislature pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code.(d)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2024, and as of that date is repealed.
SEC. 2.The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique need to develop tools to respond to domestic violence in the County of Alameda.
SEC. 3.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.(a)The County of Alameda shall develop a domestic violence lethality assessment program. The program shall develop tools for first responders to assess the lethality of domestic violence perpetrators in order to inform the decisions made by those first responders.
(b)The program shall investigate which strategies reduce domestic violence fatalities, the number of domestic violence survivors that have fewer violent incidents with their partner after contact with first responders, and the number of first responders that direct domestic violence survivors to resources.
(c)(1)The Office of the District Attorney in the County of Alameda shall annually prepare a report on the progress of the program and the findings of the investigation described in subdivision (b), and shall make that report available to the public. On April 1, 2023, the Office of the District Attorney in the County of Alameda shall send a final report to the Legislature on the progress of the program and the findings of the investigation described in subdivision (b).
(2)A report to be submitted to the Legislature pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code.
(d)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2024, and as of that date is repealed.
SEC. 2.The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique need to develop tools to respond to domestic violence in the County of Alameda.
SEC. 3.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
REVISIONS: HeadingLine 2.The County of Alameda shall develop a domestic violence lethality assessment program. The program shall develop tools for first responders to assess the lethality of domestic violence perpetrators in order to inform the decisions made by those first responders.
SEC. 2.The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique need to develop tools to respond to domestic violence in the County of Alameda.
SEC. 3.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Jul 3, 2018 | In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. |
| Jun 21, 2018 | Withdrawn from committee. |
| Jun 20, 2018 | Re-referred to Coms. on EQ., JUD., and APPR. |
| Jun 19, 2018 | In committee: Hearing postponed by committee. |
| Jun 18, 2018 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| Jun 13, 2018 | Referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| Jun 4, 2018 | In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. |
| May 31, 2018 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. |
| May 29, 2018 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| May 25, 2018 | From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 16. Noes 0.) (May 25). |
| Apr 4, 2018 | In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to suspense file. |
| Mar 21, 2018 | Coauthors revised. |
| Mar 15, 2018 | Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| Mar 14, 2018 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. Read second time and amended. |
| Feb 26, 2018 | Referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| Feb 13, 2018 | From printer. May be heard in committee March 15. |
| Feb 12, 2018 | Read first time. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 31, 2018 | AB 2136 BONTA Assembly Third Reading | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 25, 2018 | Do pass as amended. | Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Mar 20, 2018 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with recommendation: To Consent Calendar | Assembly 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
|
|---|---|---|
| Alameda County District Attorney | ** Support | Mar 19, 2018 |
| Alameda County Domestic Violence Collaborative | ** Support | Mar 19, 2018 |
| California Partnership To End Domestic Violence | ** Support | Mar 19, 2018 |
| Child Abuse Listening, Interviewing and Coordination Center | ** Support | Mar 19, 2018 |
| Family Violence Law Center | ** Support | Mar 19, 2018 |
| Junior Leagues of California | ** Support | Mar 19, 2018 |
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
ATR Bill Id:
Author:(Bonta)
As Amended Ver:May 25, 2018
Majority vote
Committee | Votes | Ayes | Noes |
Public Safety | 7-0 | Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Carrillo, Gonzalez Fletcher, Kiley, Quirk, Santiago | |
Appropriations | 16-0 | Gonzalez Fletcher, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Eggman, Fong, Friedman, Gallagher, Eduardo Garcia, Nazarian, Obernolte, Quirk, Reyes |
|
SUMMARY: Allows Alameda County to develop a domestic violence lethality assessment pilot program for five years. Specifies that the program may investigate which strategies reduce domestic violence fatalities. Specifically, this bill:
- Allows Alameda County to develop a domestic violence lethality assessment pilot program.
- States that the program may investigate which strategies reduce domestic violence fatalities, how many domestic violence survivors have fewer violent incidents with their partner, and how many first responders direct domestic violence victims to resources.
- States that the program may develop tools for first responders to assess the lethality of domestic violence perpetrators in order to inform the decisions made by those first responders.
- Establishes a sunset date of January 1, 2024.
