CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1775

Author:(Jones-Sawyer)

As Amended Ver:August 20, 2020

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

Makes it a "wobblette" to knowingly use the 911 emergency system for the purpose of harassing another, and increases the penalty for this crime by up to one year in county jail, or a fine of no more than $2,000 if the harassment is also an act defined to be a hate crime or is an offense committed against a person based on their perceived race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, country of origin, ancestry, disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation.

The Senate Amendments:

Delete the previous version of this bill and instead:

1. Establish a misdemeanor or infraction if a person knowingly uses the 911 emergency system for the purpose of harassing another is a crime, punishable as follows:
   1. For a first violation, as an infraction punishable by a two-hundred-fifty dollar ($250) fine or as a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in a county jail, a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both that imprisonment and fine.
   2. For a second or subsequent violation, as a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in a county jail, a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both that imprisonment and fine.
   3. If a person knowingly allows the use of or uses the 911 emergency system for the purpose of harassing another person and that act is an act described in Section 422.55 or 422.85, the person who commits the act is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in a county jail, a fine of not less than five hundred dollars ($500) nor more than two thousand dollars ($2,000), or both that imprisonment and fine.
2. Provide that a "privileged communication" does not include calls using the 911 emergency system for purposes of making a false report.
3. Amend the Ralph Civil Rights Act to hold that "intimidation by threat of violence" includes making a threatening claim or report to a peace officer or law enforcement agency that falsely alleges that another person is engaged in unlawful activity, knowing that the claim is false or with a reckless disregard for the falsity.
4. State that this bill does not apply to uses of the 911 emergency system by a person with an intellectual disability or other mental disability that makes it difficult or impossible for the person to understand the potential consequences of their actions.
5. Make legislative findings.

COMMENTS:

Widespread news reports have recently documented individuals using the 911 emergency system in order to harass a person by reporting them to police based on a false claim. Often these incidents appear to be racially motivated. The legislative intent of the bill states, "this act will allow those who have been subject to unfair and prejudicial 911 emergency system calls" to achieve recourse through the criminal and civil court systems. Advocates for this bill underscore that the act of calling law enforcement to report a person puts that person's life in jeopardy by the mere fact of eliciting a police response. This bill would criminalize that act and recognize it as a violation of that person's civil rights.

Current law makes it an infraction, with increasing penalties for multiple offenses, for using the 911 system for any reason other than an emergency. This bill provides for harsher consequences if the call was based on a false claim, and made in order to harass another person based on perceived characteristics.

This bill also reduces barriers to bringing a civil action for this conduct by stating that the police calls are not "privileged," protected communications exempt from civil liability. Additionally, the bill amends the Ralph Civil Rights Act to clarify that "intimidation by threat of violence" includes making a false report to police that another person is engaged in unlawful activity.

Lastly, this bill includes language to ensure its stated intent to not "discourage individuals who are facing real danger, who want to report a crime, or who are experiencing a medical or psychiatric emergency, from making a 911 emergency system call for assistance."

According to the Author:

"There has been increasing media coverage of so called 'living while black' stories, where people of color are viewed with suspicion, subjected to 911 calls, and ultimately confronted by police officers or armed civilians for simply existing in public spaces. Although video and social media coverage of these incidents have proliferated, the individual callers rarely face legal consequences, while the person of color faces the harm and stress of being racially profiled and being forced to justify their presence in a public or private space.

"The 911 emergency system has long been used to harass people of color, and this bill seeks to create a disincentive for this weaponizing of our emergency system. Using the emergency system in this way is not only a waste of taxpayer resources, but also puts law enforcement in danger by requiring them to arrive at a tense, racially charged situation in which they would not otherwise intervene. This legislation facilitates stronger punitive measures for those who refuse to eradicate their own conscious or subconscious racial biases and reprehensibly utilize law enforcement to persecute other people.

"AB 1775 addresses the need to deter discriminatory unlawful calls to law enforcement, and the imperative to prevent individuals from using emergency services as their 'personal concierge' to harass others. Additionally, this legislation balances California's commitment to decreasing incarceration rates, by imposing higher monetary fines instead of imprisoning violators for a draconian amount of time."

Arguments in Support:

According to the Riverside Sheriffs' Association, "Current law makes it an infraction for someone to knowingly use the 9-1-1 emergency system for any reason other than to report an emergency. An individual receives a writ-ten warning for their first violation of this provision and the maximum penalty is a $250 fine for a fourth or subsequent violation.

