BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 1170
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   April 21, 2009
          Counsel:        Gabriel Caswell


                         ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
                                 Jose Solorio, Chair

                   AB 1170 (Calderon) - As Amended:  April 15, 2009
           

          SUMMARY  :  Requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) to make  
          available to the public a consumer information booklet providing  
          federal and state laws relating to sex offender registration as  
          it relates to the lease or rental of real property.   
          Specifically,  this bill  :  

          1)States that the information contained in the booklet shall  
            contain the following information: 

             a)   General information concerning federal and state laws  
               relating to persons who are required to register pursuant  
               to Penal Code Section 290 as specified sex offenders.

             b)   Information regarding specified statutory disclose  
               duties contained in the Civil Code to a prospective  
               resident.

             c)   A discussion about legal access and use of information  
               contained in DOJ's Internet Web site.

             d)   Identification of the constitutional, statutory, and  
               decisional law applicable to this section.  

          2)Provides that if the consumer information booklet is delivered  
            to a prospective or current resident by the owner or owner's  
            agent in connection with the lease or rental of residential  
            real property, the owner or owner's agent is not required to  
            provide additional information on the subject.  

          3)Specifies that this section does not alter the duty of an  
            owner or owner's agent to report and otherwise act on the  
            existence of known illegal activity on or affecting the real  
            property and nothing in this section alters any existing duty  
            of an owner or owner's agent under any other statute or  
            decisional law.  








                                                                  AB 1170
                                                                  Page  2


          4)Stated that in the development of the consumer information  
            booklet, the DOJ shall consult with the Department of Consumer  
            Affairs and public and private organizations having a  
            demonstrated interest in this area of the law.  

          5)Creates the "Megan's Law Disclosure Booklet for Landlords and  
            Tenants Fund" and continuously appropriates voluntary  
            contributions or donations received into the fund to DOJ to  
            pay costs directly associated with the consumer information  
            booklet, and provides that DOJ need not incur any cost  
            associated with the provisions of this bill until sufficient  
            contributions to the fund have been deposited.  

           EXISTING LAW  :

          1)Establishes a three-tiered system for providing the public  
            with information via an Internet Web site maintained by DOJ  
            regarding persons required to register as sex offenders (the  
            "Megan's Law database").  Depending upon the severity of the  
            sex offense, information is available as to some sex offenders  
            with their specific home addresses, while others are  
            identified only by ZIP code and community of residence.   
            (Penal Code Section 290.46.)

          2)Provides that DOJ shall make available to the public via the  
            Internet Web site the following information regarding  
            specified sex offenders:

             a)   His or her name or names and known aliases;

             b)   A photograph;

             c)   A physical description, including gender and race;

             d)   Date of birth;

             e)   Criminal history;

             f)   The address at which the person resides; or the person's  
               zip code and community of residence, as specified; and,

             g)   Any other information the DOJ considers relevant and is  
               not excluded by law.









                                                                  AB 1170
                                                                  Page  3

          3)States that, except as otherwise provided, it is unlawful to  
            use any of the information that is disclosed pursuant to this  
            section for purposes related to health insurance, insurance,  
            loans, credit, employment, education, scholarships or  
            fellowships, housing or accommodations, and benefits,  
            privileges or services provided by any business establishment.  
             [Penal Code Section 290.46(j)(2).]

          4)Provides that a person is authorized to use information  
            disclosed pursuant to the Megan's Law database may be  
            disclosed only to protect a person at risk.  [Penal Code  
            Section 290.46(j)(1).]

          5)Requires a person convicted of specified sex offenses to  
            register with law enforcement officials, as specified, within  
            five working days of coming into a city or county where he or  
            she is domiciled.  Registration is for a lifetime, must be  
            updated annually, and must be completed on a form provided by  
            DOJ.  (Penal Code Section 290.)

          6)Establishes a system for providing the public with information  
            about registered persons via an Internet Web site maintained  
            by the DOJ (the Megan's Law database).  Depending upon the  
            severity of the sex offense, information is available as to  
            some sex offenders with their specific home addresses, while  
            others are identified only by ZIP code and community of  
            residence.  The following information is contained in the   
            database:  name or names and known aliases; a photograph; a  
            physical description, including gender and race; date of  
            birth; criminal history; address at which the person resides;  
            or the person's ZIP code and community of residence, as  
            specified; and any other information the DOJ considers  
            relevant and not excluded by law.  (Penal Code Section 290.)