- States that the Alameda County District Attorney may prepare a report on the progress of the program and the findings of the investigation, as specified.
EXISTING LAW:
- Specifies that whenever there is an alleged violation or violations of specified domestic violence or sexual assault, the law enforcement officer assigned to the case shall immediately provide the victim of the crime with the "Victims of Domestic Violence" card.
- Specifies that the ''Victims of Domestic Violence'' card which shall include, but is not limited to, the following information:
- The names and phone numbers of or local county hotlines for, or both the phone numbers of and local county hotlines for, local shelters for battered women and rape victim counseling centers within the county, including those centers specified in Section 13837, and their 24-hour counseling service telephone numbers;
- A simple statement on the proper procedures for a victim to follow after a sexual assault;
- A statement that sexual assault by a person who is known to the victim, including sexual assault by a person who is the spouse of the victim, is a crime; and,
- A statement that domestic violence or assault by a person who is known to the victim, including domestic violence or assault by a person who is the spouse of the victim, is a crime.
- Requires every law enforcement agency in this state shall develop, adopt, and implement written policies and standards for officers' responses to domestic violence calls by January 1, 1986. These policies shall reflect that domestic violence is alleged criminal conduct. Further, they shall reflect existing policy that a request for assistance in a situation involving domestic violence is the same as any other request for assistance where violence has occurred.
- Specifies that the written policies shall encourage the arrest of domestic violence offenders if there is probable cause that an offense has been committed.
- State that the written policies also shall require the arrest of an offender, absent exigent circumstances, if there is probable cause that a protective order issued, as specified.
- Provides that these policies shall discourage, when appropriate, but not prohibit, dual arrests. Peace officers shall make reasonable efforts to identify the dominant aggressor in any incident. The dominant aggressor is the person determined to be the most significant, rather than the first, aggressor. In identifying the dominant aggressor, an officer shall consider the intent of the law to protect victims of domestic violence from continuing abuse, the threats creating fear of physical injury, the history of domestic violence between the persons involved, and whether either person acted in self-defense.
- These existing local policies and those developed shall be in writing and shall be available to the public upon request and shall include:
- Emergency assistance to victims, such as medical care, transportation to a shelter, or a hospital for treatment when necessary, and police standbys for removing personal property and assistance in safe passage out of the victim's residence;
- Assisting victims in pursuing criminal options, such as giving the victim the report number and directing the victim to the proper investigation unit; and
- Furnishing written notice to victims at the scene, including, but not limited to, all of the following information:
- A statement informing the victim that despite official restraint of the person alleged to have committed domestic violence, the restrained person may be released at any time;
- A statement that, ''For further information about a shelter you may contact ____.'';
- A statement that, ''For information about other services in the community, where available, you may contact ____.'';
- A statement that, ''For information about the California Victims" Compensation Program, you may contact 1-800-777-9229.'';
- A statement informing the victim of domestic violence that he or she may ask the district attorney to file a criminal complaint;
- A statement informing the victim of the right to go to the superior court and file a petition requesting any of the following orders for relief:
- An order restraining the attacker from abusing the victim and other family members;
- An order directing the attacker to leave the household;
- An order preventing the attacker from entering the residence, school, business, or place of employment of the victim;
- An order awarding the victim or the other parent custody of or visitation with a minor child or children;
- An order restraining the attacker from molesting or interfering with minor children in the custody of the victim;
- An order directing the party not granted custody to pay support of minor children, if that party has a legal obligation to do so;
- An order directing the defendant to make specified debit payments coming due while the order is in effect; and,
- An order directing that either or both parties participate in counseling.
- States that every law enforcement agency shall have policies and standards for dispatchers' response to domestic violence calls that reflect that calls reporting threatened, imminent, or ongoing domestic violence, and the violation of any protection order, and restraining orders, shall be ranked among the highest priority calls.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, negligible fiscal effect.
COMMENTS: According to the author, "Domestic violence is universal. It plagues countless people in all cities, counties, states and countries. We need to implement innovative ideas to combat this pervasive crime. It's our job to do more to end this epidemic. Approximately 40% of women in California are victims of intimate partner violence in their lifetimes. In the U.S., one in three women and one in four men have experienced some form of physical violence by an intimate partner. On a typical day, domestic violence hotlines receive approximately 21,000 calls, approximately 15 calls every minute.