"9-1-1 calls must only be made for a valid purpose such as an emergency in order to avoid inappropriate dispatch of first responders that may threaten the health or safety of someone in actual need of assistance."

Arguments in Opposition:

None

FISCAL COMMENTS:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. Courts: Unknown, potentially-significant workload cost pressures to the courts to adjudicate civil complaints and criminal charges brought against defendants who use the 911 emergency system to harass another. While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources. For example, the Budget Act of 2020 appropriated $273.8 million from the General Fund to backfill continued reduction in fine and fee revenue for trial court operations. (General Fund*)Department of Fair Employment and Housing: The department reports minor and absorbable costs related to the expansion of protections under the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976, which it enforces.

*Trial Court Trust Fund

VOTES:

ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 6-2-0

YES: Aguiar-Curry, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Ramos, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas

NO: Lackey, Voepel

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 13-5-0

YES: Gonzalez, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Eggman, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, Maienschein, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Robert Rivas

NO: Bigelow, Brough, Megan Dahle, Diep, Fong

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 55-19-6

YES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Chu, Cooper, Daly, Eggman, Friedman, Gabriel, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Weber, Wicks, Wood

NO: Bigelow, Brough, Chen, Choi, Cooley, Cunningham, Megan Dahle, Diep, Flora, Fong, Gallagher, Kiley, Lackey, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Voepel, Waldron

ABS, ABST OR NV: Burke, Cervantes, Chiu, Frazier, Mathis, Rendon

SENATE FLOOR: 30-0-10

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Atkins, Beall, Bradford, Caballero, Dodd, Durazo, Galgiani, Glazer, Lena Gonzalez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Hurtado, Jackson, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Nielsen, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Stern, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bates, Borgeas, Chang, Dahle, Grove, Jones, Melendez, Moorlach, Morrell, Wilk

UPDATED:

VERSION: August 20, 2020

CONSULTANT: Nikki Moore / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0003483

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1775

Author: Jones-Sawyer (D), et al.

Amended: 8/20/20 in Senate

Vote: 21

PRIOR VOTES NOT RELEVANT

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/7/20

AYES: Skinner, Moorlach, Bradford, Jackson, Mitchell, Morrell, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/20/20

AYES: Portantino, Bates, Bradford, Hill, Jones, Leyva, Wieckowski

SUBJECT: False reports and harassment

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill makes a number of changes in criminal and civil law to discourage individuals from using 911 or other communications with law enforcement to harass a person because that person belongs to a protected class.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that a privileged publication or broadcast is one made in the proper discharge of an official duty or in a legislative, judicial or other official proceeding or in the initiation or course of any other proceeding authorized by law with some exceptions. (Civil Code Section 47(a)(b))
2. Adds to the exceptions to privileged communications by stating that this section does not make privileged any communication between a person and a law enforcement agency in which the person makes a false report that another person has committed, or is in the act of committing a criminal act or is engaged in an activity requiring law enforcement intervention, knowing that the report is false or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the report.
3. Provides, in the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976, that all persons within California have the right to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence committed against their persons or property because of political affiliations or on account of any specified characteristic, or position in a labor dispute or because another person perceives them to have one or more of those characteristics. (Civil Code Section 51.7(b))
4. Provides that “intimidation by threat of violence” includes, but is not limited to, making or threatening to make a claim or report to a peace officers or law enforcement agency that falsely alleges that another person has engaged in unlawful activity or in an activity that requires law enforcement intervention, knowing that the claim of report is false, or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the claim or report.
5. Defines a member of a protected class, for purposes of hate crimes, as the victim’s actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, religion, nationality, country of origin, ancestry, disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation. (Penal Code Sections 422.55 and 422.85)
6. Prohibits the use of a telephone for the purpose of annoying or harassing an individual through the 911 line. (Penal Code Section 653x(a).)
7. States that the intent to annoy or harass is established by proof of repeated calls that are unreasonable under the circumstances. (Penal Code Section 653x(b).)
8. States that anyone guilty of using the 911 line to annoy or harass is responsible for all reasonable costs incurred by the unnecessary emergency response. (Penal Code Section 653x(c).)
9. States that anyone who knowingly uses the 911 telephone system for any reason other than because of an emergency is guilty of an infraction, punishable by a warning for a first offense, and fines for subsequent offenses. (Penal Code Section 653y)

This bill:

1. Provides that knowingly allowing the use of or suing the 911 emergency system for the purpose of harassing another is a crime that is punishable as follows:
   1. For a first violation an infraction punishable by a $250 fine or as a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in the county jail, a fine of up to $1,000 or both.
   2. For a second or subsequent violation as a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in the county jail, a fine up to $1,000 or both.
2. Provides that if a person knowingly allows the use of or uses the 911 system for the purpose of hassling another person who is part of a protected class, the person who commits the act is guilty of a misdemeanor and punishable by up to one year in a county jail, a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $2,000 or both imprisonment and fine.
3. Provides that this bill does not apply to uses of the 911 emergency system by a person with an intellectual disability or other mental disability that makes it difficult or impossible for the person to understand the potential consequences of their actions.

