BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                             Senator Mark Leno, Chair                A
                             2009-2010 Regular Session               B

          AB 2380 (Lowenthal)                                        0
          As Amended March 24, 2010 
          Hearing date:  June 15, 2010
          Penal Code

                                     CHILD ABUSE:
                                 MANDATED REPORTING  


          Source:  City Attorney of Los Angeles

          Prior Legislation: None

          Support: California District Attorneys Association; State Public  
                   Affairs Committee, Junior Leagues of California; Board  
                   of Behavioral Sciences; Crime Victims Action Alliance 

          Opposition:None known

          Assembly Floor Vote:  Ayes  74 - Noes  0

                                         KEY ISSUE



                                                        AB 2380 (Lowenthal)



          The purpose of this bill is to provide that a "reasonable  
          suspicion" that a child has been a victim of child abuse or  
          neglect does not require certainty that a child has been abused,  
          and may be based on credible information from other individuals  
          for the purpose of making a report under the Child Abuse and  
          Neglect Reporting ACT (CANRA), as specified.

           Current law  contains the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act  
          ("CANRA"), which generally is intended to protect children from  
          abuse and neglect.  (Penal Code  11164 et seq.)

           Under current law  the term "child abuse or neglect" for the  
          purposes of CANRA "includes physical injury or death inflicted  
          by other than accidental means upon a child by another person,  
          sexual abuse . . . , neglect . . . , the willful harming or  
          injuring of a child or the endangering of the person or health  
          of a child, . . . and unlawful corporal punishment or injury . .  
          . .   'Child
          abuse or neglect' does not include a mutual affray between  
          minors.  'Child abuse or neglect' does not include an injury  
          caused by reasonable and necessary force used by a peace officer  
          acting within the course and scope of his or her employment as a  
          peace officer."  (Penal Code  11165.6.)

           Current law  requires a mandated reporter to make a report  
          "whenever the mandated reporter, in his or her professional  
          capacity or within the scope of his or her employment, has  
          knowledge of or observes a child whom the mandated reporter  
          knows or reasonably suspects has been the victim of child abuse  
          or neglect. . . ."  (Penal Code  11166.)

           Current law  provides that, "(f)or the purposes of this article,  



                                                        AB 2380 (Lowenthal)

          "reasonable suspicion" means
          that it is objectively reasonable for a person to entertain a  
          suspicion, based upon facts that could cause a reasonable person  
          in a like position, drawing, when appropriate, on his or her  
          training and experience, to suspect child abuse or neglect. For  
          the purpose of this article, the pregnancy of a minor does not,  
          in and of itself, constitute a basis for a reasonable suspicion  
          of sexual abuse."  (Penal Code  11166(a)(1).)

           This bill  would add the following language to the existing  
          definition of "reasonable suspicion" for purposes of CANRA:

               "Reasonable suspicion" does not require certainty that  
               child abuse or neglect has occurred nor does it  
               require a specific medical indication of child abuse  
               or neglect; any "reasonable suspicion" is sufficient.   
               "Reasonable suspicion" may be based on any information  
               considered credible by the reporter, including  
               statements from other individuals.

          The severe prison overcrowding problem California has  
          experienced for the last several years has not been solved.  In  
          December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against the  
          Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sought a  
          court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the  
          federal Prison Litigation Reform Act.  On January 12, 2010, a  
          federal three-judge panel issued an order requiring the state to  
          reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design capacity  
          -- a reduction of roughly 40,000 inmates -- within two years.   
          In a prior, related 184-page Opinion and Order dated August 4,  
          2009, that court stated in part:

               "California's correctional system is in a tailspin,"  
               the state's independent oversight agency has reported.  
               . . .  (Jan. 2007 Little Hoover Commission Report,  



                                                        AB 2380 (Lowenthal)

               "Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time Is  
               Running Out").  Tough-on-crime politics have increased  
               the population of California's prisons dramatically  
               while making necessary reforms impossible. . . .  As a  
               result, the state's prisons have become places "of  
               extreme peril to the safety of persons" they house, .  
               . .  (Governor Schwarzenegger's Oct. 4, 2006 Prison  
               Overcrowding State of Emergency Declaration), while  
               contributing little to the safety of California's  
               residents, . . . .   California "spends more on  
               corrections than most countries in the world," but the  
               state "reaps fewer public safety benefits." . . .  .   
               Although California's existing prison system serves  
               neither the public nor the inmates well, the state has  
               for years been unable or unwilling to implement the  
               reforms necessary to reverse its continuing  
               deterioration.  (Some citations omitted.)

