Existing law requires a court, upon the issuance of certain types of protective orders, to transmit the order and other specified information to the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, also known as CLETS, within one business day.

This bill would clarify, as a statement of existing law, that all protective orders subject to transmittal to CLETS are required to be so transmitted. The bill would make legislative findings and declarations in support of this measure.

Existing law requires a court, upon the issuance of certain types of protective orders, to transmit the order and other specified information to the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, also known as CLETS, within one business day.

This bill would clarify, as a statement of existing law, that all protective orders subject to transmittal to CLETS are required to be so transmitted. The bill would make legislative findings and declarations in support of this measure.

Existing law requires a court, upon the issuance of certain types of protective orders, to transmit the order and other specified information to the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, also known as CLETS, within one business day.

This bill would clarify, as a statement of existing law, that all protective orders subject to transmittal to CLETS are required to be so transmitted. The bill would make legislative findings and declarations in support of this measure.

Date of Hearing: June 12, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Mark Stone, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1089

Author:(Jackson) – As Introduced Ver:February 12, 2018

PROPOSED CONSENT

SENATE VOTE: 36-0

SUBJECT: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDERS: ENTRY IN CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM (CLETS)

KEY ISSUE: SHOULD STATE LAW BE CLARIFIED TO REITERATE THE LEGISLATURE’S INTENT THAT ANY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDER THAT IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE ENTERED IN CLETS IS, IN FACT, ENTERED INTO CLETS?

SYNOPSIS

This author-sponsored bill seeks to simply clarify existing law that requires all civil and criminal protective orders to be entered into the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS). Existing law requires a court, upon the issuance of certain types of protective orders, to transmit the order and other specified information to CLETS. Nevertheless, some courts have issued “non-CLETS protective orders” in an effort to avoid entering the orders in CLETS. The term “non-CLETS protective orders” is not defined or authorized in statute, but is a term referring to orders that, upon agreement of one or more of the parties, and cooperation of a trial court, are not entered into the CLETS system.

Appellate courts have held that a trial court acts outside of its jurisdiction when it makes orders that are not authorized by statute. When a statute specifies a prescribed procedure, but the trial court acts contrary to the authority conferred by that statute, it has exceeded its jurisdiction. For example, when a trial court allows parties to stipulate to a factual determination that a statutory scheme requires the court to make, based upon specific statutory presumptions and evidence presented by the parties, the trial court’s judgment is void and subject to collateral attack. The issue of “non-CLETS protective orders” has been specifically discussed by at least one appellate court, albeit in an unpublished opinion, In re Carlisle, which held that although some family law courts issue “non-CLETS protective orders” in lieu of statutory domestic violence restraining orders, there is no statutory authority for the issuance of such orders. Consistent with the reasoning of the unpublished Carlisle case, as well as all of the published cases upon which the Carlisle court relied, this bill seeks to clarify that all protective orders must be entered into CLETS and there is no authority for a so-called “non-CLETS protective order.” The bill has no support or opposition on file.

SUMMARY: Clarifies that any protective order that is required by law to be entered into the California Law Enforcement and Telecommunications System (CLETS) is, in fact, required to be entered into CLETS. Specifically, this bill:

1. Makes the following uncodified legislative findings and declarations:
2. The Legislature has become aware of a practice in proceedings relating to restraining orders whereby the parties seek to have the court enter a stipulated protective order that would not be transmitted to the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, also known as CLETS, when the law otherwise requires its transmittal. These proposed stipulated orders are sometimes colloquially referred to as a “non-CLETS restraining order.”
3. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this measure to clarify that all protective orders subject to transmittal to CLETS are required to be so transmitted.
4. Specifies that all protective orders subject to transmittal to CLETS pursuant to existing law are required to be so transmitted.
5. States that 2), above, does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires that each county, with the approval of the Department of Justice, must have a procedure for the electronic transmission of data, as described in 3), below, to the Department of Justice and requires the data to be electronically transmitted through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) of the Department of Justice by law enforcement personnel, or with the approval of the Department of Justice, court personnel, or another appropriate agency capable of maintaining and preserving the integrity of both the CLETS and the Domestic Violence Restraining Order System. (Family Code Section 6380 (a). All further statutory references are to the Family Code, unless otherwise indicated.)
2. Requires all data with respect to criminal court protective orders issued, modified, extended, or terminated, and all data filed with the court on the required Judicial Council forms with respect to protective orders, including their issuance, modification, extension, or termination, to which this division applies, to be transmitted by the court or its designee within one business day to law enforcement personnel by either one of the following methods:
3. Transmitting a physical copy of the order to a local law enforcement agency authorized by the Department of Justice to enter orders into CLETS.
4. With the approval of the Department of Justice, entering the order into CLETS directly. (Ibid.)
5. Requires, upon the issuance of a protective order, or the issuance of a temporary restraining order or injunction relating to harassment, unlawful violence, or the threat of violence, or the issuance of a criminal court protective order, or the issuance of a juvenile court restraining order related to domestic violence, or the issuance of a protective order pursuant to the Welfare and Institutions Code, or upon registration with the court clerk of a domestic violence protective or restraining order issued by the tribunal of another state, and including any order for modification of a custody or visitation order issued pursuant to a dissolution, legal separation, nullity, or paternity proceeding, the Department of Justice shall be immediately notified of the contents of the order and the following information:
6. The name, race, date of birth, and other personal descriptive information of the respondent as required by a form prescribed by the Department of Justice.
7. The names of the protected persons.
8. The date of issuance of the order.
9. The duration or expiration date of the order.
10. The terms and conditions of the protective order, including stay-away, no-contact, residency exclusion, custody, and visitation provisions of the order.
11. The department or division number and the address of the court.
12. Whether or not the order was served upon the respondent.
13. The terms and conditions of any restrictions on the ownership or possession of firearms. (Id., at (b).)
14. States that if a court issues a modification, extension, or termination of a protective order, it shall be on forms adopted by the Judicial Council of California, and the county’s transmitting agency shall immediately notify the DOJ, by electronic transmission, of the terms of the modification, extension, or termination. (Id., at (f).)
15. Requires Judicial Council to assist local courts charged with the responsibility for issuing protective orders through developing informational packets describing the general procedures for obtaining a domestic violence restraining order and indicating the appropriate Judicial Council forms. (Id., at (g).)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed non-fiscal.

COMMENTS: This bill seeks to simply clarify existing law that requires all civil and criminal protective orders to be entered into the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS).

CLETS and Protective Orders. Implemented in the 1970’s, CLETS is a data interchange system for state data files administered by the California Department of Justice (DOJ). CLETS provides law enforcement and criminal justice agencies with access to DOJ databases, and transmits and receives administrative messages and background information to law enforcement agencies within California, other states, and Canada. Mobile data terminals allow law enforcement officers in the field to inquire directly into certain databases, including the California Restraining and Protective Order System.

Existing law requires a court, upon the issuance of certain types of protective orders, to transmit the order and other specified information to CLETS. (See Section 6380 (a).) Protective orders, including restraining orders, are court orders that seek to protect a person from being physically or sexually abused, threatened, stalked, harassed, among other harmful acts. The specific types of protective orders which must be transmitted via CLETS to the California Restraining and Protective Order System include the following: temporary restraining orders or injunctions for threat of harassment, workplace violence restraining orders, school or campus violence restraining orders, criminal court restraining orders for threat of harm, intimidation, or dissuasion of a victim or witness, domestic violence restraining orders, elder or dependent adult abuse restraining orders, gun violence restraining orders, and juvenile restraining orders. (Civil Code Sections 527.6, 527.8, 527.85; Penal Code Section 136.2; Welf. & Inst. Code Sections 213.5, 304, 362.4, 15657, 6401.)

“Non-CLETS Protective Orders.” While existing law requires a variety of protective orders to be transmitted to CLETS, some courts have issued so-called “non-CLETS protective orders” in an effort to avoid entering the orders into CLETS. The term “non-CLETS protective orders” is not defined or authorized in statute. The term refers to orders that, upon agreement of one or more of the parties, and cooperation of a trial court, are not entered into the CLETS system. For example, two parties might consent to mutual restraining orders that prohibit the parties from being within a certain distance of one another with the condition that the mutual stay-away orders are not entered into the CLETS system. Assuming that the court honored such an (unauthorized) stipulation, the order would be issued, but no one (other than court personnel and the parties) would know about it. For all practical purposes, the order would be unenforceable. And according to the case law explained below, it should also be considered invalid if a party sought to enforce or challenge it.

