AB 2290: Restraining orders: minor witness: visitation.
- Session Year: 2017-2018
- House: Assembly
- Latest Version Date: 2018-04-02
Existing law requires a court to consider issuing a protective order restraining the defendant from contact with a percipient witness in all cases in which a criminal defendant has been convicted of a crime involving domestic violence, rape, unlawful sexual intercourse, participation in a criminal street gang, or any crime requiring registration as a sex offender, if it can be established by clear and convincing evidence that the witness has been harassed by the defendant. Existing law makes a violation of a protective order punishable as contempt, a misdemeanor.
This bill would instead additionally require the court to consider issuing an order restraining a criminal defendant who has been convicted of a crime involving domestic violence from any contact with a minor who is a witness, as defined. The bill would allow the order to include an order authorizing a family or juvenile court to make a subsequent order for safe and appropriate visitation with the defendants minor child who is a witness, as provided, and would require this order to have precedence in enforcement over a civil court order against the defendant, except as provided. Because a violation of the protective order would be 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 court to consider issuing a protective order restraining the defendant from contact with a percipient witness in all cases in which a criminal defendant has been convicted of a crime involving domestic violence, rape, unlawful sexual intercourse, participation in a criminal street gang, or any crime requiring registration as a sex offender, if it can be established by clear and convincing evidence that the witness has been harassed by the defendant. Existing law makes a violation of a protective order punishable as contempt, a misdemeanor.
This bill would instead require the court to consider issuing an order restraining a criminal defendant who has been convicted of a crime involving domestic violence from any contact with a minor who is a witness, as defined. The bill would allow the order to include an order authorizing a family or juvenile court to make a subsequent order for safe and appropriate visitation with the defendants minor child who is a witness, as provided, and would require this order to have precedence in enforcement over a civil court order against the defendant, except as provided. Because a violation of the protective order would be 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)(1)Upon a good cause belief that harm to, or intimidation or dissuasion of, a victim or witness has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur, a court with jurisdiction over a criminal matter may issue orders, including, but not limited to, the following:
(A)An order issued pursuant to Section 6320 of the Family Code.
(B)An order that a defendant shall not violate any provision of Section 136.1.
(C)An order that a person before the court other than a defendant, including, but not limited to, a subpoenaed witness or other person entering the courtroom of the court, shall not violate any provision of Section 136.1.
(D)An order that a person described in this section shall have no communication whatsoever with a specified witness or a victim, except through an attorney under reasonable restrictions that the court may impose.
(E)An order calling for a hearing to determine if an order as described in subparagraphs (A) to (D), inclusive, should be issued.
(F)(i)An order that a particular law enforcement agency within the jurisdiction of the court provide protection for a victim or a witness, or both, or for immediate family members of a victim or a witness who reside in the same household as the victim or witness or within reasonable proximity of the victims or witness household, as determined by the court. The order shall not be made without the consent of the law enforcement agency except for limited and specified periods of time and upon an express finding by the court of a clear and present danger of harm to the victim or witness or immediate family members of the victim or witness.
(ii)For purposes of this paragraph, immediate family members include the spouse, children, or parents of the victim or witness.
(G)(i)An order protecting a victim or witness of violent crime from all contact by the defendant, or contact, with the intent to annoy, harass, threaten, or commit acts of violence, by the defendant. The court or its designee shall transmit orders made under this paragraph to law enforcement personnel within one business day of the issuance, modification, extension, or termination of the order, pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 6380 of the Family Code. It is the responsibility of the court to transmit the modification, extension, or termination orders made under this paragraph to the same agency that entered the original protective order into the Domestic Violence Restraining Order System.
(ii)(I)If a court does not issue an order pursuant to clause (i) in a case in which the defendant is charged with a crime involving domestic violence as defined in Section 13700 or in Section 6211 of the Family Code, the court on its own motion shall consider issuing a protective order upon a good cause belief that harm to, or intimidation or dissuasion of, a victim or witness has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur, that provides as follows:
(ia)The defendant shall not own, possess, purchase, receive, or attempt to purchase or receive, a firearm while the protective order is in effect.
(ib)The defendant shall relinquish any firearms that he or she owns or possesses pursuant to Section 527.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(II)Every person who owns, possesses, purchases, or receives, or attempts to purchase or receive, a firearm while this protective order is in effect is punishable pursuant to Section 29825.
(iii)An order issued, modified, extended, or terminated by a court pursuant to this subparagraph shall be issued on forms adopted by the Judicial Council of California that have been approved by the Department of Justice pursuant to subdivision (i) of Section 6380 of the Family Code. However, the fact that an order issued by a court pursuant to this section was not issued on forms adopted by the Judicial Council and approved by the Department of Justice shall not, in and of itself, make the order unenforceable.
(iv)A protective order issued under this subparagraph may require the defendant to be placed on electronic monitoring if the local government, with the concurrence of the county sheriff or the chief probation officer with jurisdiction, adopts a policy to authorize electronic monitoring of defendants and specifies the agency with jurisdiction for this purpose. If the court determines that the defendant has the ability to pay for the monitoring program, the court shall order the defendant to pay for the monitoring. If the court determines that the defendant does not have the ability to pay for the electronic monitoring, the court may order electronic monitoring to be paid for by the local government that adopted the policy to authorize electronic monitoring. The duration of electronic monitoring shall not exceed one year from the date the order is issued. At no time shall the electronic monitoring be in place if the protective order is not in place.
(2)For purposes of this subdivision, a minor who was not a victim of, but who was physically present at the time of, an act of domestic violence, is a witness and is deemed to have suffered harm within the meaning of paragraph (1).
(b)A person violating an order made pursuant to subparagraphs (A) to (G), inclusive, of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) may be punished for any substantive offense described in Section 136.1, or for a contempt of the court making the order. A finding of contempt shall not be a bar to prosecution for a violation of Section 136.1. However, a person so held in contempt shall be entitled to credit for punishment imposed therein against a sentence imposed upon conviction of an offense described in Section 136.1. A conviction or acquittal for a substantive offense under Section 136.1 shall be a bar to a subsequent punishment for contempt arising out of the same act.