          7)Provides that a lease or rental agreement to a registered sex  
            offender contain a notice regarding the availability of  
            Megan's Law information from a local law enforcement agency or  
            on the DOJ Megan's Law Web site, and generally provides that  
            upon delivery of this notice to the lessee the lessor is not  
            required to provide any additional information other than that  
            regarding proximity of sex offenders.  (Civil Code Section  
            2079.10a.)

          8)Provides that it is unlawful to use any of the information  
            that is disclosed pursuant to [the Megan's Law registration  








                                                                  AB 1170
                                                                  Page  4

            requirement] for purposes related to housing or  
            accommodations, benefits, privileges or services provided by  
            any business establishment, insurance, loans, credit,  
            employment, education, scholarships or fellowships, except to  
            the extent authorized by law.  [Penal Code Section  
            290.46(l)(2).]

          9)Provides that a person is authorized to use information  
            disclosed pursuant to the Megan's Law database only to protect  
            a person at risk.  [Penal Code Section 290.46(l)(1).]

          10)Provides that everyone is responsible, not only for the  
            result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury  
            occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or  
            skill in the management of his or her property or person,  
            except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of  
            ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.   
            (Civil Code section 1714.)

           FISCAL EFFECT  :   Unknown

           COMMENTS  :   

           1)Author's Statement  :  According to the author, "[t]here is a  
            pervasive misunderstanding as to Megan's Law.  The DOJ  
            maintains the website and disclosure of the existence of the  
            Web site is required in all rental and lease contracts yet,  
            there is no additional information about what that means, what  
            a consumer may do with that information and what a consumer  
            may do if he or she has actual knowledge of the location of a  
            registered sex offender.  The maxim of knowledge is power  
            would be particularly helpful to consumers if that information  
            is presented in a consumer friendly manner.  Further, there  
            are a number of people offering different opinions as to  
            current law and it would be particularly helpful IF the DOJ  
            were to development a booklet as to the status of the law.   
            Some people claim that there are certain aspects to Megan's  
            Law that are not clear, and if that is the case, we are asking  
            the DOJ to so simply state that fact.  We submit that a better  
            understanding will assist all involved in this issue.  The  
            bill does not require the DOJ to write a consumer oriented  
            booklet and the DOJ is authorized to delay incurring any costs  
            associated with the implementation of the bill until  
            sufficient voluntary private contributions have been deposited  
            in the state General Fund, therefore there would be no direct  








                                                                  AB 1170
                                                                  Page  5

            fiscal affect upon the state.  Further, the state is not  
            required to publish the booklet, which is an archaic method of  
            distributing helpful information to consumers.  The DOJ would  
            distribute the booklet electronically and could post it on the  
            DOJ Web site such as it does for all of the other DOJ consumer  
            booklets.  Finally, we have successfully worked with the  
            consumer attorneys association to address their concerns about  
            liability issues.  When the bill is amended on or about April  
            14, the consumer attorneys will be neutral on the bill." 

           2)Megan's Law Background  :  California law requires individuals  
            to register as sex offenders upon conviction of certain  
            enumerated crimes.  Convictions that require registration as a  
            sex offender include rape, sexual battery, transporting a  
            child for lewd or lascivious acts, sexual assault of a child,  
            incest, sodomy and indecent exposure.  Since 1996, under the  
            law commonly known as "Megan's Law," the identity and  
            residence (by ZIP code) of registered, "high-risk" sex  
            offenders are subject to public disclosure by law enforcement  
            upon telephone request or by viewing of the publicly available  
            information distributed to, and made publicly available by,  
            local law enforcement, as specified.  

            In 2004, AB 488 (Parra), Chapter 745, Statutes of 2004,  
            effective September 24, 2004, requires DOJ to implement an  
            Internet web site (the "Megan's Law Web site") listing the  
            convicted sex offenders and, in some cases, their specific  
            home addresses.  The Megan's Law Web site became available to  
            the public in July 2005.  