Background

As noted in the author’s statement, there have been a number of media reports on people calling 911 and making a false claim to harass a person, and a number of these incidents it appears by the language used that the harassment was in part because the person was a member of a protected class.

This bill makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly use the 911 system to harass another person because they have a perceived characteristic of a person who belongs to a protected class. If it is not clear that the harassment because of the victim’s membership in a protected class, the penalty for the harassment would be a “wobblette” for a first violation, an infraction or a six month misdemeanor, and a misdemeanor for the second offense.

This bill also amends a Civil Code section on privileged communications to make it clear that making a false report to law enforcement stating that another is committing an act that needs intervention is not a privileged communication.

It also amends the Ralph Civil Rights Act to make it clear that “intimidation by threat of violence” includes making or threatening to make a report to a law enforcement agency that falsely alleges that another person is engaged in unlawful activity.

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

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• Courts: Unknown, potentially-significant workload cost pressures to the courts to adjudicate civil complaints and criminal charges brought against defendants who use the 911 emergency system to harass another. While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources. For example, the Budget Act of 2020 appropriated $273.8 million from the General Fund to backfill continued reduction in fine and fee revenue for trial court operations. (General Fund*)
• Department of Fair Employment and Housing: The department reports minor and absorbable costs related to the expansion of protections under the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976, which it enforces.

*Trial Court Trust Fund

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/20/20)

Asian Law Alliance

California Chapter National Emergency Number Association

California Environmental Justice Alliance

California Nurses Association

California State Sheriffs' Association

California Teachers Association

City of Alameda

City of Thousand Oaks

League of California Cities

National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter

Riverside Sheriffs' Association

The Arc and United Cerebral Palsy California Collaboration

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/20/20)

None received

Prepared by: Mary Kennedy / PUB. S. /

8/24/20 14:14:48

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular Session

AB 1775 (Jones-Sawyer) - False reports and harassment

Bill Summary:

AB 1775 would increase penalty for the specific crime of knowingly using the 911 emergency system to harass another. It also would provide a civil cause of action for making or threatening to make a claim or report to law enforcement that falsely alleges that another person has engaged in unlawful activity or in an activity that requires law enforcement intervention, knowing that the claim or report is false, or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the claim or report.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 20, 2020

Fiscal Impact:

• Courts: Unknown, potentially-significant workload cost pressures to the courts to adjudicate civil complaints and criminal charges brought against defendants who use the 911 emergency system to harass another. While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources. For example, the Budget Act of 2020 appropriated $273.8 million from the General Fund to backfill continued reduction in fine and fee revenue for trial court operations. (General Fund*)
• Department of Fair Employment and Housing: The department reports minor and absorbable costs related to the expansion of protections under the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976, which it enforces.

*Trial Court Trust Fund

Committee Amendments:

Add a coauthor.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular Session

AB 1775 (Jones-Sawyer) - False reports and harassment

Bill Summary:

AB 1775 would increase penalty for the specific crime of knowingly using the 911 emergency system to harass another. It also would provide a civil cause of action for making or threatening to make a claim or report to law enforcement that falsely alleges that another person has engaged in unlawful activity or in an activity that requires law enforcement intervention, knowing that the claim or report is false, or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the claim or report.

Fiscal Impact:

• Courts: Unknown, potentially-significant workload cost pressures to the courts to adjudicate civil complaints and criminal charges brought against defendants who use the 911 emergency system to harass another. While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources. For example, the Budget Act of 2020 appropriated $273.8 million from the General Fund to backfill continued reduction in fine and fee revenue for trial court operations. (General Fund*)
• Department of Fair Employment and Housing: The department reports minor and absorbable costs related to the expansion of protections under the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976, which it enforces.

*Trial Court Trust Fund

Background:

The Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976 provides that all persons in this state have the right to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of political affiliation, or on account of specified characteristics, including sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status. The act provides a civil cause of action for a denial of these rights, which may be brought by the victim, California Attorney General, district attorney, or city attorney.