(c)(1)(A)Notwithstanding subdivision (e), an emergency protective order issued pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 6250) of Part 3 of Division 10 of the Family Code or Section 646.91 shall have precedence in enforcement over any other restraining or protective order, provided the emergency protective order meets all of the following requirements:
(i)The emergency protective order is issued to protect one or more individuals who are already protected persons under another restraining or protective order.
(ii)The emergency protective order restrains the individual who is the restrained person in the other restraining or protective order specified in clause (i).
(iii)The provisions of the emergency protective order are more restrictive in relation to the restrained person than are the provisions of the other restraining or protective order specified in clause (i).
(B)An emergency protective order that meets the requirements of subparagraph (A) shall have precedence in enforcement over the provisions of any other restraining or protective order only with respect to those provisions of the emergency protective order that are more restrictive in relation to the restrained person.
(2)Except as described in paragraph (1), a no-contact order, as described in Section 6320 of the Family Code, shall have precedence in enforcement over any other restraining or protective order.
(d)(1)A person subject to a protective order issued under this section shall not own, possess, purchase, or receive, or attempt to purchase or receive, a firearm while the protective order is in effect.
(2)The court shall order a person subject to a protective order issued under this section to relinquish any firearms he or she owns or possesses pursuant to Section 527.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(3)A person who owns, possesses, purchases, or receives, or attempts to purchase or receive, a firearm while the protective order is in effect is punishable pursuant to Section 29825.
(e)(1)In all cases in which the defendant is charged with a crime involving domestic violence, as defined in Section 13700 or in Section 6211 of the Family Code, or a violation of Section 261, 261.5, or 262, or any crime that requires the defendant to register pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 290, the court shall consider issuing the above-described orders on its own motion. All interested parties shall receive a copy of those orders. In order to facilitate this, the courts records of all criminal cases involving domestic violence or a violation of Section 261, 261.5, or 262, or any crime that requires the defendant to register pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 290, shall be marked to clearly alert the court to this issue.
(2)In those cases in which a complaint, information, or indictment charging a crime involving domestic violence, as defined in Section 13700 or in Section 6211 of the Family Code, or a violation of Section 261, 261.5, or 262, or any crime that requires the defendant to register pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 290, has been issued, except as described in subdivision (c), a restraining order or protective order against the defendant issued by the criminal court in that case has precedence in enforcement over a civil court order against the defendant.
(3)Custody and visitation with respect to the defendant and his or her minor children may be ordered by a family or juvenile court consistent with the protocol established pursuant to subdivision (f), but if ordered after a criminal protective order has been issued pursuant to this section, the custody and visitation order shall make reference to, and, if there is not an emergency protective order that has precedence in enforcement pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), or a no-contact order, as described in Section 6320 of the Family Code, acknowledge the precedence of enforcement of, an appropriate criminal protective order. On or before July 1, 2014, the Judicial Council shall modify the criminal and civil court forms consistent with this subdivision.
(f)On or before January 1, 2003, the Judicial Council shall promulgate a protocol, for adoption by each local court in substantially similar terms, to provide for the timely coordination of all orders against the same defendant and in favor of the same named victim or victims. The protocol shall include, but shall not be limited to, mechanisms for ensuring appropriate communication and information sharing between criminal, family, and juvenile courts concerning orders and cases that involve the same parties, and shall permit a family or juvenile court order to coexist with a criminal court protective order subject to the following conditions:
(1)An order that permits contact between the restrained person and his or her children shall provide for the safe exchange of the children and shall not contain language either printed or handwritten that violates a no-contact order issued by a criminal court.
(2)The safety of all parties shall be the courts paramount concern. The family or juvenile court shall specify the time, day, place, and manner of transfer of the child, as provided in Section 3100 of the Family Code.
(g)On or before January 1, 2003, the Judicial Council shall modify the criminal and civil court protective order forms consistent with this section.
(h)(1)In any case in which a complaint, information, or indictment charging a crime involving domestic violence, as defined in Section 13700 or in Section 6211 of the Family Code, has been filed, the court may consider, in determining whether good cause exists to issue an order under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), the underlying nature of the offense charged, and the information provided to the court pursuant to Section 273.75.
(2)In any case in which a complaint, information, or indictment charging a violation of Section 261, 261.5, or 262, or any crime that requires the defendant to register pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 290, has been filed, the court may consider, in determining whether good cause exists to issue an order under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), the underlying nature of the offense charged, the defendants relationship to the victim, the likelihood of continuing harm to the victim, any current restraining order or protective order issued by any civil or criminal court involving the defendant, and the defendants criminal history, including, but not limited to, prior convictions for a violation of Section 261, 261.5, or 262, a crime that requires the defendant to register pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 290, any other forms of violence, or any weapons offense.
(i)(1)In all cases in which a criminal defendant has been convicted of a crime involving domestic violence as defined in Section 13700 or in Section 6211 of the Family Code, a violation of Section 261, 261.5, or 262, a violation of Section 186.22, or a crime that requires the defendant to register pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 290, the court, at the time of sentencing, shall consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with the victim.
(2)In all cases in which a criminal defendant has been convicted of a crime involving domestic violence as defined in Section 13700 or in Section 6211 of the Family Code, a violation of Section 261, 261.5, or 262, a violation of Section 186.22, or a crime that requires the defendant to register pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 290, the court, at the time of sentencing, shall consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with a percipient witness to the crime if it can be established by clear and convincing evidence that the witness has been harassed, as defined in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 527.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the defendant.
(2)(3)(A)The court shall, at the time of sentencing, consider issuing an order restraining a criminal defendant who has been convicted of a crime involving domestic violence, as defined in Section 13700 or in Section 6211 of the Family Code, from any contact with a minor who is a witness as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a).