            The effects of making specific home addresses of sex offenders  
            available on the Internet are not yet fully known, although  
            some groups have speculated about potential economic damages  
            and civil liability of apartment house owners and nursing  
            homes that rent to or house sex offenders.  In response, AB  
            2712 (Leno), of the 2005-06 Legislative Session, was  
            introduced to clarify the non-liability of a residential  
            property owner when he or she rents to a sex offender and when  
            he or she notifies other tenants of the existence of the  
            Megan's Law Web site.  AB 2712 was vetoed.  

           3)This Bill Requires DOJ to Issue and Publish Legal Opinions as  
            to Federal and State Law that Is Constantly Changing and  
            Untenable  :  This bill requires that the DOJ publish a booklet  
            that can be distributed to tenants in California which  








                                                                  AB 1170
                                                                  Page  6

            contains identifies "the constitutional, statutory, and  
            decisional law applicable to this section."  This will require  
            the DOJ to render a legal opinion affecting the liability of  
            landlord/tenant relationship in a novel, developing, and ever  
            changing area of the law.  

            Questions will arise as to whether landlords or tenants act in  
            good faith upon the information opined by the DOJ.  This  
            provision could shift liability for violations of the law  
            between parties and potentially upon the DOJ.  

            Additionally, the requirement that the DOJ provide this  
            booklet will add costs to DOJ's budget.  Office resources and  
            attorney time will have to constantly be expanded to track,  
            maintain, research, and publish a vast number of booklets for  
            distribution.  Finally, DOJ's Office of Victim Services, which  
            would have been responsible for the publication of this  
            booklet, was eliminated in the most recent budget and DOJ is  
            unclear where the resources for providing this information  
            will come from.  

           4)Purpose of Public Access to the Megan's Law Information via  
            the Internet  :  According to the author of AB 1184 (Spitzer),  
            of the 2003-04 Legislative Session, "The purpose of Megan's  
            Law is to provide the public with information that will allow  
            them to protect themselves and their families from convicted  
            sex offenders.  It can only be successful when the public  
            knows that information.  [O]ur system does not treat  
            dissemination of truthful information in furtherance of a  
            legitimate governmental objective as punishment.  The Court  
            rejected the argument that dissemination of this information  
            on the Internet was overbroad and that this constituted  
            punishment."

          Many other bills dealing with Megan's Law repeated similar  
            statements about the importance of providing the public with  
            information that will allow them to protect themselves and  
            their families.  Megan's Law was placed on the Internet as an  
            instrument that would provide parents with knowledge in order  
            to take whatever protective action deemed necessary.  Since  
            2005, Megan's Law has been on the Internet and all of this  
            knowledge has been in a more accessible public realm.  If the  
            arguments of 2003 and 2004 were to be believed, the necessary  
            knowledge is now being provided in the most accessible manner  
            possible.   








                                                                  AB 1170
                                                                  Page  7


           5)The Governor's High Risk Sex Offender Task Force  :  This Task  
            Force, after many months of meetings and deliberation,  
            reported the following:  "The critical issue of housing for  
            High Risk Sex Offenders was one of the main factors leading to  
            the formation of the task force . . .  No viable long-term  
            solutions were identified in the 90 days available prior to  
            the dissolution of the task force . . . .  Therefore, the task  
            force recommends that this committee continue to convene to  
            further address this issue.  

          " . . .  The lack of a stable residence for an HRSO places the  
            community at risk.  Homeless sex offenders cannot be  
            effectively tracked and monitored by parole agents and local  
            law enforcement.  Communities and victims are unaware of their  
            location and presence, which adds to the uncertainty that  
            offenders are being supervised."  

          Thus, the Governor's Task Force recommended that the issue of  
            housing continue to be studied as it recognized that the lack  
            of a stable residence places the entire community at risk.   
            The need for a definitive study is underscored not only by the  
            Task Force recommendations but by the cited legal authorities  
            which have held, in as many ways as possible, that  
            presumptions are to be based on common experience that, if a  
            fact exists in one case, it exists in most cases.  There exist  
            no widely held beliefs or common experiences regarding the  
            risk posed by sex offenders other than those cited above which  
            indicate that sex offenders pose less risk of re-offending  
            than do other persons convicted of crimes.  If a logical  
            presumption were to be based upon common experience (and  
            scientific study), that presumption would be the polar  
            opposite of that created by this bill.  All of the scientific  
            literature proves that sex offenders pose less risk of  
            recidivism than almost every other ex-felon tracked by the  
            United States DOJ.   
           