Existing law provides that a privileged publication or broadcast is one made in the proper discharge of an official duty or in a legislative, judicial, or other official proceeding or in the initiation or course of any other proceeding authorized by law with some exceptions.

Existing law prohibits the use of a telephone for the purpose of annoying or harassing an individual through the 911 emergency system. The intent to annoy or harass is established by proof of repeated calls that are unreasonable under the circumstances. Anyone who knowingly uses the 911 emergency system for any reason other than because of an emergency is guilty of an infraction, with a graduated penalty structure for repeated violations. Additionally, anyone guilty of using the 911 emergency system to annoy or harass is responsible for all reasonable costs incurred by the unnecessary emergency response.

Proposed Law:

This bill would:

• Provide that intimidation by threat of violence under the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976 includes knowingly or recklessly making or threatening to make a false claim or report to a peace officer or law enforcement agency alleging that another person has engaged in unlawful activity or in an activity that requires law enforcement intervention.
• Create an exception to the privilege publication or broadcast provisions in existing law for any communication between a person and a law enforcement agency in which the person knowingly or recklessly makes a false report that another person has committed, or is in the act of committing, a criminal act or is engaged in an activity requiring law enforcement intervention.
• Increase the penalty for a person to knowingly allow the use of or use the 911 emergency system for the purpose of harassing another, with a graduated punishment for repeat violations. The punishment would be as follows:
  • First violation:
    • An infraction punishable by a $250 base fine, or
    • A misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in county jail, a base fine of up to $1,000, or both that imprisonment and fine.
  • Second or subsequent violation: A misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in county jail, a base fine of up to $1,000, or both that imprisonment and fine.
  • If the act is a hate crime or other, specified crime committed against another person on the basis of the other person’s actual or perceived characteristics, including race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation: A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in county jail, a base fine of between $500 and $2,000, or both that imprisonment and fine.

Related Legislation:

AB 1769 (Rodriguez, Ch. 96, Stats. 2016) expanded the crime of “nuisance calls” to include those communications initiated by an electronic communication device.

SB 333 (Lieu, Ch. 284, Stats. 2013) provided that any individual who is convicted of filing a false emergency report is liable to a public agency for the reasonable cost of the emergency response by the agency.

AB 47 (Gatto, 2013-2014 Reg. Sess.) would have increased the fines and penalties for making a prank 911 phone call resulting in the dispatch of service personnel. The language of AB 47 was amended to a different topic and was vetoed by the Governor.

AB 2741 (Cannella, Ch. 262, Stats. 1994) made it a misdemeanor to telephone the 911 emergency system with the intent to annoy or harass another person.

AB 911 (Longville, Ch. 295, Stats. 2004) created a new infraction for using the 911 telephone system for purposes other than an emergency, as defined.

AB 1976 (Benoit, Ch. 89, Stats. 2008) increased the penalties for knowingly using the 911 system for any reason other than an emergency.

Staff Comments:

The fiscal impact of this bill cannot be known with certainty, as the actual impact will depend on numerous factors, including, but not limited to, judicial and prosecutorial discretion, the criminal history of a defendant, and the factors unique to each case. As this bill would expand knowingly using the 911 emergency system to harass another to a misdemeanor crime with the potential for incarceration, certain rights to the defendants are attached to the proceedings, including the right to a jury trial and the right to counsel (at public expense if the defendants are unable to afford the costs of representation) which could lead to lengthier and more complex court proceedings. Additionally, by creating a cause of action under the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976, which may be brought by the victim, the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city attorney, this measure could lead to the filing of additional civil lawsuits. While it is not known how many cases ultimately would be filed, it generally costs about $7,896 (in FY 2019-2020) to operate a courtroom for one eight-hour day. Consequently, if the violations that are the subject of AB 1775 lead to the filing of cases that otherwise would not have been filed or resulted in a criminal action or civil suit that, combined, take more than 50 hours of court involvement, the cost pressures of this measure to the courts would surpass the Suspense File threshold. As indicated above, while courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Nancy Skinner, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular

Bill No: AB 1775 Hearing Date: August 7, 2020

Subject: False Reports and Harassment

HISTORY

Source: Author

Prior Legislation: AB 1769 (Rodriguez) Chapter 96, Stats. 2016

SB 333 (Lieu) Chapter 284, Stats. 2013

AB 538 (Arambula) 2009-2010, Vetoed

AB 2741 (Cannella) Chapter 262, Stats. 1994

AB 2225 (Mountjoy) – Chapter 227, Stats. 2006

SB 1707 (Aanestad) – Chapter 51, Stats. 2004

SB 2057 (O’Connell) – Chapter 521, Stats. 2002

Support: City of Alameda; Asian Law Alliance; California Chapter National Emergency Number Association (CALNENA); California Environmental Justice Alliance; California Nurses Association; California State Sheriffs' Association; California Teachers Association; City of Thousand Oaks; League of California Cities; National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter; Riverside Sheriffs’ Association

Opposition: None known

Assembly Floor Vote: Not Relevant

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to make a number of changes in criminal and civil law to discourage individuals from using 911 or other communications with law enforcement to harass a person because that person belongs to a protected class.

Existing law provides that a privileged publication or broadcast is one made in the proper discharge of an official duty or in a legislative, judicial or other official proceeding or in the initiation or course of any other proceeding authorized by law with some exceptions. (Civil Code Section 47(a)(b))

This bill adds to the exceptions to privileged communications by stating that this section does not make privileged any communication between a person and a law enforcement agency in which the person makes a false report that another person has committed, or is in the act of committing a criminal act or is engaged in an activity requiring law enforcement intervention, knowing that the report is false or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the report.

Existing law provides, in the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976, that all persons within California have the right to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence committed against their persons or property because of political affiliations or on account of any specified characteristic, or position in a labor dispute or because another person perceives them to have one or more of those characteristics. (Civil Code Section 51.7(b))

This bill provides that “intimidation by threat of violence” includes, but is not limited to, making or threatening to make a claim or report to a peace officers or law enforcement agency that falsely alleges that another person has engaged in unlawful activity or in an activity that requires law enforcement intervention, knowing that the claim of report is false, or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the claim or report.

Existing law defines a member of a protected class, for purposes of hate crimes, as the victim’s actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, religion, nationality, country of origin, ancestry, disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation. (Penal Code Sections 422.55 and 422.85)

Existing law prohibits the use of a telephone for the purpose of annoying or harassing an individual through the 911 line. (Penal Code Section 653x(a).)

Existing law states that the intent to annoy or harass is established by proof of repeated calls that are unreasonable under the circumstances. (Penal Code Section 653x(b).)

Existing law states that anyone guilty of using the 911 line to annoy or harass is responsible for all reasonable costs incurred by the unnecessary emergency response. (Penal Code Section 653x(c).)

Existing law states that anyone who knowingly uses the 911 telephone system for any reason other than because of an emergency is guilty of an infraction, punishable by a warning for a first offense, and fines for subsequent offenses. (Penal Code Section 653y)

This bill provides that knowingly allowing the use of or suing the 911 emergency system for the purpose of harassing another is a crime that is punishable as follows:

• For a first violation an infraction punishable by a $250 fine or as a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in the county jail, a fine of up to $1,000 or both.
• For a second or subsequent violation as a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in the county jail, a fine up to $1,000 or both.

This bill provides that if a person knowingly allows the use of or uses the 911 system for the purpose of hassling another person who is part of a protected class, the person who commits the act is guilty of a misdemeanor and punishable by up to one year in a county jail, a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $2,000 or both imprisonment and fine.

This bill provides that this section does not apply to uses of the 911 emergency system by a person with an intellectual disability or other mental disability that makes it difficult or impossible for the person to understand the potential consequences of their actions.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the author:

There has been increasing media coverage of so called “living while black” stories, where people of color are viewed with suspicion, subjected to 911 calls, and ultimately confronted by police officers or armed civilians for simply existing in public spaces. Although video and social media coverage of these incidents have proliferated, the individual callers rarely face legal consequences, while the person of color faces the harm and stress of being racially profiled and being forced to justify their presence in a public or private space.

The 911 emergency system has long been used to harass people of color, and this bill seeks to create a disincentive for this weaponizing of our emergency system. Using the emergency system in this way is not only a waste of taxpayer resources, but also puts law enforcement in danger by requiring them to arrive at a tense, racially charged situation in which they would not otherwise intervene. This legislation facilitates stronger punitive measures for those who refuse to eradicate their own conscious or subconscious racial biases and reprehensibly utilize law enforcement to persecute other people.

AB 1775 addresses the need to deter discriminatory unlawful calls to law enforcement, and the imperative to prevent individuals from using emergency services as their “personal concierge” to harass others. Additionally, this legislation balances California’s commitment to decreasing incarceration rates, by imposing higher monetary fines instead of imprisoning violators for a draconian amount of time.