(B)A no-contact order issued pursuant to this paragraph may include, either at the time of sentencing or on subsequent application upon a showing of good cause at a noticed hearing, an order authorizing a family or juvenile court to make a subsequent order for safe and appropriate visitation with the defendants minor child who is a witness, subject to standards and protocols set forth in paragraph (3) of subdivision (e) and subdivision (f). Any hearing of the criminal court to consider an exception for visitation as described in this paragraph shall require notice of the hearing to the protected minor and to the office of the prosecuting attorney in the case. Notice to the protected minor shall be provided to the person with primary legal custody of that minor other than the criminal defendant.
(3)The(4)An order made pursuant to this subdivision paragraph (1) or (3) may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. This protective order may be issued by the court regardless of whether the defendant is sentenced to the state prison or a county jail or subject to mandatory supervision, or whether imposition of sentence is suspended and the defendant is placed on probation. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this subdivision that the duration of any restraining order issued by the court be based upon the seriousness of the facts before the court, the probability of future violations, and the safety of the victim, his or her immediate family, and a minor who is a witness as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a).
(4)(5)An order under this subdivision may include provisions for electronic monitoring if the local government, upon receiving the concurrence of the county sheriff or the chief probation officer with jurisdiction, adopts a policy authorizing electronic monitoring of defendants and specifies the agency with jurisdiction for this purpose. If the court determines that the defendant has the ability to pay for the monitoring program, the court shall order the defendant to pay for the monitoring. If the court determines that the defendant does not have the ability to pay for the electronic monitoring, the court may order the electronic monitoring to be paid for by the local government that adopted the policy authorizing electronic monitoring. The duration of the electronic monitoring shall not exceed one year from the date the order is issued.
(5)(6)Except as provided in subdivision (c), an order issued pursuant to this subdivision paragraph (3) shall have precedence in enforcement over a civil court order against the defendant.
(j)For purposes of this section, local government means the county that has jurisdiction over the protective order.
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)(1)Upon a good cause belief that harm to, or intimidation or dissuasion of, a victim or witness has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur, a court with jurisdiction over a criminal matter may issue orders, including, but not limited to, the following:
(A)An order issued pursuant to Section 6320 of the Family Code.
(B)An order that a defendant shall not violate any provision of Section 136.1.
(C)An order that a person before the court other than a defendant, including, but not limited to, a subpoenaed witness or other person entering the courtroom of the court, shall not violate any provision of Section 136.1.
(D)An order that a person described in this section shall have no communication whatsoever with a specified witness or a victim, except through an attorney under reasonable restrictions that the court may impose.
(E)An order calling for a hearing to determine if an order as described in subparagraphs (A) to (D), inclusive, should be issued.
(F)(i)An order that a particular law enforcement agency within the jurisdiction of the court provide protection for a victim or a witness, or both, or for immediate family members of a victim or a witness who reside in the same household as the victim or witness or within reasonable proximity of the victims or witness household, as determined by the court. The order shall not be made without the consent of the law enforcement agency except for limited and specified periods of time and upon an express finding by the court of a clear and present danger of harm to the victim or witness or immediate family members of the victim or witness.
(ii)For purposes of this paragraph, immediate family members include the spouse, children, or parents of the victim or witness.
(G)(i)An order protecting a victim or witness of violent crime from all contact by the defendant, or contact, with the intent to annoy, harass, threaten, or commit acts of violence, by the defendant. The court or its designee shall transmit orders made under this paragraph to law enforcement personnel within one business day of the issuance, modification, extension, or termination of the order, pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 6380 of the Family Code. It is the responsibility of the court to transmit the modification, extension, or termination orders made under this paragraph to the same agency that entered the original protective order into the Domestic Violence Restraining Order System.
(ii)(I)If a court does not issue an order pursuant to clause (i) in a case in which the defendant is charged with a crime involving domestic violence as defined in Section 13700 or in Section 6211 of the Family Code, the court on its own motion shall consider issuing a protective order upon a good cause belief that harm to, or intimidation or dissuasion of, a victim or witness has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur, that provides as follows:
(ia)The defendant shall not own, possess, purchase, receive, or attempt to purchase or receive, a firearm while the protective order is in effect.
(ib)The defendant shall relinquish any firearms that he or she owns or possesses pursuant to Section 527.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(II)Every person who owns, possesses, purchases, or receives, or attempts to purchase or receive, a firearm while this protective order is in effect is punishable pursuant to Section 29825.
(iii)An order issued, modified, extended, or terminated by a court pursuant to this subparagraph shall be issued on forms adopted by the Judicial Council of California that have been approved by the Department of Justice pursuant to subdivision (i) of Section 6380 of the Family Code. However, the fact that an order issued by a court pursuant to this section was not issued on forms adopted by the Judicial Council and approved by the Department of Justice shall not, in and of itself, make the order unenforceable.
(iv)A protective order issued under this subparagraph may require the defendant to be placed on electronic monitoring if the local government, with the concurrence of the county sheriff or the chief probation officer with jurisdiction, adopts a policy to authorize electronic monitoring of defendants and specifies the agency with jurisdiction for this purpose. If the court determines that the defendant has the ability to pay for the monitoring program, the court shall order the defendant to pay for the monitoring. If the court determines that the defendant does not have the ability to pay for the electronic monitoring, the court may order electronic monitoring to be paid for by the local government that adopted the policy to authorize electronic monitoring. The duration of electronic monitoring shall not exceed one year from the date the order is issued. At no time shall the electronic monitoring be in place if the protective order is not in place.
(2)For purposes of this subdivision, a minor who was not a victim of, but who was physically present at the time of, an act of domestic violence, is a witness and is deemed to have suffered harm within the meaning of paragraph (1).
(b)A person violating an order made pursuant to subparagraphs (A) to (G), inclusive, of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) may be punished for any substantive offense described in Section 136.1, or for a contempt of the court making the order. A finding of contempt shall not be a bar to prosecution for a violation of Section 136.1. However, a person so held in contempt shall be entitled to credit for punishment imposed therein against a sentence imposed upon conviction of an offense described in Section 136.1. A conviction or acquittal for a substantive offense under Section 136.1 shall be a bar to a subsequent punishment for contempt arising out of the same act.