           6)Affirmative Restraint  :   In determining that sex offender  
            registration statutes are, in general, constitutional, the  
            United States Supreme Court identified a number of factors to  
            be considered in determining whether the sex offender  
            requirements were punitive in nature, or merely a civil  
            regulatory scheme.  [Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003).]  The  
            factors are whether the regulatory scheme:  (a) has  
            historically been regarded as punishment; (b) imposes an  








                                                                  AB 1170
                                                                  Page  8

            affirmative disability or restraint; (c) promotes the  
            traditional aims of punishment; (d) has a rational connection  
            to a non-punitive purpose; or, (e) is excessive with respect  
            to this purpose.  

          In analyzing Alaska's sex offender registration requirements,  
            the United States Supreme Court found that "our system does  
            not treat dissemination of truthful information in furtherance  
            of a legitimate governmental objective as punishment.  In  
            contrast to the colonial shaming punishments, the State does  
            not make the publicity and the resulting stigma an integral  
            part of the objective of the regulatory scheme.  . . .  The  
            purpose and principle effect of notification are to inform the  
            public for its own safety . . . . "  (Id. at page 99.)  

          The Supreme Court noted that the act does not restrain  
            activities sex offenders may pursue but leaves them free to  
            change jobs or residences, stating "the record in this case  
            contains no evidence that the [sex offender registration laws]  
            have led to substantial occupational or housing disadvantages  
            for former sex offenders that would not otherwise have  
            occurred through the use of routine background checks . . . .  
            "  (Id. at page 100.)  

          The clear implication from this discussion is that to the extent  
            the sex offender registration and public notification laws  
            impose substantial housing disadvantages on former sex  
            offenders, the effect of such laws might more easily be  
            determined to be punitive rather than regulatory.  To the  
            extent use of the Megan's Law database information imposes an  
            affirmative duty or restraint on registrants which is greater  
            than minor or indirect, the effect is more likely to be  
            determined punitive.  If the law is determined to be punitive  
            in nature, constitutional validity under the ex post facto  
            provisions is called into question.  [Id. at page 99, citing  
            Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 168 (1963).]  

          The Smith Court concluded that "whether other constitutional  
            objections can be raised to a mandatory reporting requirement,  
            and how those questions might be resolved, are concerns beyond  
            the scope of this opinion.  It suffices to say the  
            registration requirements make a valid regulatory program  
            effective and do not impose punitive restraints in violation  
            of the Ex Post Facto Clause."  (Smith, supra, at page 102.)  









                                                                  AB 1170
                                                                  Page  9

          Inasmuch as the United States Supreme Court specifically  
            discussed affirmative restraints on housing in its  
            consideration of the constitutionality of the Alaska sex  
            offender notification laws and also left the door open to  
            "whether other constitutional objections can be raised to a  
            mandatory reporting requirement," it appears reasonable that  
            this bill's expression of the right of any person, including  
            rental housing providers, to deny housing, services, benefits  
            or otherwise discriminate against registered sex offenders,  
            would be subject to constitutional challenge.   
           
           7)California Registered Sex Offenders  :  According to a  
            California Coalition on Sexual Offending (CCOSO) report, Using  
            the Internet to Provide Passive Community Notification About  
            Registered Sex Offenders, "Because California has been  
            requiring certain sex offenders to register since the mid  
            1940's, far longer than any other state, California's  
            cumulative total of registered sex offenders is much larger,  
            both in absolute numbers and proportionately, than the total  
            for any other state."  According to the report, approximately  
            one out of every 180 adult males in California could be posted  
            on the Internet as sex offenders.  

          As of May 2003 (citing DOJ statistics), the report states there  
            were 100,501 registered sex offenders in California.  Of that  
            number, 1,836 were classified as "high risk" and 82,190 as  
            "serious."  It is those two groups who are subject to the  
            current Internet notification system.   A third group of  
            registered sex offenders were convicted of crimes not  
            currently subject to public notification.   