''A Lethality Assessment Program (LAP) takes place at the scene of a police-involved incident of intimate partner violence and includes a risk assessment, followed by advocacy services for victims with a high-risk of being killed by their partner. LAP works best with a collaboration of law enforcement and domestic violence organizations in order to make sure high-risk victims are supported after the incident. The purpose of establishing this pilot program in Alameda County is to allow the County to demonstrate which strategies are most effective. By examining the data from diverse communities in Alameda County, we can work through the complexities of domestic violence based on how it affects different people of different demographics and can perfect this program to provide statewide solutions.''
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of this bill.
Analysis Prepared by: David Billingsly / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0003285
Date of Hearing: April 4, 2018
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2136
Author:(Bonta) – As Amended Ver:March 14, 2018
Policy Committee: | Public Safety | Vote: | 7 - 0 |
|
| ||
|
|
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill directs Alameda County to develop a domestic violence lethality assessment pilot program for five years and specifies that one purpose of the program is to find which strategies reduce domestic violence fatalities. Specifically, this bill:
- Requires the Alameda County to develop a domestic violence lethality assessment pilot program.
- States that the purpose of the program is to investigate which strategies reduce domestic violence fatalities, how many domestic violence survivors have fewer violent incidents with their partners, and how many first responders direct domestic violence victims to resources.
- Requires the program to develop tools for first responders to assess the lethality of domestic violence perpetrators in order to inform the decisions made by those first responders.
- Directs the Alameda County District Attorney to submit a report on the pilot program to the Legislature on April 1, 2023, as specified.
- Directs Alameda County to produce a public report annually during the pilot program on the progress and findings of the pilot program.
- Establishes a sunset date of January 1, 2024.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Significant GF costs for a state mandated local program, depending on a determination by the Commission on State Mandates. Specific costs are unknown, but will likely range in the low millions of dollars. Actual costs for the required pilot program will depend on decisions made by Alameda County regarding implementation of this bill.
COMMENTS:
- Background and purpose. According to the author:
Domestic violence is universal. It plagues countless people in all cities, counties, states and countries. We need to implement innovative ideas to combat this pervasive crime. It’s our job to do more to end this epidemic. Approximately 40 percent of women in California are victims of intimate partner violence in their lifetimes. In the U.S., 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men have experienced some form of physical violence by an intimate partner. On a typical day, domestic violence hotlines receive approximately 21,000 calls, approximately 15 calls every minute.
A Lethality Assessment Program (LAP) takes place at the scene of a police-involved incident of intimate partner violence and includes a risk assessment, followed by advocacy services for victims with a high-risk of being killed by their partner. LAP works best with a collaboration of law enforcement and domestic violence organizations in order to make sure high-risk victims are supported after the incident. The purpose of establishing this pilot program in Alameda County is to allow the County to demonstrate which strategies are most effective. By examining the data from diverse communities in Alameda County, we can work through the complexities of domestic violence based on how it affects different people of different demographics and can perfect this program to provide statewide solutions.
Analysis Prepared by: Jessica Peters / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
Date of Hearing:
Counsel: David Billingsley
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2136
Author:(Bonta) – As Amended Ver:March 14, 2018
SUMMARY:
Directs Alameda County to develop a domestic violence lethality assessment pilot program for five years. Specifies that one purpose of the program is to find which strategies reduce domestic violence fatalities. Specifically, this bill:
- Directs Alameda County to develop a domestic violence lethality assessment pilot program.
- States that the purpose of the program is to investigate which strategies reduce domestic violence fatalities, how many domestic violence survivors have fewer violent incidents with their partner, and how many first responders direct domestic violence victims to resources.
- Requires the program to develop tools for first responders to assess the lethality of domestic violence perpetrators in order to inform the decisions made by those first responders.
- Establishes a sunset date of January 1, 2024.
- Directs the Alameda County District Attorney to present a report on the pilot program to the Legislature on April 1, 2023, as specified.
- Directs Alameda County to produce a public report once a year on the progress and findings of the pilot program.