(c)(1)(A)Notwithstanding subdivision (e), an emergency protective order issued pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 6250) of Part 3 of Division 10 of the Family Code or Section 646.91 shall have precedence in enforcement over any other restraining or protective order, provided the emergency protective order meets all of the following requirements:
(i)The emergency protective order is issued to protect one or more individuals who are already protected persons under another restraining or protective order.
(ii)The emergency protective order restrains the individual who is the restrained person in the other restraining or protective order specified in clause (i).
(iii)The provisions of the emergency protective order are more restrictive in relation to the restrained person than are the provisions of the other restraining or protective order specified in clause (i).
(B)An emergency protective order that meets the requirements of subparagraph (A) shall have precedence in enforcement over the provisions of any other restraining or protective order only with respect to those provisions of the emergency protective order that are more restrictive in relation to the restrained person.
(2)Except as described in paragraph (1), a no-contact order, as described in Section 6320 of the Family Code, shall have precedence in enforcement over any other restraining or protective order.
(d)(1)A person subject to a protective order issued under this section shall not own, possess, purchase, or receive, or attempt to purchase or receive, a firearm while the protective order is in effect.
(2)The court shall order a person subject to a protective order issued under this section to relinquish any firearms he or she owns or possesses pursuant to Section 527.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(3)A person who owns, possesses, purchases, or receives, or attempts to purchase or receive, a firearm while the protective order is in effect is punishable pursuant to Section 29825.
(e)(1)In all cases in which the defendant is charged with a crime involving domestic violence, as defined in Section 13700 or in Section 6211 of the Family Code, or a violation of Section 261, 261.5, or 262, or any crime that requires the defendant to register pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 290, the court shall consider issuing the above-described orders on its own motion. All interested parties shall receive a copy of those orders. In order to facilitate this, the courts records of all criminal cases involving domestic violence or a violation of Section 261, 261.5, or 262, or any crime that requires the defendant to register pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 290, shall be marked to clearly alert the court to this issue.
(2)In those cases in which a complaint, information, or indictment charging a crime involving domestic violence, as defined in Section 13700 or in Section 6211 of the Family Code, or a violation of Section 261, 261.5, or 262, or any crime that requires the defendant to register pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 290, has been issued, except as described in subdivision (c), a restraining order or protective order against the defendant issued by the criminal court in that case has precedence in enforcement over a civil court order against the defendant.
(3)Custody and visitation with respect to the defendant and his or her minor children may be ordered by a family or juvenile court consistent with the protocol established pursuant to subdivision (f), but if ordered after a criminal protective order has been issued pursuant to this section, the custody and visitation order shall make reference to, and, if there is not an emergency protective order that has precedence in enforcement pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), or a no-contact order, as described in Section 6320 of the Family Code, acknowledge the precedence of enforcement of, an appropriate criminal protective order. On or before July 1, 2014, the Judicial Council shall modify the criminal and civil court forms consistent with this subdivision.
(f)On or before January 1, 2003, the Judicial Council shall promulgate a protocol, for adoption by each local court in substantially similar terms, to provide for the timely coordination of all orders against the same defendant and in favor of the same named victim or victims. The protocol shall include, but shall not be limited to, mechanisms for ensuring appropriate communication and information sharing between criminal, family, and juvenile courts concerning orders and cases that involve the same parties, and shall permit a family or juvenile court order to coexist with a criminal court protective order subject to the following conditions:
(1)An order that permits contact between the restrained person and his or her children shall provide for the safe exchange of the children and shall not contain language either printed or handwritten that violates a no-contact order issued by a criminal court.
(2)The safety of all parties shall be the courts paramount concern. The family or juvenile court shall specify the time, day, place, and manner of transfer of the child, as provided in Section 3100 of the Family Code.
(g)On or before January 1, 2003, the Judicial Council shall modify the criminal and civil court protective order forms consistent with this section.
(h)(1)In any case in which a complaint, information, or indictment charging a crime involving domestic violence, as defined in Section 13700 or in Section 6211 of the Family Code, has been filed, the court may consider, in determining whether good cause exists to issue an order under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), the underlying nature of the offense charged, and the information provided to the court pursuant to Section 273.75.
(2)In any case in which a complaint, information, or indictment charging a violation of Section 261, 261.5, or 262, or any crime that requires the defendant to register pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 290, has been filed, the court may consider, in determining whether good cause exists to issue an order under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), the underlying nature of the offense charged, the defendants relationship to the victim, the likelihood of continuing harm to the victim, any current restraining order or protective order issued by any civil or criminal court involving the defendant, and the defendants criminal history, including, but not limited to, prior convictions for a violation of Section 261, 261.5, or 262, a crime that requires the defendant to register pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 290, any other forms of violence, or any weapons offense.
(i)(1)In all cases in which a criminal defendant has been convicted of a crime involving domestic violence as defined in Section 13700 or in Section 6211 of the Family Code, a violation of Section 261, 261.5, or 262, a violation of Section 186.22, or a crime that requires the defendant to register pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 290, the court, at the time of sentencing, shall consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with a victim of the crime. The the victim.
(2)(A)The court shall, at the time of sentencing, consider issuing an order restraining a criminal defendant who has been convicted of a crime involving domestic violence, as defined in Section 13700 or in Section 6211 of the Family Code, from any contact with a minor who is a witness as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a).
(B)A no-contact order issued pursuant to this paragraph may include, either at the time of sentencing or on subsequent application upon a showing of good cause at a noticed hearing, an order authorizing a family or juvenile court to make a subsequent order for safe and appropriate visitation with the defendants minor child who is a witness, subject to standards and protocols set forth in paragraph (3) of subdivision (e) and subdivision (f). Any hearing of the criminal court to consider an exception for visitation as described in this paragraph shall require notice of the hearing to the protected minor and to the office of the prosecuting attorney in the case. Notice to the protected minor shall be provided to the person with primary legal custody of that minor other than the criminal defendant.