          According to CCOSO, of the high risk and serious groups, 55,902  
            were living in the community, 14,556 had returned to jail or  
            prison, 10,800 had left the state, and 2,768 had been  
            deported.  Altogether, 70,458 California residents (almost all  
            of them adult males) are subject to notification under the  
            present system.  According to the CCOSO report, approximately  
            one of every 123 adult males in California is a registered sex  
            offender, although some of these have left the state or failed  
            to re-register as required.  

          The CCOSO report notes that in addition to the registered sex  
            offenders, there is a potentially large number of additional  
            individuals who are also impacted by Internet notification and  
            related actions, including parents, children, siblings, other  








                                                                  AB 1170
                                                                  Page  10

            relatives, employers, landlords, associates, etc.  By  
            permitting the denial of housing to registered sex offenders,  
            this bill affects a much larger group of innocent persons,  
            such as their spouses, domestic partners, and minor children.   
            By evicting a registered sex offender from his rental housing,  
            the apartment owner effectively may be causing an entire  
            family to become homeless.  

          According to the CCOSO report, "Widespread notification is  
            making it increasingly difficult for registrants to find  
            housing.  This tends to drive them into poorer neighborhoods,  
            where more dysfunctional families tend to live.  Children from  
            these families are more easily victimized than children in  
            more affluent, better organized neighborhoods.  The Third  
            National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect showed  
            that children living below the poverty line are 18 times as  
                                                                  likely to be sexually abused as children living at or above  
            the median income.  [National Incidence Study on Child Abuse  
            and Neglect (1996), Department of Health and Human Services,  
            Administration for Children and Families, National Center on  
            Child Abuse and Neglect.  ]
           
           8)Legislative Counsel Opinion on Megan's Law and Rental Property  
            Discrimination  :  According to Legislative Counsel Opinion No.  
            0501030, "An owner of residential property is prohibited from  
            using information obtained through the [Megan's Law Web site]  
            as the basis for refusing to rent to a registered sex  
            offender, unless it is to protect a person at risk."

          The Legislative Counsel opinion further states that "the  
            'at-risk' argument becomes more difficult for a property owner  
            to make if the offender's crimes were perpetrated against  
            children and the property in question houses only adult  
            tenants.  If there are no persons arguably 'at-risk' of harm  
            by the sex offender on the property, the property owner would  
            be unable to use the information obtained from the Web site  
            for any 'purpose relating to . . . housing or accommodations'  
            and could not refuse to rent to the offender applicant.

          "Offenders identified on the Web site may have committed  
            offenses ranging from the violent rape of an adult to a  
            misdemeanor annoying a child, may have one offense or multiple  
            offenses, and may have been recently convicted or convicted  
            decades ago.  Determining whether there are persons on the  
            property 'at risk' of victimization by the offender will  








                                                                  AB 1170
                                                                  Page  11

            depend upon the offender's previous victim or victims, the  
            type of offense he or she has committed, and the nature of the  
            tenants in the building where the offender is seeking to  
            reside."

          The Legislative Counsel Opinion also discussed the eviction of  
            tenants due to discovery of the tenant's sex offender  
            registrant status through the Internet Web site.  The opinion  
            states "in our opinion, use of the information to evict a sex  
            offender would be subject to the same 'at-risk' standard as  
            used in determining whether or not to rent to a sex offender  
            in the first place.  Based upon the offender's crime, previous  
            victim or victims, and the nature of the tenants presumably at  
            risk, the property owner must be able to make a reasonable  
            claim that he or she evicted the tenant to protect someone who  
            would be placed at risk by the sex offender's continued  
            presence in the dwelling."

          The Legislative Counsel Opinion also discussed whether an  
            apartment owner or landlord may inform other tenants that a  
            tenant is a sex offender.  Again, the opinion cites the  
            necessity of making at "at-risk" determination, stating "any  
            use of the information including giving information to other  
            tenants is prohibited unless it is to protect a person at  
            risk.  Disclosure for the sake of disclosure, or mere gossip,  
            would clearly be prohibited.  As discussed [above], the  
            determination of who is 'at risk' depends on the facts of the  
            case and the same standard would be used in the property  
            owner's argument that tenants have been notified of a sex  
            offender's status to protect the tenants from harm because  
            they are 'at risk' due to the presence of the sex offender.