               . . .

               The massive 750% increase in the California prison  
               population since the mid-1970s is the result of  
               political decisions made over three decades, including  
               the shift to inflexible determinate sentencing and the  
               passage of harsh mandatory minimum and three-strikes  
               laws, as well as the state's counterproductive parole  
               system.  Unfortunately, as California's prison  
               population has grown, California's political  
               decision-makers have failed to provide the resources  
               and facilities required to meet the additional need  
               for space and for other necessities of prison  
               existence.  Likewise, although state-appointed experts  
               have repeatedly provided numerous methods by which the  
               state could safely reduce its prison population, their  
               recommendations have been ignored, underfunded, or  
               postponed indefinitely.  The convergence of  
               tough-on-crime policies and an unwillingness to expend  
               the necessary funds to support the population growth  
               has brought California's prisons to the breaking  
               point.  The state of emergency declared by Governor  



                                                        AB 2380 (Lowenthal)

               Schwarzenegger almost three years ago continues to  
               this day, California's prisons remain severely  
               overcrowded, and inmates in the California prison  
               system continue to languish without constitutionally  
               adequate medical and mental health care.<1>

          The court stayed implementation of its January 12, 2010 ruling  
          pending the state's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Supreme  
          Court.  That appeal, and the final outcome of this litigation,  
          is not anticipated until later this year or 2011.

           This bill  does not aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis  
          described above.


          1.  Stated Need for This Bill

           The author states:

               Across all professions who deal with the abuse of  
               children there appears one constant: there is great  
               confusion regarding what constitutes "reasonable  
               suspicion" for purposes of triggering the legal  
               mandated reporting obligation. 

               It is clear that while the intent of the law is to  
               insure that all reasonable suspicions of child abuse  
               and neglect are reported, the lack of a consistent  
               understanding of what this phrase means has obviously  
               inhibited many professionals from reporting abuse in a  
          <1>   Three Judge Court Opinion and Order, Coleman v.  
          Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States  
          District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the  
          Northern District of California United States District Court  
          composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28  
          United States Code (August 4, 2009).



                                                        AB 2380 (Lowenthal)

               proper and timely fashion. This is particularly  
               evident among medical professionals who we work with  
               where reports are often delayed by hours, if not days,  
               while a specific medical diagnosis is determined. 

               The delay in reporting can result in the destruction  
               of crime scene evidence and may ultimately inhibit  
               efforts of law enforcement personnel to identify  
               perpetrators and to hold them accountable for their  
               physical and sexual abuse of children. Not to mention  
               the obvious fear that continuing and prolonged abuse  
               of children will go undetected and unreported.

               This bill amends Penal Code Section 11166(a)(1) to  
               clarify the definition of "reasonable suspicion" as  
               the trigger for the mandating reporting of child abuse  
               by making it clear that no actual knowledge is  
               required. The bill would also make clear in the  
               definition that statements from third parties are an  
               acceptable source of information when determining  
               whether or not there is "reasonable suspicion."

               Attached is a Pediatrics Journal article which  
               demonstrates this problem.  In addition, the Office of  
               the City Attorney of Los Angeles, through its  
               participation in the Inter-Agency Council on Child  
               Abuse and Neglect (ICAN) has frequently heard from  
               mandated reporters that they feel the current language  
               is too vague and that they must have concrete  
               knowledge before they can make a report, which is not  
               the case.