(3)The order made pursuant to this subdivision may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. This protective order may be issued by the court regardless of whether the defendant is sentenced to the state prison or a county jail or subject to mandatory supervision, or whether imposition of sentence is suspended and the defendant is placed on probation. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this subdivision that the duration of any restraining order issued by the court be based upon the seriousness of the facts before the court, the probability of future violations, and the safety of a victim and his or her immediate family. the victim, his or her immediate family, and a minor who is a witness as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a).
(2)In all cases in which a criminal defendant has been convicted of a crime involving domestic violence as defined in Section 13700 or in Section 6211 of the Family Code, a violation of Section 261, 261.5, or 262, a violation of Section 186.22, or a crime that requires the defendant to register pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 290, the court, at the time of sentencing, shall consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with a percipient witness to the crime if it can be established by clear and convincing evidence that the witness has been harassed, as defined in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 527.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the defendant. (3)(4)An order under this subdivision may include provisions for electronic monitoring if the local government, upon receiving the concurrence of the county sheriff or the chief probation officer with jurisdiction, adopts a policy authorizing electronic monitoring of defendants and specifies the agency with jurisdiction for this purpose. If the court determines that the defendant has the ability to pay for the monitoring program, the court shall order the defendant to pay for the monitoring. If the court determines that the defendant does not have the ability to pay for the electronic monitoring, the court may order the electronic monitoring to be paid for by the local government that adopted the policy authorizing electronic monitoring. The duration of the electronic monitoring shall not exceed one year from the date the order is issued.
(5)Except as provided in subdivision (c), an order issued pursuant to this subdivision shall have precedence in enforcement over a civil court order against the defendant.
(j)For purposes of this section, local government means the county that has jurisdiction over the protective order.
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
|
|---|---|
| May 25, 2018 | In committee: Held under submission. |
| Apr 18, 2018 | In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file. |
| Apr 4, 2018 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (April 3). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Apr 3, 2018 | Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| Apr 2, 2018 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. Read second time and amended. |
| Mar 1, 2018 | Referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| Feb 14, 2018 | From printer. May be heard in committee March 16. |
| Feb 13, 2018 | Read first time. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 3, 2018 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | 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
|
|---|---|---|
| American Civil Liberties Union of California | ** Against | Apr 2, 2018 |
| Conference Of California Bar Associations | * Support | Apr 3, 2018 |
| Crime Victims United Of California | ** Support | Apr 2, 2018 |
| Riverside Sheriffs' Association | ** Support | Apr 2, 2018 |
Date of Hearing: April 18, 2018
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2290
Author:(Gallagher) – As Amended Ver:April 2, 2018
Policy Committee: | Public Safety | Vote: | 6 - 0 |
|
| ||
|
|
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill authorizes the court to issue a post-conviction restraining order in domestic violence cases to cover a child witness who is physically present at the time of an act of domestic violence but who is not a victim. Specifically, this bill:
- Requires the court, at the time of sentencing a defendant for a domestic-violence-related offense, to consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with a child witness who is physically present at the time of an act of domestic violence, but who was not a victim of the abuse.
- States that such a restraining order may include an order authorizing a family or juvenile court to make a subsequent order for visitation if the defendant’s minor child is the witness subject to the restraining order.
FISCAL EFFECT:
- Unknown, potentially significant GF costs for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to incarcerate individuals who violate a protective order (as expanded by this bill) more than once and commit an act of violence or a credible threat of violence. This is because while an initial violation of a protective order is a misdemeanor, subsequent violations that include an act of violence or credible threat of violence are “wobblers”—punishable either in county jail or in state prison. Between 2015 and 2017, CDCR admitted to state prison an average of 37 offenders each year for repeated violations of protective orders. By potentially expanding the number of protective orders issued, it is likely that this bill will result in additional offenders receiving sentences to state prison. However, given the limited scope of this bill, it is likely that CDCR will only admit up to several offenders each year as a result of this bill.
For example, if five additional offenders are admitted annually to CDCR with two-year sentences (the mid-term sentence for this crime), costs in the first year will be $150,000 (assuming the out-of-state contract rate of $30,000 annually per offender) and $300,000 in the second year and ongoing. The actual costs for CDCR will depend on the number of additional protective orders issued by the courts, the number of individuals who commit repeat violations of those orders, and whether those offenders are sentenced to county jail or state prison.
- Minor GF costs, in the low tens of thousands of dollars, for the Department of Justice to process additional fingerprint records and handle a potential increase in claims for invalid restraining orders.
- Minor costs for courts to consider whether to issue a protective order as specified by this bill.
- Non-reimbursable local costs for incarceration, to the extent more protective orders are issued and some individuals violate those orders and are sentenced to county jail. These local costs are offset, at least partially, by fine and fee revenue.
COMMENTS:
- Background. Under existing law, a court is authorized to issue no-contact protective orders for up to 10 years when a defendant has been convicted of willful infliction of corporal injury to a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or the mother or father of the defendant's child. The court can also issue no-contact protective orders lasting up to 10 years in numerous other types of cases, such as a domestic-violence-related offense, rape, spousal rape, statutory rape, gang cases, or any crime requiring sex offender registration.
- Purpose. According to the author:
Under current law, if a defendant is convicted of a crime involving domestic violence, the court can only issue a post-conviction restraining order restraining the convicted defendant from any contact with the “victim.” This does not include witnesses, who are in most cases minors, and who may not have been the actual physical recipient of domestic violence, but were still physically present at the time of the act(s) of domestic violence, witnessed the act(s) of domestic violence, and suffered actual harm as a result of witnessing the act(s) of domestic violence against his or her parent.
- Related legislation.
AB 2036 (Gipson), of the current legislative session, extends a court’s authority to issue criminal protective orders in juvenile delinquency cases. AB 2036 is pending hearing in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
AB 1735 (Cunningham), of the current legislative session, requires the courts to consider issuing a restraining order in all cases in which a defendant has been convicted of human trafficking, pimping, or pandering. AB 2290 is currently on this committee’s suspense file.