According to the bill’s author:

This practice of stipulating to protective orders that will not be entered into CLETS and failure to enter protective orders into CLETS results in orders that are contrary to existing law and public policy. Without this transmittal the orders will not be enforced, since law enforcement officers who are often responsible for the protective order’s enforcement do not have ready access to the order. Thus, such practices essentially result in protective orders that cannot protect those they are designed to protect.

SB 1089 addresses these concerns of unenforceability by clarifying that all protective orders subject to transmittal to CLETS are required to be so transmitted. . . . By ensuring law enforcement have access to these protective orders through CLETS, SB 1089 helps better protect victims who have taken action and put themselves at potential heightened risk by seeking a protective order.

Appellate Court Decisions Regarding Issuance of Orders Not Authorized by Statute. A trial court acts outside of its jurisdiction when it makes orders that are not authorized by statute. (In re Marriage of Jackson (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 980, 988.) When a statute specifies that a trial court should use a prescribed procedure in order to make orders or findings, but the trial court acts contrary to the authority conferred by that statute, it has exceeded its jurisdiction. (Polin v. Cosio (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1451, 1454-1455.) For example, when a trial court allows parties to stipulate to the termination of paternity, even though the court is tasked with making a determination of paternity based upon specific statutory presumptions and evidence presented by the parties and where stipulation is not authorized under that statutory scheme, a trial court’s judgment that is based upon such a stipulation is void and subject to collateral attack. (In re Marriage of Goodarzirad (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1020, 1024–1027.)

The phenomenon of courts issuing “non-CLETS protective orders” does not appear to have been analyzed in any published appellate court decisions in California, but has been discussed by at least one appellate court in an unpublished opinion: Carlisle v. Carlisle (In re Carlisle) (Sep. 29, 2017, No. C079547) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2017 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6709]. In that case, the parties reportedly stipulated to the issuance of a protective order against the husband, but agreed that the order would not be entered into CLETS. The trial court agreed to issue the protective order, but entered it into CLETS, refusing to honor that aspect of the agreement. The appellate court observed the following:

We are aware that some family law courts issue "non-CLETS" restraining orders in lieu of statutory domestic violence restraining orders. However, there is no statutory authority for the issuance of a non-CLETS restraining order by the trial court, although parties are generally free to enter into stipulations upon the trial court's approval.

The Carlisle appellate court cited a number of published decisions to support its determination that a non-CLETS protective order would be invalid. For example, it cited California State Auto. Assn. Inter-Ins. Bureau v. Superior Court (1990) 50 Cal. 3d 658, 664, for the principle that a court “may reject a stipulation that is contrary to public policy, or one that incorporates an erroneous rule of law.” Citing the mandate of Section 6380, subdivision (a), requiring the court to report protective orders to the Department of Justice, the court concluded a court should never exercise its powers “to effectively nullify existing legislation.” (In re Carlisle, supra.) Finally, the appellate court cited People v. Ponce (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 378, 384, for the principle that “Where the Legislature authorizes a specific variety of available procedures, the courts should use them and should normally refrain from exercising their inherent powers to invent alternatives.” Consistent with the reasoning of the unpublished Carlisle case, as well as all of the published cases upon which the Carlisle court relied, this bill seeks to clarify that all protective orders must be entered into CLETS and there is no authority for a so-called “non-CLETS protective order.”