          "Penal Code Section 290.46 imposes various penalties for misuse  
            of the information obtained through the Web site.  Use of the  
            information [for purposes relating to housing] could expose a  
            property owner to liability for actual damages, up to three  
            times the amount of actual damages, attorney fees, exemplary  
            damages, or a civil penalty of up to $25,000.  [Penal Code  
            Section 290.46(j)(4)(A.)]

          "In summary, it is our opinion that if an owner of residential  
            property discovers through the Web site that a tenant is a  
            registered sex offender, the property owner may not, on the  
            basis of that information, evict the tenant or disclose the  
            information to other tenants, unless it is to protect persons  








                                                                  AB 1170
                                                                  Page  12

            at risk."   
           
           9)Information Not Obtained from the Megan's Law Web Site  :  The  
            Legislative Counsel opinion concluded that if information that  
            the applicant or tenant is a registered sex offender is not  
            derived from the Megan's Law Web site, an owner of residential  
            property is not otherwise restricted from refusing to rent to  
            the person for that reason.  However, the opinion points out  
            that "courts have historically held that the Unruh Civil  
            Rights Act (Civil Code Sections 51 and 52) prohibits  
            discrimination based on classifications that are not  
            enumerated in the statute, such as unconventional dress,  
            families with children, homosexuality, and minors.  [Hessians  
            Motorcycle Club v. Flanagans (2001) 86 Cal. App. 4th 833,  
            836.]  Subsequent opinions by courts of appeal have elaborated  
            and a three-step inquiry has developed for use when  
            considering whether a 'new' classification should be eligible  
            for protection under the Unruh Act.  The three-part test  
            includes analysis of:  (a) the statute's language, (b) the  
            legitimate business interests of the defendant, and (c) the  
            consequences of allowing the new discrimination claim."

          In applying this three-step analysis in the Hessians Motorcycle  
            Club case, supra, the court held that a business could have a  
            policy of excluding from its establishment bike riders who  
            wear gang insignia or colors.  Although the Legislative  
            Counsel opinion did not raise the issue of the significant  
            distinction between bike riders and elderly or disabled sex  
            offender registrants needing skilled nursing care, it is  
            likely that an appellate court, in considering the issue of  
            the elderly or disabled sex offender registrants as a  
            protected class, might reach an entirely different conclusion.  
             

          Certainly the legitimate business interests of the apartment  
            owners in protecting their residents would merit a different  
            analysis of the issue of admission to the facility of a sex  
            offender whose offense was against a related child  
            (intra-familial) than the analysis of an offender who targeted  
            strangers.  Similarly, the owner of a housing complex for the  
            elderly would be required to conduct a different risk analysis  
            as to a sex offender registrant who committed one offense, in  
            an intra-familial setting, against a child.  

          Moreover, the consequences of allowing the new discrimination  








                                                                  AB 1170
                                                                  Page  13

            claim would be far different when considering bike riders  
            wearing gang colors than the consideration of thousands of sex  
            offenders and their families being forced to become homeless  
            and deprived of one of life's basic needs, the need for  
            shelter.  In the case involving the bikers and their gang  
            colors, the court found that allowing a discrimination claim  
            of this type would lead to frivolous lawsuits challenging  
            other neutral business policies.  

          It would be harder to make a persuasive argument that a lawsuit  
            by a sex offender that the sex offender and his or her spouse  
            and minor children were made homeless by the provisions of  
            this bill is frivolous.  This is particularly true if their  
            homelessness was caused by an eviction unaccompanied by an  
            honest assessment of the risk posed by the sex offender in  
            question.  
           