- Prior legislation.
AB 264 (Low), Chapter 270, Statutes of 2017, requires the court to consider issuing a restraining order for up to 10 years in gang cases.
SB 352 (Block), Chapter 279, Statutes of 2015, requires the court to consider issuing a restraining order for up to 10 years when a defendant is convicted for an offense involving abuse of an elder or a dependent adult, regardless of the sentence imposed.
AB 307 (Campos), Chapter 291, Statutes of 2013, allows a court to issue a protective order for up to 10 years when a defendant is convicted of specified sex crimes, regardless of the sentence imposed.
Analysis Prepared by: Jessica Peters / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
Date of Hearing:
Counsel: Sandra Uribe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:
Author:(Gallagher) – As Amended Ver:
SUMMARY:
Authorizes the court to issue a post-conviction restraining order in domestic violence cases to cover a child witness who is physically present at the time of an act of domestic violence but who is not a victim. Specifically, this bill:
- Requires the court, at the time of sentencing a defendant for a domestic-violence-related offense, to consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with a child witness who is physically present at the time of an act of domestic violence, but who was not a victim of abuse.
- States that such a restraining order issued may include an order authorizing a family or juvenile court to make a subsequent order for visitation with the defendant’s minor child who is a witness.
- Requires notice to the protected minor and the prosecutor if the criminal court is considering an exception for visitation. Notice to the minor shall be through the primary legal custodian of that minor, other than the criminal defendant.
- Provides that a post-conviction criminal protective order shall have precedence in enforcement over a civil court order against the defendant, except as specified.
EXISTING LAW:
- Authorizes the trial court in a criminal case to issue protective orders when there is a good cause belief that harm to, or intimidation or dissuasion of a victim or witness has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur. (Pen. Code, § 136.2, subd. (a).)
- Allows a court to issue a protective order for up to 10 years to protect the victim of the crime when a defendant is convicted of any of the following crimes:
- A crime involving domestic violence, as specified;
- Cases of rape, spousal rape, and statutory rape;
- Gang cases;
- Any offense requiring sex-offender registration (including pimping and pandering of a minor);
- Stalking cases; and,
- Elder and dependent adult abuse cases. (Pen. Code, §§ 136.2, subd. (i)(1); 646.9, subd. (k); 368, subd. (l).)
- A crime involving domestic violence, as specified;
- Requires a court to consider issuing a protective order restraining the defendant from contact with a percipient witness in all cases in which a criminal defendant has been convicted of a crime involving domestic violence, rape, unlawful sexual intercourse, participation in a criminal street gang, or any crime requiring registration as a sex offender, if it can be established by clear and convincing evidence that the witness has been harassed by the defendant. (Pen. Code, § 136.2, subd. (i)(2).)
- Provides that a person violating a protective order may be punished for any substantive offense described in provisions of law related to intimidation of witnesses or victims, or for contempt of court. (Pen. Code, § 136.2, subd. (b).)
- Provides that a violation of these protective orders prosecuted as contempt of court is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, by a fine of up to $1,000, or both. However a second or subsequent violation occurring within seven years and involving an act of violence or a credible threat is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, or by 16 months, or two or three years in prison. (Pen. Code, § 166, subd. (c).)
- Authorizes, under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA), a court to issue and enforce a domestic violence restraining order, including an emergency protective order, a temporary restraining order and a permanent restraining order. (Fam. Code, §§ 6300 et seq.)
- Provides that a permanent order made after hearing under the DVPA may have a duration of no more than five years, subject to termination or modification. An order may be renewed, upon request of either party, for either five years or permanently, without a showing of any further abuse since issuance of the original order. (Fam. Code, § 6345, subd. (a).)
- Provides that a court may issue an ex parte order enjoining a party from molesting, attacking, striking, stalking, threatening, sexually assaulting, battering, harassing, telephoning, including, but not limited to, making annoying telephone calls as described, destroying personal property, contacting, either directly or indirectly, by mail or otherwise, coming within a specified distance of, or disturbing the peace of the other party, and, in the discretion of the court, on a showing of good cause, of other named family or household members. (Fam. Code, § 6320.)
- Allows the court to issue civil harassment protective orders and workplace violence protective orders for up to three years upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence. (Civ. Pro. Code, §§ 527.6 and 527.8.)
FISCAL EFFECT:
Unknown
COMMENTS:
- Author's Statement: According to the author, “Under current law, if a defendant is convicted of a crime involving domestic violence, the court can only issue a post-conviction restraining order restraining the convicted defendant from any contact with the “victim”. This does not include witnesses, who are in most cases minors, and who may not have been the actual physical recipient of domestic violence; but were still physically present at the time of the act(s) of domestic violence; witnessed the act(s) of domestic violence; and suffered actual harm as a result of witnessing the act(s) of domestic violence against his or her parent.
“Currently, a minor who is present during the act(s) of domestic violence can not be included in a post-conviction protective order unless the minor was also physically abused or is likely to be abused, or if there is good cause to believe that the convicted defendant will attempt to punish the child for testifying. However, if the convicted defendant has not physically abused the minor in the past, or if the minor did not testify against the defendant, the minor who witnessed these acts is still in imminent physical danger, and the Court is powerless to issue a post-conviction protective order covering this individual.
“A minor who is physically present during an act(s) of domestic violence still suffers harm. Numerous studies show that child witnesses of domestic violence typically do worse in school, suffer more frequent health complaints, are more prone to anxiety, depression, and PTSD, are more frequently victims of rape and/or sexual misconduct. These symptoms do not appear immediately, nor in all child witnesses. But they are very real, and militate strongly in favor of changing the law to permit the inclusion of these children in post-conviction protective orders.
“This bill would include witnesses within the coverage of post-conviction domestic violence restraining orders; and would state that a minor who was not a victim of, but who was physically present at the time of, and act of domestic violence, is a witness and is deemed to have suffered harm.”