EXISTING LAW:
- Specifies that whenever there is an alleged violation or violations of specified domestic violence or sexual assault, the law enforcement officer assigned to the case shall immediately provide the victim of the crime with the "Victims of Domestic Violence" card. (Pen. Code, § 264.2, subd. (a).)
- Specifies that the “Victims of Domestic Violence” card which shall include, but is not limited to, the following information: (Pen. Code, § 13701, subd (c)(9).)
- The names and phone numbers of or local county hotlines for, or both the phone numbers of and local county hotlines for, local shelters for battered women and rape victim counseling centers within the county, including those centers specified in Section 13837, and their 24-hour counseling service telephone numbers;
- A simple statement on the proper procedures for a victim to follow after a sexual assault;
- A statement that sexual assault by a person who is known to the victim, including sexual assault by a person who is the spouse of the victim, is a crime; and,
- A statement that domestic violence or assault by a person who is known to the victim, including domestic violence or assault by a person who is the spouse of the victim, is a crime.
- The names and phone numbers of or local county hotlines for, or both the phone numbers of and local county hotlines for, local shelters for battered women and rape victim counseling centers within the county, including those centers specified in Section 13837, and their 24-hour counseling service telephone numbers;
- Requires every law enforcement agency in this state shall develop, adopt, and implement written policies and standards for officers’ responses to domestic violence calls by January 1, 1986. These policies shall reflect that domestic violence is alleged criminal conduct. Further, they shall reflect existing policy that a request for assistance in a situation involving domestic violence is the same as any other request for assistance where violence has occurred. (Pen. Code, § 13701, subd. (a).)
- Specifies that the written policies shall encourage the arrest of domestic violence offenders if there is probable cause that an offense has been committed. (Pen. Code, § 13701, subd. (b).)
- State that the written policies also shall require the arrest of an offender, absent exigent circumstances, if there is probable cause that a protective order issued, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 13701, subd. (b).)
- Provides that these policies shall discourage, when appropriate, but not prohibit, dual arrests. Peace officers shall make reasonable efforts to identify the dominant aggressor in any incident. The dominant aggressor is the person determined to be the most significant, rather than the first, aggressor. In identifying the dominant aggressor, an officer shall consider the intent of the law to protect victims of domestic violence from continuing abuse, the threats creating fear of physical injury, the history of domestic violence between the persons involved, and whether either person acted in self-defense.
- These existing local policies and those developed shall be in writing and shall be available to the public upon request and shall include: (Pen. Code, § 13701, subd. (c)(1)-(9).)
- Emergency assistance to victims, such as medical care, transportation to a shelter, or a hospital for treatment when necessary, and police standbys for removing personal property and assistance in safe passage out of the victim’s residence;
- Assisting victims in pursuing criminal options, such as giving the victim the report number and directing the victim to the proper investigation unit; and
- Furnishing written notice to victims at the scene, including, but not limited to, all of the following information:
- A statement informing the victim that despite official restraint of the person alleged to have committed domestic violence, the restrained person may be released at any time;
- A statement that, “For further information about a shelter you may contact ____.”;
- A statement that, “For information about other services in the community, where available, you may contact ____.”;
- A statement that, “For information about the California Victims” Compensation Program, you may contact 1-800-777-9229.”;
- A statement informing the victim of domestic violence that he or she may ask the district attorney to file a criminal complaint;
- A statement informing the victim of the right to go to the superior court and file a petition requesting any of the following orders for relief:
- An order restraining the attacker from abusing the victim and other family members;
- An order directing the attacker to leave the household;
- An order preventing the attacker from entering the residence, school, business, or place of employment of the victim;
- An order awarding the victim or the other parent custody of or visitation with a minor child or children;
- An order restraining the attacker from molesting or interfering with minor children in the custody of the victim;
- An order directing the party not granted custody to pay support of minor children, if that party has a legal obligation to do so;
- An order directing the defendant to make specified debit payments coming due while the order is in effect; and,
- An order directing that either or both parties participate in counseling.