2. 911 Generally

The 911 telephone system was established as the primary emergency telephone number in California by Chapter 1005, Statutes of 1972, and is paid for by a statewide surcharge (statutorily capped at 0.75%) on each telephone bill.

3. Penalties for harassing calls

As noted in the author’s statement, there have been a number of media reports on people calling 911 and making a false claim to harass a person, and a number of these incidents it appears by the language used that the harassment was in part because the person was a member of a protected class.

This bill would make it a misdemeanor to knowingly use the 911 system to harass another person because they have a perceived characteristic of a person who belongs to a protected class. If it is not clear that the harassment because of the victim’s membership in a protected class, the penalty for the harassment would be a “wobblette” for a first violation, an infraction or a 6 month misdemeanor, and a misdemeanor for the second offense.

4. Civil provisions

This bill also amends a Civil Code section on privileged communications to make it clear that making a false report to law enforcement stating that another is committing an act that needs intervention is not a privileged communication.

It also amends the Ralph Civil Rights Act to make it clear that “intimidation by threat of violence” includes making or threatening to make a report to a law enforcement agency that falsely alleges that another person is engaged in unlawful activity.

This bill would ordinarily have been double-referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, but because of COVID-19 we are the only Committee hearing the bill. The following is a comment the Senate Judiciary Committee is including in this analysis:

Among other things, this bill provides a civil remedy for victims of deliberately false police reports, provisions that are in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s jurisdiction. Under existing law, such victims may sue for defamation or intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, the defendant can raise the defense that the report is privileged under Civil Code section 47, which “gives all persons the right to report crimes to the police, the local prosecutor or an appropriate regulatory agency, even if the report is made in bad faith.” (Cabesuela v. Browning-Ferris Indus. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 101, 112, citing cases describing the privilege as absolute.) To preclude this defense, the bill would specifically provide that deliberately false police reports are not privileged.

The bill enables victims of false police reports to seek redress using an existing statutory framework, the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976 (Act), which “provide[s] a civil remedy for hate crimes.” (D.C. v. Harvard-Westlake School (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 836, 844.) The Act provides that all persons in this state have the right to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of political affiliation, or on account of specified characteristics, including sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status. (Civ. Code § 51.7(a).) Civil Code section 52(b) provides a civil cause of action for a denial of these rights, which may be brought by the victim or the Attorney General, district attorney, or city attorney.

This bill provides that “intimidation by threat of violence” under the Act includes making or threatening to make a false report to police alleging that another person has engaged in unlawful activity that requires law enforcement intervention, knowing that the claim or report is false, or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the claim or report. This bill thus establishes in civil law a deterrent against 911 calls predicated on discriminatory animus. This is an important step in addressing the problem of over-policing and excessive use of force in communities of color.

5. Arguments in Support

In support the California State Sheriffs’ Association states:

Existing law, Penal Code Section 653y, provides that it is an infraction for someone to knowingly use the 9-1-1 emergency system for any reason other than to report an emergency. An individual receives a written warning for their first violation of this provision and the maximum penalty is a $250 fine for a fourth or subsequent violation.

It is important that every call made to 9-1-1 is for a valid purpose to avoid inappropriate dispatch of first responders. Further, addressing situations where emergency resources are diverted to harass others is a worthy public policy. AB 1775 discourages individuals from calling 9-1-1 to harass another.

In support the National Association of Social Workers state:

While existing law penalizes false reports made to law enforcement and emergency services, the 911 emergency system has long been used to harass people of color. This bill seeks to create a disincentive for this weaponization of our emergency system, by enhancing the penalty for placing a fraudulent 911 call against a person of a protected class.

Unfortunately, we have seen increased reports of discriminatory 911 calls. Recently, a white woman called 911 to report an African American bird watcher who had told her that by law, she should have her dog on a leash. She responded by calling 911 and claiming that an African American man was threatening her. She called fully knowing she was using her white privilege, which made the report even more disturbing.

Abusing the emergency system in this way is not only a waste of taxpayer resources, but also puts law enforcement and emergency personnel in danger by requiring them to arrive at a tense, racially-charged situation in which they would not otherwise intervene. This legislation facilitates stronger punitive measures for those who refuse to eradicate their own racial biases and reprehensibly utilize law enforcement to persecute others.

These false reports have contributed to the criminalization of Black and Brown communities and have contributed to the stress already felt in these communities. Barbequing, walking down the street, driving through a community, and bird watching should not be the subject of 911 calls, but they have been.