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

None on file

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Alison Merrilees / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

 CONSENT  

Bill No: SB 1089

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 3/20/18

AYES: Skinner, Anderson, Bradford, Jackson, Mitchell, Stone, Wiener

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill clarifies that all protective orders subject to transmittal to the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) are required to be transmitted.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. States that the Department of Justice (DOJ) shall be immediately notified of the contents of protective orders including temporary, criminal court, domestic violence protective orders, and injunctions relating to harassment, unlawful violence, or threat of violence, immediately upon issuance. (Fam. Code § 6380, subd. (b).)
2. Requires each county to develop a procedure using existing systems for electronic data transmission to the DOJ. Law enforcement, court, or other appropriate agency personnel shall enter the data electronically and transmit the data to CLETS. The court or its designee must transmit all data filed, with respect to protective orders, to law enforcement personnel within one business day by one of the following methods. (Fam. Code § 6380, subd. (a).):

• Transmitting a physical copy of the order to a local law enforcement agency authorized to enter orders into CLETS; or
• With the approval to DOJ, entering the order into CLETS directly.

1. Requires all available information be included; however, the inability to provide all categories of information shall not delay the entry of information available. (Fam. Code § 6380, subd. (b)(1)-(8).):

• Names of the protected persons.
• Date of issuance of the order.
• Duration or expiration date of the order.
• Terms and conditions of the protective order, including stay-away, no-contact, residency exclusion, custody, and visitation provisions of the order.
• Department or division number and the address of the court.
• Whether or not the order was served upon the respondent.
• Terms and conditions of any restrictions on the ownership or possession of firearms.

1. Requires that, within one business day of service, any law enforcement officer who served a protective order shall submit the proof of service directly into the DOJ Domestic Violence Restraining Order System. (Fam. Code § 6308 (e).)
2. States that if a court issues a modification, extension, or termination of a protective order, it shall be on forms adopted by the Judicial Council of California, and the county’s transmitting agency shall immediately notify the DOJ, by electronic transmission, of terms of the modification, extension, or termination. (Fam. Code § 6308, subd. (f).)
3. Requires Judicial Council to assist local courts charged with the responsibility for issuing protective orders through developing informational packets describing the general procedures for obtaining a domestic violence restraining order and indicating the appropriate Judicial Council forms. (Fam. Code § 6308, subd. (g).)

This bill clarifies that all protective orders subject to transmittal to CLETS are required to be so transmitted.

Background

Implemented in the 1970s, CLETS is a data interchange system for state data files administered by the California Attorney General. CLETS provides law enforcement and criminal justice agencies access to databases, and transmits and receives administrative messages, background information to agencies within California, other states, and Canada. CLETS has mobile data terminals allowing law enforcement officers in the field to inquire directly into the California Restraining and Protective Order System database. Existing law requires a court, upon the issuance of certain types of protective orders, to transmit the order and other specified information to CLETS. (Fam. Code § 6380, subd. (a).)

Protective orders, also known as restraining orders, are court orders which aim to protect a person from being physically or sexually abused, threatened, stalked, harassed, among other threats of safety. In California, a person can issue four types of protective orders: domestic violence restraining orders, elder or dependent adult abuse restraining orders, civil harassment restraining orders, and workplace violence restraining orders. The orders can generally be organized into three categories: personal conduct orders, stay-away orders, and residence exclusion orders. Personal conduct orders stop specific acts against the restrained person to cease their threatening behavior, stay-away orders keep the restrained person at a certain distance, and residence exclusion orders require the restrained person to move out. The protective orders which must be transmitted via CLETS to the California Restraining and Protective Order System include the following: temporary restraining orders or injunctions for threat of harassment, workplace violence restraining orders, school or campus violence restraining orders, criminal court restraining orders for threat of harm, intimidation, or dissuasion of a victim or witness, domestic violence restraining orders, elder or dependent adult abuse restraining orders, gun violence restraining orders, and juvenile restraining orders. (Civ. Code § 527.6, 527.8, 527.85; Fam. Code § 6401; Pen. Code § 136.2; Welf. & Inst. Code § 213.5, 304, 362.4, 15657).)

While a variety of protective orders are required to be transmitted to CLETS, some family law courts issue “non-CLETS restraining orders” in lieu of statutory restraining orders. Non-CLETS protective orders refer to orders that are not entered into the CLETS system. In some cases, both parties may consent to mutual restraining orders prohibiting the parties from being within a certain distance from one another. These mutual stay-away orders are not entered into the CLETS system. It is the intent of this bill to codify, in part, Carlisle v. Carlisle (2017), and ensure all CLETS protective orders are transmit to CLETS.