           10)Argument in Support  :  According to the  Apartment Association  
            of Greater Los Angeles  and the  Santa Barbara Rental Property  
            Association  , "[o]n behalf of the above mentioned clients and  
            other apartment owner organizations in the past, I have been  
            deeply involved with attempts over the years to make some  
            sense out of the duties and obligations of owners of rental  
            property to their residents on issues relation to Megan's Law.  
             To say the experience has been frustrating is an  
            understatement.  My clients were the sponsors of AB 2712(Leno)  
            in 2006 that would have provided a limited relief from  
            liability if all an owner did was to rent to someone on the  
            database, that measure was vetoed by the Governor.

            "Owners often find themselves in a quandary in dealing with  
            these matters.  Other tenants might discover a fellow tenant  
            is on the Megan's Law database and approach property managers  
            to request or demand some action.  Also, a property manager  
            might also discover in some way that a tenant or prospective  
            tenant is on the data base.  Unfortunately the state of the  
            law puts the owner in a no win situation in either case.  If  
            the owner attempts to evict or to not rent to the person on  
            the database he or she faces the possibility of a large  
            financial penalty under existing law.  On the other hand there  
            is a common law duty for an owner of rental property to take  
            reasonable steps to protect the safety and quiet enjoyment of  
            residents.  It has been extremely difficult to try and provide  
            appropriate advice to owner when these issues arise.









                                                                  AB 1170
                                                                  Page  14

            "More information about the state of the law, and other issues  
            related to this area can do nothing but help both owners and  
            tenants to navigate this confusing and emotional subject.  It  
            is voluntary, will not have any cost to the state and will  
            provide much needed clarity in a decidedly unclear area.   
            Please vote AYE."

           11)Argument in Opposition  :  According to the  California  
            Apartment Association  , "It is the Association's position that  
            creation and distribution of such a booklet is an inefficient  
            use of tax payer dollars as well as government and private  
            organizations' time.  
             
             "The bill requires the Department of Justice to create a  
            booklet to educate consumers about federal and state sex  
            offender laws as they relate to the lease or rental of real  
            property.  There are no federal sex offender laws, however,  
            that specifically relate to the lease or rental of real  
            property.  In California, there are two provisions that relate  
            to Megan's Law and rental housing - a disclosure provision at  
            Civil Code Section 2079.10a and a prohibition on certain uses  
            of the sex offender database Penal Code Section 290.4(d).  

            "With respect to the first provision, California law is very  
            clear that rental property owners must provide specific  
            language in their leases pertaining to the availability of the  
            Megan's Law data base.  This language has been in effect for 9  
            years, and is already included in the leases available through  
            the California Association of Realtors.  The law states that  
            no other disclosure is required.  We don't believe the DOJ  
            booklet is necessary to explain this.  

            "The second provision, Penal Code Section 290.4(d) provides  
            that information from the Megan's Law Web side may not be used  
            for purposes related to housing except 'to protect a person at  
            risk.'  'Person at risk' is not defined, although the Attorney  
            General's Web site suggests that any person may be at risk,  
            because sex offenders' future victims may be of a different  
            type or category than their past victims."    
             
           12)Prior Legislation  :  

             a)   AB 438 (Parra), 2005-06 Legislative Session, would have  
               allowed a lessor of residential real property to refuse to  
               provide housing to, or to evict, registered sex offenders  








                                                                  AB 1170
                                                                  Page  15

               whose address must be made public pursuant to the Megan's  
               Law Internet Web site.  AB 438 failed passage in this  
               Committee.  

             b)   AB 2712 (Leno), 2005-06 Legislative Session, would have  
               clarified existing law regarding the duty of a residential  
               landlord regarding the tenancy of individuals who are  
               required to register as sex offenders.  AB 2712 was vetoed.

             c)   AB 1197 (Aghazarian), 2007-08 Legislative Session, would  
               have stated that denial or termination of tenancy in rental  
               housing of a person who has been conviction of the  
               commission or attempted commission of specified offenses  
               listed in Penal Code Section 290.46(b)(2) is presumed to  
               protect a person at risk.  AB 1197 failed passage in this  
               Committee.  
           
          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :   

           Support 
           
          Apartment Association of Orange County
          Apartment Association of California Southern Cities
          Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles
          California Coalition Against Sexual Assault
          Santa Barbara Rental Property Association


           Opposition 
           
          California Apartment Association 
           

          Analysis Prepared by  :    Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916)  
          319-3744