- An order restraining the attacker from abusing the victim and other family members;
- A statement informing the victim that despite official restraint of the person alleged to have committed domestic violence, the restrained person may be released at any time;
- Emergency assistance to victims, such as medical care, transportation to a shelter, or a hospital for treatment when necessary, and police standbys for removing personal property and assistance in safe passage out of the victim’s residence;
- States that every law enforcement agency shall have policies and standards for dispatchers’ response to domestic violence calls that reflect that calls reporting threatened, imminent, or ongoing domestic violence, and the violation of any protection order, and restraining orders, shall be ranked among the highest priority calls. (Pen. Code, § 13702.)
FISCAL EFFECT:
Unknown
COMMENTS:
- Author's Statement: According to the author, "“Domestic violence is universal. It plagues countless people in all cities, counties, states and countries. We need to implement innovative ideas to combat this pervasive crime. It’s our job to do more to end this epidemic. Approximately 40 percent of women in California are victims of intimate partner violence in their lifetimes. In the U.S., 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men have experienced some form of physical violence by an intimate partner. On a typical day, domestic violence hotlines receive approximately 21,000 calls, approximately 15 calls every minute.
“A Lethality Assessment Program (LAP) takes place at the scene of a police-involved incident of intimate partner violence and includes a risk assessment, followed by advocacy services for victims with a high-risk of being killed by their partner. LAP works best with a collaboration of law enforcement and domestic violence organizations in order to make sure high-risk victims are supported after the incident. The purpose of establishing this pilot program in Alameda County is to allow the County to demonstrate which strategies are most effective. By examining the data from diverse communities in Alameda County, we can work through the complexities of domestic violence based on how it affects different people of different demographics and can perfect this program to provide statewide solutions.” - Maryland’s Lethality Assessment Program (LAP): In 2000, the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence (MNADV) set the goals of identifying victims at high risk for homicide by an intimate partner and creating a plan to assist them with decreasing that risk. To meet these goals, the MNADV established a statewide multi-disciplinary Lethality Assessment Committee in the fall of 2003 to create a protocol for response to domestic violence in Maryland. The committee included advocates, police officers, and professionals from other related disciplines including prosecution and probation, as well as three researchers from Johns Hopkins University and the University of Maryland, including Dr. Jacquelyn Campbell and Dr. Daniel Webster. Four research findings from Dr. Campbell’s study on intimate partner homicide (Campbell et al., 2003) were utilized as touchstones:
1) Nearly half of domestic homicide offenders had been arrested in the year prior to the homicide;
2) Women do not access domestic violence services at high rates;
3) There is a significant reduction in risk of severe assault when victims utilize the services of a domestic violence advocacy program; and
4) Abused women who used community-based domestic violence services were rarely the victim of murder or attempted murder. (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/247456.pdf)
Maryland’s LAP involves an 11-question risk assessment instrument called the Lethality Screen and an accompanying proactive response called the “Protocol Referral” that occurs at the scene of domestic violence calls for service. The LAP is initiated by police officers at the scene of a domestic violence incident. The officer determines whether it is appropriate to use the Lethality Screen, though it is suggested that the officer use the Lethality Screen when a past or current intimate relationship is involved and there is a “manifestation of danger” by evidence of at least one of the following criteria: (1) the officer believes that an assault or other violent act has occurred whether or not there was probable cause for arrest, (2) the officer is concerned for the safety of the victim once they leave the incident scene, (3) the officer is responding to a domestic violence call from a victim or at a location where domestic violence had occurred in the past, or (4) the officer has a “gut feeling” that the victim is in danger. Administration of the Lethality Screen usually occurs near the end of the officer’s investigation. (Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence [MNADV], 2013).
At the core of the LAP process is a willing partnership between law enforcement and a local domestic violence service provider. If a victim screens in as “high danger,” meaning that the victim is at an increased risk of homicide, the police officer conveys to the victim the danger that she/he is in and tells the victim that people in the same situation have been killed. The officer then tells the victim that she/he would like to call the local 24- hour domestic violence hotline at the collaborating advocacy organization in order to get some information to help the victim. The officer asks whether the victim would consider speaking with the hotline worker. Whether or not the victim chooses to speak to the hotline worker, the officer makes the call to the hotline and provides some basic information to the hotline worker. This may give the victim some time to consider speaking to the hotline worker; therefore, while the officer is on the telephone, she/he will ask the victim if they have reconsidered and would now like to talk. It is the victim’s choice whether or not they want to speak to the hotline worker and, if the victim declines to speak, the officer no longer pursues his/her effort to put the victim on the phone. Instead, the hotline worker provides the officer with some immediate safety planning tips for the next 24 hours to share with the victim. If the victim chooses to speak with the hotline worker, the conversation is brief (no more than 10 minutes) and focused, both because the officer must return to service and because the victim may not be in a position to attend to a great deal of information.