The Legislature authorizes a specific variety of available procedures, the courts should use them and should normally refrain from exercising their inherent powers to invent alternatives.[…] When a court issues orders not authorized by statute, the court acts outside of its jurisdiction.

The case held that courts have no authority to issue non-CLETS restraining orders, and such orders issued pursuant to the Domestic Violence Prevention Act must be entered into CLETS.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 3/20/18)

None received

OPPOSITION: (Verified 3/20/18)

None received

Prepared by: Elle Chen, Gabe Caswell / PUB. S. /

3/21/18 15:31:47

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Nancy Skinner, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: SB 1089 Hearing Date: March 20, 2018

Subject: California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System

HISTORY

Source: Author

Prior Legislation: AB 176 (Campos), Chaptered 263, Statutes of 2013

AB 383 (Wagner), Chaptered 76, Statutes of 2013

AB 1498 (Campos), Chaptered 665, Statutes of 2014

AB 1850 (Waldron), Chaptered 673, Statutes of 2014

SB 910 (Pavley), Chaptered 638, Statutes of 2014

SB 1304 (Committee on Judiciary), Chaptered 71, Statutes of 2014

Support: Unknown

Opposition: None known

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to clarify that all protective orders subject to transmittal to the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS), are required to be transmitted.

Existing law states that the Department of Justice (DOJ) shall be immediately notified of the contents of protective orders including temporary, criminal court, domestic violence protective orders, and injunctions relating to harassment, unlawful violence, or threat of violence, immediately upon issuance. (Fam. Code § 6380, subd. (b).)

Existing law requires each county to develop a procedure using existing systems for electronic data transmission to the DOJ. Law enforcement, court, or other appropriate agency personnel shall enter the data electronically and transmit the data to CLETS. The court or its designee must transmit all data filed, with respect to protective orders, to law enforcement personnel within one business day by one of the following methods. (Fam. Code § 6380, subd. (a).):

• Transmitting a physical copy of the order to a local law enforcement agency authorized to enter orders into CLETS; or
• With the approval to DOJ, entering the order into CLETS directly.

Existing law requires all available information be included; however, the inability to provide all categories of information shall not delay the entry of information available. (Fam. Code § 6380, subd. (b)(1)-(8).):

• Names of the protected persons.
• Date of issuance of the order.
• Duration or expiration date of the order.
• Terms and conditions of the protective order, including stay-away, no-contact, residency exclusion, custody, and visitation provisions of the order.
• Department or division number and the address of the court.
• Whether or not the order was served upon the respondent.
• Terms and conditions of any restrictions on the ownership or possession of firearms.

Existing law requires that, within one business day of service, any law enforcement officer who served a protective order shall submit the proof of service directly into the DOJ Domestic Violence Restraining Order System. (Fam. Code § 6308 (e).)

Existing law states that if a court issues a modification, extension, or termination of a protective order, it shall be on forms adopted by the Judicial Council of California, and the county’s transmitting agency shall immediately notify the DOJ, by electronic transmission, of terms of the modification, extension, or termination. (Fam. Code § 6308, subd. (f).)

Existing law requires Judicial Council to assist local courts charged with the responsibility for issuing protective orders through developing informational packets describing the general procedures for obtaining a domestic violence restraining order and indicating the appropriate Judicial Council forms. (Fam. Code § 6308, subd. (g).)

This bill clarifies that all protective orders subject to transmittal to CLETS are required to be so transmitted.

This bill does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

The author states:

Under existing law, criminal protective orders and domestic violence protective orders must be input into CLETS. This is because CLETS is then utilized by law enforcement and criminal justice agencies for enforcement purposes. Local law enforcement agencies look to CLETS to see if an enforceable protective order exists when responding to calls that may involve domestic violence or other situations where a protective order may be at play. Additionally, when a victim contacts law enforcement because they believe the order is not being followed, they would likely mention the order and law enforcement would then check CLETS to verify. Thus, existing law requires restraining orders issued pursuant to the Domestic Violence Protection Act (DVPA), and other qualifying protective orders, to be entered into CLETS to facilitate effective enforcement of the terms of the protective order.