- Protective Orders: As a general matter, the court can issue a protective order in any criminal proceeding pursuant to Penal Code Section 136.2 where it finds good cause belief that harm to, or intimidation or dissuasion of, a victim or witness has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur. Protective orders issued under this statute are valid only during the pendency of the criminal proceedings. (People v. Ponce (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 378, 382.)
When criminal proceedings have concluded, the court has authority to issue protective orders as a condition of probation. For example, when domestic violence criminal proceedings have concluded, the court can issue a "no-contact order" as a condition of probation. (Pen. Code, § 1203.097.)
Finally, in some cases in which probation has not been granted, the court also has the authority to issue post-conviction protective orders. The court is authorized to issue no-contact orders for up to 10 years when a defendant has been convicted of willful infliction of corporal injury to a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or the mother or father of the defendant's child. The court can also issue no-contact orders lasting up to 10 years in cases involving a domestic-violence-related offense, rape, spousal rape, statutory rape, gang cases, or any crime requiring sex offender registration. (Pen. Code, § 136.2, subd. (i)(1).) The same is true of stalking cases (Pen. Code, §646.9, subd. (k)). Similarly, in cases involving a criminal conviction or juvenile adjudication for a sex offense in which the victim was a minor, the court may issue an order "that would prohibit … harassing, intimidating, or threatening the victim or the victim's family members or spouse." (Pen. Code, § 1201.3, subd. (a).) Lastly, the court has authority to issue no-contact orders lasting up to 10 years in cases involving the abuse of an elder or dependent adult. (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (l).)
AB 1850 (Waldron), Chapter 673, Statutes of 2014, defined a minor who is physically present at the time of an act of domestic violence, but is not a victim, as a witness deemed to have suffered harm for the purposes of issuing a protective order in a pending criminal case. This bill would extend the protection to child witnesses established by AB 1850 (Waldron) of 2014 to post-conviction domestic violence protective orders.
- Need for this Bill: The background provided by the author cites the case of People v. Delarosarauda (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 205, as illustrative of why this bill is needed.
In Delarosarauda, supra, 227 Cal.App.4th 205, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court did not have authority to issue a post-conviction protective order barring a defendant convicted of corporal injury to a co-habitant from having contact with his son or stepdaughter who were not victims. Delarosarauda was convicted of corporal injury to a co-habitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)) and other offenses. At sentencing, the trial court issued a criminal protective order as to the victim and her two children for the duration of 10 years. (Id. at p. 209.) Appellant challenged the protective order on appeal. Applying the rules of statutory construction, the court concluded that sections 136.2, subdivision (i)(1) did not authorize the trial court to issue the no-contact order as to the children. The plain language of the statute limits it to victims, and the children did not meet the definition of “victim” provided in the protective order statute. (Id. at p. 211.) Moreover, there was no evidence that appellant ever attempted to harm the children. (Id. at pp. 211-212.) For the same reasons, the court found that the post-conviction protective order was not authorized by the domestic violence statute, Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (j), which contains similar language. (Id. at pp. 212-213.) Accordingly, the Court of Appeal modified the protective order to remove the children. (Id. at p. 213.)
It should be noted however, that last year, Penal Code section 136.2 was expanded to authorize the sentencing court to issue post-conviction restraining order to cover percipient witnesses to the qualifying crimes. (See AB 264 (Low), Chapter 270, Statutes of 2017.) Under existing law, the court must consider issuing a protective order restraining for a percipient witness in cases in which the defendant has been convicted of a crime involving domestic violence, rape, unlawful sexual intercourse, participation in a criminal street gang, or any crime requiring registration as a sex offender, if it can be established by clear and convincing evidence that the witness has been harassed by the defendant. (Pen. Code, § 136.2, subd. (i)(2).) Thus, under the proper circumstances, the court can issue a protective order restraining the defendant from a minor who is a witness to an act of domestic violence, but not a victim.
Additionally, existing law authorizes, under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA), a court to issue and enforce a domestic violence restraining order, including an emergency protective order, a temporary restraining order and a permanent restraining order. (Fam. Code, §§ 6300 et seq.) - Criminal Contempt: Disobedience of a court order may be punished as criminal contempt. The crime of contempt is a general intent crime. It is proven by showing that the defendant intended to commit the prohibited act, without any additional showing that he or she intended "to do some further act or achieve some additional consequence." (People v. Greenfield (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 4.) Nevertheless, a violation must also be willful, which in the case of a court order encompasses both intent to disobey the order, and disregard of the duty to obey the order. (In re Karpf (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 355, 372.)
Criminal contempt under Penal Code Section 166 is a misdemeanor, unless there are prior violations, and so proceedings under the statute are conducted like any other misdemeanor offense. (In re McKinney (1968) 70 Cal.2d 8, 10; In re Kreitman (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 750, 755.) The criminal contempt power is vested in the prosecution; the trial court has no power to institute criminal contempt proceedings under the Penal Code. (In re McKinney, supra, 70 Cal.2d at p. 13.) A defendant charged with the crime of contempt "is entitled to the full panoply of substantive and due process rights." (People v. Kalnoki (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th Supp. 8, 11.) Therefore, the defendant has the right to a jury trial, regardless of the sentence imposed. (People v. Earley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 542, 550.)
- Effects of Restraining Orders: The consequences of having the court issue a restraining order against a person can be very severe. The person will not be able to go to certain places or to do certain things. For example, the restraining order may prohibit the defendant from being within a certain distance of the person named in the order, thereby implicating the defendant’s right to travel. Depending on the facts, such an order may implicate an individual’s property interests by forcing him or her to vacate his or her own home.
The restraining order may affect a person’s immigration status. A violation of a protective order is a deportable offense. Section 237(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) states: “Any alien who at any time after entry is enjoined under a protection order issued by a court an whom the court determines has engaged in conduct that violates the portion of a protection order that involves protection against credible threats of violence, repeated harassment, or bodily injury to the person or persons for whom the protection order was issued is deportable.”