Because being on the phone with the victim at the scene of a domestic violence incident is a different type of call for hotline workers, they are trained to use special guidelines to communicate with and engage victims in situations where they do not have much time and where the victim may not have come to terms with the seriousness of their situation. Guidelines for hotline workers convey four main points: 1) gaining the victim’s trust, 2) reinforcing the information that the officer has provided about the danger that the victim is in (and thus reinforcing the partnership with law enforcement), 3) educating the victim and doing immediate safety planning, and 4) actively encouraging the victim to come in for services. Through years of experience implementing the LAP in Maryland, advocates have learned that most victims encountered in calls for service from the scene of a domestic violence incident are different from victims who initiate calls to the hotline for help. Victims at the scene of an incident may not be ready to reach out to social services for help or may have not yet even recognized that they are victims of abuse. The hotline worker, therefore, may need to provide more education about domestic violence, provide more information about services, and give more encouragement to access services than they would if a victim had reached out for services on their own.
In Maryland, 100% of law enforcement agencies that respond to calls for service are LAP participants. Between 2006 and 2012, officers have administered more than 56,000 screens. During that time period, 53% of victims screened at high risk with 57% of those talking with the advocate at the scene and 31% following up with the agency. (Id.)
Presumably this program is intended to be modeled on the Maryland LAP program, but this bill does not provide much specificity in terms of the requirements for the LAP program in Alameda County.
- Argument in Support: According to the Alameda County District Attorney, Nancy O’Malley, “Lethality Assessment Program (LAP) is an innovative strategy to prevent domestic violence homicides. The LAP takes place at the scene of when domestic violence occurs. The LAP includes a risk assessment, followed by advocacy services for victims with a high-risk of being killed by their partner. The LAP works best with a collaboration of law enforcement and domestic violence organizations in order to make sure high-risk victims are supported after the incident. Approximately forty percent of women in California are victims of intimate partner violence in their lifetimes.
“Alameda County has its own Domestic violence Fatality Review Team (ACDVFRT) that reviews each Alameda county fatality in order to determine whether or not the killing was the result of an act of domestic violence. The Team examines the facts and circumstances that existed before the death. By so, policies and practices are implemented to decrease the number of deaths resulting from domestic violence. Unfortunately, in 2016, domestic violence deaths in Alameda County increased. The County ACDVFRT is the best county at this time, to pilot the LAP.
“Under AB 2136, Alameda County would establish its own LAP, working with both law enforcement and domestic violence organizations to end domestic violence fatalities. By examining the data from Alameda County we can refine the techniques used in the LAP to create statewide protocols” - Related Legislation: AB 2290 (Gallagher), would require the court to consider issuing a post-conviction protective order for child witnesses to domestic violence crimes, but which may include visitation if the defendant is the parent. AB 2290 is awaiting hearing in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
- Prior Legislation:
- AB 1268 (Reyes), of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session, would have created the Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Prevention Fund and require that moneys in the fund be used, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to provide grants to nonprofit organizations for the purpose of funding programs that incorporate comprehensive, evidence-based, and promising practices to prevent domestic violence and sexual assault. AB 1268 has held on the Senate Appropriations Committee Suspense File.
- AB 1312 (Gonzalez-Fletcher), Chapter 692, Statutes of 2017, requires law enforcement and medical professionals to provide victims of sexual assault with written notification of their rights.
- SB 40 (Roth), Chapter 331, Statutes of 2017, requires that police reports include whether there were indications that a domestic violence incident involved strangulation or suffocation, as specified.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Alameda County District Attorney (Sponsor)
Alameda County Domestic Violence Collaborative
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
Child Abuse Listening, Interviewing and Coordination Center
Family Violence Law Center
Junior Leagues of California
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared by:
David Billingsley / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744
Bill Author
Bill Co-Author(s):