          2.  What This Bill Would Do
          As explained above, under current law the trigger for mandated  
          child abuse and neglect reports is whenever the mandated  
          reporter, in his or her professional capacity or within the  
          scope of his or her employment, has knowledge of or observes a  
          child whom the mandated reporter knows or reasonably suspects  
          has been the victim of child abuse or neglect. . . ."    



                                                        AB 2380 (Lowenthal)

          "Reasonable suspicion" is defined to mean that it is objectively  
          reasonable for a person to entertain a suspicion, based upon  
          facts that could cause a reasonable person in a like position,  
          drawing, when appropriate, on his or her training and  
          experience, to suspect child abuse or neglect.  

          This bill would clarify and expand the definition of "reasonable  
          suspicion" applicable to mandatory child abuse and neglect  
          reporters to expressly provide that reasonable suspicion in this  
          context:  1) does not require certainty that child abuse or  
          neglect has occurred;  2) does not require a specific medical  
          indication of child abuse or neglect; 3) provides that any  
          "reasonable suspicion" is sufficient; and 4) provides that  
          "reasonable suspicion" may be based on any information  
          considered credible by the reporter, including statements from  
          other individuals.

          3.   Background - "Reasonable Suspicion"
          The Los Angeles County Child Abuse and Neglect Protocol,  
          prepared by the Inter-Agency Council on Child Abuse and Neglect,  
          includes the following information about the reasonable  
          suspicion reporting standard under current law:

               Reasonable suspicion means that it is objectively  
               reasonable for a person to
               entertain a suspicion, based upon facts that could  
               cause a reasonable person in
               a like position, drawing, when appropriate, on his or  
               her training and experience,
               to suspect child abuse or neglect. {PC 11166(a)(1)}

                 [P]rofessionals . . . must evaluate facts known to  
                 them in light of their
                 training and experience to determine whether they  
                 have an objectively 
                 reasonable suspicion of child abuse. [Citation.]  
                 However, nothing in the
                 Act requires professionals . . . to obtain  
                 information they would not



                                                        AB 2380 (Lowenthal)

                 ordinarily obtain in the course of providing care  
                 or treatment. Thus, the
                 duty to report [to a child protective agency] must  
                 be premised on
                 information obtained by the [professional] in the  
                 ordinary course of
                 providing care and treatment according to  
                 standards prevailing in the
                 medical profession. Whether this information  
                 creates a reasonable
                 suspicion of reportable child abuse will depend in  
                 many instances on
                 application of the [professional's] training and  
                 experience, as the act
                 expressly directs. People ex rel. Eichenberger v.  
                 Stockton Pregnancy
                 Control Medical Clinic, Inc. (1988) 203 Cal. App.  
                 3d 225, 239-240.<2>

          These protocols include an appendix entitled, "Determining  
          Reasonable Suspicion," which includes the following general  

               Because each mandated reporter determines reasonable  
               suspicion based on his or her own training and  
               experience, not every factor in this document will  
               apply to every professional; nor is this document  
               intended to encourage professionals to exceed their  
               scope of practice. These guidelines are prepared to be  
               used in conjunction with the Los Angeles County Child  
               Abuse Protocol.

               The mandated reporter should not conduct an  
               investigation.  Once he or she determines reasonable  
               suspicion of abuse or neglect exists, the only  
               obligation is to file a report.  It is the job of law  
          <2>   Protocols available online at  
          rotocol.pdf  .



                                                        AB 2380 (Lowenthal)

               enforcement, DCFS, and the courts to determine whether  
               or not child abuse has in fact occurred. When a  
               well-meaning mandatory reporter seeks more information  
               than necessary to determine reasonable suspicion, it  
               can inadvertently impact a future investigation.  For  
               example, repeated detailed questioning of the child  
               may influence future disclosures or potential  
               testimony. In addition, such a premature
               investigation may signal a parent to make up  
               explanations or destroy evidence.  Any of these  
               situations could doom the child to future abuse.<3>  


          This bill would expressly state that, "reasonable suspicion" may  
          be based on any information considered credible by the reporter,  
          including statements from other individuals."  The author and/or  
          members of the Committee may wish to consider whether the  
          addition of this language may inadvertently lead mandated  
          reporters to believe that they should conduct witness interviews  
          on their own, which is counter to the protocols noted above.