AB 1775 carefully balances the need to avoid suppressing bonafide emergency calls with the imperative to prevent individuals from using emergency services as their personal concierge to harass law abiding citizens. Additionally, by imposing higher monetary fines instead of imprisoning violators for a draconian amount of time, this bill avoids exacerbating our state’s staggering incarceration rates.

-- END –

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1775

Author:(Reyes)

As Amended Ver:April 9, 2019

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

Requires a city or county to notify the Department of Justice (DOJ) before that city or county adopts or reviews their environmental justice (EJ) element.

Major Provisions

This bill requires a city or county to notify the DOJ before that city or county adopts or reviews their EJ element or EJ goals, policies, and objectives in other elements in the general plan. This bill also requires a city or county to adopt or review the EJ element or EJ goals concurrently upon the adoption or next revision of two or more elements, instead of on or after January 1, 2018.

COMMENTS:

SB 1000 (Leyva), Chapter 587, Statutes of 2016, requires a city or county to include in the general plan an EJ element, or related goals, policies, and objectives integrated in other elements, that identifies disadvantaged communities within the area covered by the general plan of that city or county, if the city or county has a disadvantaged community. The EJ element, or related EJ goals, policies, and objectives integrated in other elements, must do all of the following:

1. Identify objectives and policies to reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities by means that include, but are not limited to, the reduction of pollution exposure, including the improvement of air quality, and the promotion of public facilities, food access, safe and sanitary homes, and physical activity;
2. Identify objectives and policies to promote civil engagement in the public decision-making process; and,
3. Identify objectives and policies that prioritize improvements and programs that address the needs of disadvantaged communities.

SB 1000 requires a city or county to adopt or review the EJ element, or the EJ goals, policies, and objectives in other elements, upon the adoption or next revision of two or more elements concurrently on or after January 1, 2018.

In documents provided by the author, the DOJ has issued written feedback to several jurisdictions, including the cities of Modesto and Fontana, and the County of Riverside, on the efforts of those jurisdictions to comply with SB 1000. In these letters, the DOJ gives feedback to the local agency on how best to comply with the law, including how to engage the public in a meaningful way, including public workshops, public noticing requirements, making documents more readily available on the agency's website, translating information about the general plan amendments into different languages, and providing public responses to the comments and concerns raised by community members throughout the public input process. In some instances, the DOJ concludes that the agency is not meeting the requirements of SB 1000 in their proposed general plan updates and has recommended action on how to do so.

According to the Author:

"Early last year, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced the establishment of the Bureau of Environmental Justice within the Environmental Section at the California DOJ. The Bureau's mission is to protect people and communities that endure a disproportionate share of environmental pollution and public health hazard. This new department has recently begun taking an active role in providing feedback regarding the enforcement of land use laws pertaining to Environmental Justice Communities, specifically when it comes to adhering to general plan obligations under current law. AB 1775 provides the Attorney General with information regarding when local governments are adhering to new EJ oriented requirements, ensuring local compliance as well as protecting vulnerable communities throughout the state."

Arguments in Support:

Supporters argue that this bill promotes greater transparency, accountability and fairness by requiring local governments to communicate with the DOJ's Bureau of Environmental Justice as they work to integrate EJ issues into land use planning.

Arguments in Opposition:

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, there are no state costs. Any state-mandated local costs are not reimbursable by the state because cities and counties have fee authority to recover those costs.

VOTES:

ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 6-2-0

YES: Aguiar-Curry, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Ramos, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas

NO: Lackey, Voepel

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 13-5-0

YES: Gonzalez, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Eggman, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, Maienschein, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Robert Rivas

NO: Bigelow, Brough, Megan Dahle, Diep, Fong

UPDATED:

VERSION: April 9, 2019

CONSULTANT: Jimmy MacDonald / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0002637

Date of Hearing: January 23, 2020

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1775

Author:(Reyes) – As Amended Ver:April 9, 2019

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill requires a city or county to notify the Department of Justice (DOJ) before that city or county adopts or reviews its environmental justice (EJ) element, or related EJ goals, policies and objectives in other elements. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires a city or county to notify the DOJ at least 60 days before the adoption or review
   of the EJ element, or related EJ goals, policies and objectives in other elements, for any city or county that has a disadvantaged community, pursuant to existing law.
2. Requires a city or county to adopt or review the EJ element or EJ goals concurrently upon the adoption or next revision of two or more elements, instead of on or after January 1, 2018.