The restrained person will generally not be able to own a gun and will have to turn in, sell, or store any guns he or she has, and will not be able to buy a gun while the restraining order is in effect. (Pen. Code, § 29825.) - Argument in Support: According to the Conference of California Bar Associations, the sponsor of this bill, “Under current law, if a defendant is charged with a crime involving domestic violence, the court can issue a pre-conviction restraining order prohibiting the convicted defendant from any contact with the “victim” of the crime, as well as any witnesses and immediate family members of the victim. “Witnesses” are defined to include minors who may not have been victims of domestic violence or abuse but were physically present at the time of the act(s) of domestic violence and are deemed to have suffered harm thereby. However, once the defendant has been convicted of a crime involving domestic violence, much of this protection evaporates. Not only does the pre-conviction protective order expire, but any post-conviction order issued can only extend to the victim or a percipient witness who can prove he or she has been harassed by the defendant.
“The problem is that DV victims, witnesses and their immediate family members often need greater protection post-conviction than pre-conviction. Pre-conviction, many DV defendants have been in custody awaiting trial, and thus have not been free and able to harm the protected individuals. Once convicted, however, most of these defendants are released from custody either immediately or shortly thereafter. At that point, these defendants can be very angry and interested in retaliating against the victim, directly or indirectly, and anyone else the defendant believes is responsible for his or her conviction. This includes children in the household who were not the direct victims of abuse or called as witnesses in court, but whom the Legislature has appropriately recognized as victims of the abuse, through whom the defendant can try to retaliate against the direct victims.
“AB 2290 will remedy this problem by expanding the permissible scope of post-conviction protective orders to the same level as pre-conviction orders, permitting them to protect minors who may not have been victims of domestic violence or abuse themselves, but were physically present at the time of the act(s) of domestic violence. The bill does permits a DV defendant to eventually obtain visitation with a child so protected, but only if the child, the child’s parent or guardian, and the office of the prosecuting DA are provided notice and allowed to contest, thus better ensuring the protection of the child.”
- Argument in Opposition: According to the American Civil Liberties Union of California, “Subdivision (i) of Penal Code section 136.2 allows courts to give additional protections to victims of specific types of crimes where the victim may have particular reason to fear further harm from the offender, and witnesses where there is evidence that the witness has been harassed. For up to ten years, potentially far longer than the sentence or term of probation, the defendant remains subject to the control of the criminal justice system. The terms of these restraining orders in many cases can make it more difficult for the defendant to reintegrate into the community, in some cases making it impossible for an offender to return to his former home or even neighborhood. Expanding the criminal court’s power as proposed in AB 2290 would lead to more offenders remaining under more onerous restrictions long after their sentences or terms of probation have ended. The end result in many cases would likely be conviction for violation of the restraining order, and a prolonged cycle of reincarceration.
“Nor is such an expansion necessary to protect children who witness domestic violence. Under existing law, the family court has the power to issue a restraining order that prohibits a party accused of domestic violence from contact with the other, and can extend the order to prohibit contact with other family or household members. (Family Code §§ 6320 and 6340.) Orders restraining an offender from contact while allowing for appropriate visitation may be issued. (Family Code § 6323.) Family courts have the knowledge of each family’s situation and the expertise in family matters needed to craft these orders. Asking criminal courts to step in to these situations is asking them to do a job they are not suited for, when there is no reason to do so.” - Related Legislation:
- AB 1735 (Cunningham) would require the court to consider issuing a protective order in all cases in which a defendant has been convicted of human trafficking, pimping or pandering AB 1735 is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
- AB 2036 (Gipson) would extend a court authority to issue criminal protective orders in juvenile delinquency cases. AB 2036 is pending hearing in this committee.
- SB 1089 (Jackson) would clarify that all protective orders subject to transmittal to the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, also known as CLETS, are required to be so transmitted. SB 1089 is pending hearing in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
- AB 1735 (Cunningham) would require the court to consider issuing a protective order in all cases in which a defendant has been convicted of human trafficking, pimping or pandering AB 1735 is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
- Prior Legislation:
- AB 270 (Gallagher), of the 2017-2018 legislative session, was substantially similar to this bill. AB 270 was held on the Senate Appropriations suspense file.
- AB 264 (Low), Chapter 270, Statutes of 2017, requires the court to consider issuing a restraining order for up to 10 years in gang cases and expands the authority to issue all post-conviction restraining order to cover witnesses to the qualifying crimes.
- AB 1850 (Waldron), Chapter 673, Statutes of 2014, provides that a minor who is physically present at the time of an act of domestic violence but is not a victim, is a witness deemed to have suffered harm for the purposes of issuing a protective order in a pending criminal case.
- SB 352 (Block), Chapter 279, Statutes of 2015, requires the court to consider issuing a restraining order for up to 10 years when a defendant is convicted for an offense involving abuse of an elder or a dependent adult, regardless of the sentence imposed.
- AB 307 (Campos), Chapter 291, Statutes of 2013, allows a court to issue a protective order for up to 10 years when a defendant is convicted of specified sex crimes, regardless of the sentence imposed.
- SB 723 (Pavley), Chapter 155, Statutes of 2011, allows a court to issue a protective order for up to 10 years when a defendant is convicted for an offense involving domestic violence, regardless of the sentence imposed.
- SB 834 (Florez), Chapter 627, Statutes of 2010, allows a court to issue a protective order for up to 10 years in sex cases involving a minor victim.
- AB 289 (Spitzer), Chapter 582, Statutes of 2007, allows a court to issue a protective order for 10 years upon a defendant's conviction for stalking.
- AB 270 (Gallagher), of the 2017-2018 legislative session, was substantially similar to this bill. AB 270 was held on the Senate Appropriations suspense file.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Conference of California Bar Associations (Sponsor)
Crime Victims United of California
Riverside Sheriffs’ Association
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union of California
Analysis Prepared by:
Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744
Discussed in Hearing
Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety
Bill Author
Bill Co-Author(s):