BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Joseph L. Dunn, Chair
2005-2006 Regular Session
AB 978 A
Assembly Member Runner B
As Amended June 20, 2005
Hearing Date: June 21, 2005
Civil Procedure; Family; Penal; 9
Welfare and Institutions Codes 7
MJM:cjt 8
SUBJECT
Restraining Orders: Stalking
DESCRIPTION
This bill would require a court to prohibit a party
enjoined under a civil or criminal protective order from
taking any action to obtain the address or location of the
protected party, or of the protected party's family
members, caretakers or guardian unless there is good cause
not to make the order.
BACKGROUND
On January 18, 2003, Patrick Kennedy shot and killed Peggy
Klinke and then killed himself. Klinke had broken off a
long-term relationship with Kennedy in 2002, and Kennedy's
erratic and threatening behavior after the breakup
compelled her to obtain a restraining order against him.
She eventually moved from New Mexico to California to start
a new life and escape Kennedy's stalking behavior.
Kennedy, however, utilized a private investigator to locate
Klinke, followed her to California, kidnapped and killed
her. Klinke's family has since tried to use Klinke's death
to raise national awareness about stalking and improve law
enforcement's response to stalking.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
(more)
AB 978 (Runner)
Page 2
Existing law provides that a court may issue a temporary
restraining order or injunction to prevent civil harassment
or workplace violence. [Code of Civil Procedure Sections
527.6 and 527.8.]
Existing law provides that a court may issue a domestic
violence protective order to enjoin specific acts of abuse,
to exclude a person from a dwelling or to enjoin other
specified behaviors. [Family Code Sections 6250, 6320, and
6340.]
Existing law provides that the court, upon application of a
child, parent, guardian or other caretaker, may prohibit
disclosure of the applicant's address or other identifying
information. [Family Code Sections 4926, 4977, 6322.5.]
Existing law provides that the court may issue an ex parte
emergency protective order when a peace officer asserts
reasonable grounds to believe that the person is in
immediate danger of stalking or domestic violence. [Penal
Code Sections 136.2 and 646.91 and Family Code Section 6250
et seq.]
Existing law provides that a juvenile court may issue an
order protecting dependent children and any parent, legal
guardian or current caretaker of the children. [Welfare
and Institutions Code Section 213.5.]
Existing law provides that the court may issue an order to
protect an elder or dependent adult from abuse. [Welfare
and Institutions Code Section 15657.03.]
This bill would provide that when a party is enjoined by a
civil or criminal protective order, the court must order
the enjoined party not to take any action to obtain the
address or location of the protected party or of the
protected party's family members, guardian or caretaker
unless there is good cause not to make the order.
COMMENT
1. Need for the bill
According to the author:
AB 978 (Runner)
Page 3
Someone who has been legally restrained from
contacting another individual has no legitimate reason
to discover that individual's whereabouts. Therefore,
it is commonsense to legally disallow such action. AB
978 does just that by prohibiting the person enjoined
by a restraining order from taking action to locate
the individual protected by that order. This simple
addition to current law will provide one more barrier
for stalkers to overcome in their hunt for their
victims. Furthermore, this bill will create one more
tool that law enforcement can use to protect victims
of stalkers from the same fate that Peggy Klinke
suffered.
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice (CACJ) opposes
this bill as unnecessary. CACJ maintains that courts
already have the authority to issue orders enjoining
parties from attempting to locate a protected party and
will do so when the situation warrants. However, to the
extent that courts already can and do issue these orders,
the author and supporters contend it is appropriate to
flip the burden. Rather than making protected parties
show good cause why the enjoined party should not be
permitted to attempt to locate them, it is better policy
to start with the presumption that the enjoined party has
no reason to locate the protected party. If good cause
exists, such as shared child custody or visitation, then
the enjoined party can raise the issue, and the court
need not issue the order.
2. CACJ contends this bill is too broad
CACJ also argues that this bill is too broad for two
reasons. First, according to CACJ, even if it is
appropriate to enjoin a party from attempting to locate
the protected party, it may not be necessary to also
enjoin them from attempting to locate members of the
protected party's family. Sometimes, an enjoined party
still has a friendship or other relationship with someone
in the protected party's family. CACJ maintains that it
is unnecessary to prohibit an enjoined party from
locating members of the protected party's family, when
the protective order only prevents the enjoined party
from contacting the protected party and not members of
the family.
AB 978 (Runner)
Page 4
Second, CACJ asserts that there are sometimes legitimate
reasons for an enjoined party to attempt to locate a
protected party. In addition to the obvious example of
shared child custody or visitation, CACJ explains that
most restraining orders simply prohibit the enjoined
party from contacting a person and are not linked to a
specific address. Sometimes, if a protected party moves
or changes jobs, an enjoined party will need to know
where the protected party is in order to comply with the
protective order. The enjoined party needs to know where
not to go. CACJ cites examples when both an enjoined
party and protected party work in the same industry and
could potentially meet unexpectedly at a job site.
The author and supporters are skeptical of these
examples, but rely on the good cause exception as the
obvious solution to CACJ's concerns. In any of the
situations cited by CACJ, the enjoined party could
present those facts to the court. If the court
determined good cause existed, the court would not be
required to issue the order. The author and supporters
contend that despite the rare instance when it may be
appropriate for an enjoined party to locate a protected
party, it is far better to err on the side of
overprotecting a victim.
3. Safe at Home program offers protection for victims
The Safe at Home program, provided by the Secretary of
State, allows qualifying victims of domestic violence or
stalking to "hide" their real home addresses. Victims
receive an official, substitute address to use in place
of their real address. The victim's mail is delivered to
the Secretary of State and then forwarded to the victim's
real address. While the Safe at Home program makes it
more difficult for a stalker to find a victim's address,
this bill proposes to add another layer of protection for
victims by prohibiting all enjoined parties from
attempting to locate a protected party's address or
location.
Support: Office of the Attorney General; Crime Victims
United of California; California Commission on the
Status of Women; Junior Leagues of California State
AB 978 (Runner)
Page 5
Public Affairs Committee; Los Angeles County
District Attorney's Office; California Alliance
Against Domestic Violence; Family Law Section of the
State Bar of California; San Bernardino County
District Attorney's Office; California District
Attorneys Association; San Bernardino County Office
of the Sheriff
Opposition: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
HISTORY
Source: Antelope Valley Domestic Violence Council
Related Pending Legislation: None Known
Prior Legislation: None Known
Prior Vote: Senate Public Safety (7 Ayes, 0 Noes)
Assembly Floor (73 Ayes, 0 Noes)
Assembly Appropriations (18 Ayes, 0 Noes)
Assembly Judiciary (9 Ayes, 0 Noes)
**************