However, recent practices have resulted in parties seeking to have the court enter a stipulated “non-CLETS” protective order, or a protective order that would not be transmitted to CLETS despite the law otherwise requiring the order’s transmittal. This practice has become so common that colloquially these stipulated orders are referred to as a “non-CLETS restraining order.”

This practice of stipulating to protective orders that will not be entered into CLETS results in orders that are contrary to existing law and public policy. This is because existing law requires the impacted protective orders transmittal to CLETS. Without this transmittal the orders are not readily enforceable, since law enforcement officers who are often responsible for the protective order’s enforcement do not have ready access to the order. Thus, such practices essentially result in protective orders that are not readily available to those expected to enforce them.

SB 1089 addresses these concerns of unenforceability by clarifying that all protective orders subject to transmittal to CLETS are required to be so transmitted. This restatement of existing law addresses recent discussion of “non-CLETS restraining orders” at the Appellate Court level. Highlighting that is indeed the intent of the Legislature that all restraining orders issued pursuant to the DVPA, as well as other protective orders, must be entered into CLETS. By ensuring law enforcement have access to these protective orders through CLETS, SB 1089 helps better protect victims who have taken action and put themselves at potential heightened risk by seeking a protective order.

2. CLETS and Protective Orders

Implemented in the 1970’s, California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) is a data interchange system for state data files administered by the California Attorney General. CLETS provides law enforcement and criminal justice agencies access to databases, and transmits and receives administrative messages, background information to agencies within California, other states, and Canada. CLETS has mobile data terminals allowing law enforcement officers in the field to inquire directly into the California Restraining and Protective Order System database.^[1] Existing law requires a court, upon the issuance of certain types of protective orders, to transmit the order and other specified information to CLETS. (Fam. Code § 6380, subd. (a).)

Protective orders, also known as restraining orders, are court orders which aim to protect a person from being physically or sexually abused, threatened, stalked, harassed, among other threats of safety. In California, a person can issue four types of protective orders: domestic violence restraining orders, elder or dependent adult abuse restraining orders, civil harassment restraining orders, and workplace violence restraining orders. The orders can generally be organized into three categories: personal conduct orders, stay-away orders, and residence exclusion orders. Personal conduct orders stop specific acts against the restrained person to cease their threatening behavior, stay away orders keep the restrained person at a certain distance, and residence exclusion orders require the restrained person to move out. ^[2] The protective orders which must be transmit via CLETS to California Restraining and Protective Order System include the following: temporary restraining orders or injunctions for threat of harassment, workplace violence restraining orders, school or campus violence restraining orders, criminal court restraining orders for threat of harm, intimidation, or dissuasion of a victim or witness, domestic violence restraining orders, elder or dependent adult abuse restraining orders, gun violence restraining orders, and juvenile restraining orders. (Civ. Code § 527.6, 527.8, 527.85; Pen. Code §136.2; Welf. & Inst. Code § 213.5, 304, 362.4, 15657, 6401).)

3. Non-CLETS Protective Order

While a variety of protective orders are required to be transmitted to CLETS, some family law courts issue “non-CLETS restraining orders” in lieu of statutory restraining orders. Non-CLETS protective orders refer to orders that are not entered into the CLETS system. In some cases, both parties may consent to mutual restraining orders prohibiting the parties from being within a certain distance from one another. These mutual stay away orders are not entered into the CLETS system. It is the intent of this bill is to codify, in part, Carlisle v. Carlisle (2017), and ensure all CLETS protective orders are transmit to CLETS.

The Legislature authorizes a specific variety of available procedures, the courts should use them and should normally refrain from exercising their inherent powers to invent alternatives.[…] When a court issues orders not authorized by statute, the court acts outside of its jurisdiction.

The case held that courts have no authority to issue non-CLETS restraining orders, and such orders issued pursuant to the Domestic Violence Prevention Act must be entered into CLETS.

-- END –

1. “CLETS Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.,” accessed March 12, 2018, https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/clets/. ↑

2. “Restraining Orders - Abuse_selfhelp,” accessed March 12, 2018, http://www.courts.ca.gov/1260.htm. ↑