FISCAL EFFECT:

No state costs. Any state-mandated local costs are not reimbursable by the state because cities and counties have fee authority to recover those costs.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. This bill seeks to promote greater transparency, accountability and fairness by requiring local governments to communicate with the DOJ’s Bureau of Environmental Justice as they work to integrate EJ issues into land use planning.
2. Background. SB 1000 (Leyva), Chapter 587, Statutes of 2016, requires a city or county to include in the general plan an EJ element, or related goals, policies and objectives integrated in other elements, that identifies disadvantaged communities within the area covered by the general plan of that city or county, if the city or county has a disadvantaged community.

SB 1000 also requires a city or county to adopt or review the EJ element, or the EJ goals, policies and objectives in other elements, upon the concurrent adoption or next revision of two or more elements on or after January 1, 2018.

The DOJ has issued written feedback to several jurisdictions on the efforts of those jurisdictions to comply with SB 1000. This bill will help facilitate timely and meaningful assistance by DOJ in helping jurisdictions meet the requirements of SB 1000 in their proposed general plan updates.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: January 15, 2020

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1775 (

Author:Reyes) – As Amended Ver:April 9, 2019

SUBJECT: Local planning: environmental justice goals: notification: Department of Justice.

SUMMARY: Requires a city or county to notify the Department of Justice (DOJ) before that city or county adopts or reviews their environmental justice (EJ) element, or related EJ goals, policies, and objectives in other elements. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires a city or county to notify the DOJ at least 60 days before the adoption or review
   of the EJ element, or related EJ goals, policies, and objectives in other elements, for any city or county that has a disadvantaged community, pursuant to existing law.
2. Requires a city or county to adopt or review the EJ element or EJ goals concurrently upon the adoption or next revision of two or more elements, instead of on or after January 1, 2018.
3. Makes other minor, technical corrections.

FISCAL EFFECT: This bill is keyed fiscal and contains a state-mandated local program.

COMMENTS:

1. Bill Summary and Author’s Statement. This bill requires a city or county to notify the DOJ before that city or county adopts or reviews their EJ element or EJ goals, policies, and objectives in other elements in the general plan. This bill is sponsored by the author.

According to the author, “Early last year, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced the establishment of the Bureau of Environmental Justice within the Environmental Section at the California DOJ. The Bureau’s mission is to protect people and communities that endure a disproportionate share of environmental pollution and public health hazard. This new department has recently begun taking an active role in providing feedback regarding the enforcement of land use laws pertaining to Environmental Justice Communities, specifically when it comes to adhering to general plan obligations under current law. AB 1775 provides the Attorney General with information regarding when local governments are adhering to new EJ oriented requirements, ensuring local compliance as well as protecting vulnerable communities throughout the state.”

1. Background. SB 1000 (Leyva), Chapter 587, Statutes of 2016, requires a city or county to include in the general plan an EJ element, or related goals, policies, and objectives integrated in other elements, that identifies disadvantaged communities within the area covered by the general plan of that city or county, if the city or county has a disadvantaged community. The EJ element, or related EJ goals, policies, and objectives integrated in other elements, must do all of the following:
   1. Identify objectives and policies to reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities by means that include, but are not limited to, the reduction
      of pollution exposure, including the improvement of air quality, and the promotion
      of public facilities, food access, safe and sanitary homes, and physical activity;
   2. Identify objectives and policies to promote civil engagement in the public decision-making process; and,
   3. Identify objectives and policies that prioritize improvements and programs that address the needs of disadvantaged communities.

SB 1000 requires a city or county to adopt or review the EJ element, or the EJ goals, policies, and objectives in other elements, upon the adoption or next revision of two or more elements concurrently on or after January 1, 2018.

In documents provided by the author, the DOJ has issued written feedback to several jurisdictions, including the cities of Modesto and Fontana, and the County of Riverside,
on the efforts of those jurisdictions to comply with SB 1000. In these letters, the DOJ gives feedback to the local agency on how best to comply with the law, including how to engage the public in a meaningful way, including public workshops, public noticing requirements, making documents more readily available on the agency’s website, translating information about the general plan amendments into different languages, and providing public responses to the comments and concerns raised by community members throughout the public input process. In some instances, the DOJ concludes that the agency is not meeting the requirements of SB 1000 in their proposed general plan updates and has recommended action on how to do so.

1. Arguments in Support. Supporters argue that this bill promotes greater transparency, accountability and fairness by requiring local governments to communicate with the DOJ’s Bureau of Environmental Justice as they work to integrate EJ issues into land use planning.
2. Arguments in Opposition. None on file.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Environmental Justice Alliance

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Jimmy MacDonald / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958