          4.  Background:  The Child Abuse Central Index; Ongoing Concerns  

          The Department of Justice ("DOJ") maintains the Child Abuse  
          Central Index ("CACI"), which is a "statewide reference file"<4>  
          intended to refer authorized individuals or entities to  
          underlying child abuse investigative reports maintained at the  
          reporting agency.

          In 2007, DOJ indicated that CACI contained the following  

          <3>   Id.
          <4>  California Code of Regulations ("CCR"), tit. 11,  900.



                                                        AB 2380 (Lowenthal)

          aggregate information:

                 Number of Reports in CACI =773,473
                 Number of Suspects in CACI =816,468
                 Number of Victims in CACI =995,612

          CACI was created in 1965 as a centralized system for collecting  
          reports of suspected child abuse from law enforcement agencies,  
          physicians, teachers and others.  Access to CACI initially was  
          limited to official investigations of open child abuse cases, but  
          in 1986 the Legislature expanded access to allow the Department  
          of Social Services (DSS) to use the information for running  
          background checks on applications for licenses, adoptions, and  
          employment in child care and related services positions.  DOJ  
          provides the following summary of CACI on its current Web site:

               The Attorney General's Child Protection Program  
               administers the Child Abuse Central Index, which was  
               created by the Legislature in 1965 as a tool for state  
               and local agencies to help protect the health and  
               safety of California's children.

               Each year, child abuse investigations are reported to  
               the Child Abuse Central Index.  These reports pertain  
               to investigations of alleged physical abuse, sexual  
               abuse, mental/emotional abuse, and/or severe neglect  
               of a child.  The reports are submitted by police,  
               sheriff's, county welfare and probation departments.

               To aid law enforcement investigations and  
               prosecutions, the Child Protection Program makes  
               information from the Child Abuse Central Index  
               available, including notices of new child abuse  
               investigation reports involving the same reported  
               suspects and/or victims.  Information also is provided  



                                                        AB 2380 (Lowenthal)

               to designated social welfare agencies to help screen  
               applicants for licensing or employment in child care  
               facilities and foster homes, and to aid in background  
               checks for other possible child placements, and  
               adoptions.  Dissemination of Index information is  
               restricted and controlled by the Penal Code.

               Information on file in the Child Abuse Central Index  

                 Names and personal descriptors of the suspects and  
               victims listed on reports;
                 Reporting agency that investigated the incident;
                 The name and/or number assigned to the case by the  
               investigating agency;
                 Type(s) of abuse investigated; and
                 The findings of the investigation for the incident,  
               which is either substantiated or inconclusive.

               It is important to note that the effectiveness of the  
               index is only as good as the quality of the  
               information reported.  Each reporting agency is  
               required by law to forward to DOJ a summary of every  
               child abuse incident it investigates, unless the  
               incident is determined to be unfounded or general  
               neglect.  Each reporting agency is responsible for the  
               accuracy, completeness and retention of reports  

          As illustrated above, CACI is set up to be a directory that  
          tells investigators where they can obtain source information  
          about child abuse reports, rather than providing the information  

          <5>  See



                                                        AB 2380 (Lowenthal)

           The use, utility and fairness of CACI has been the subject of  
          discussion, debate and litigation for over a decade.  While this  
          bill does not directly raise the issues surrounding CACI, the  
          analysis of another bill prepared by the Assembly Committee on  
          Public Safety provides useful background on these issues,  
          including the following information:

               CANRA states that DOJ shall make the information in  
               the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) available to a broad  
               range of third parties for a variety of purposes.  For  
               example, the information in the CAD is made available  
               "to the State Department of Social Services [(DSS)],  
               or to any county licensing agency that has contracted  
               with the state for the performance of licensing duties  
               . . . concerning any person who is an applicant for  
               licensure or any adult who resides or is employed in  
               the home of an applicant for licensure or who is an  
               applicant for employment in a position having  
               supervisorial or disciplinary power over a child or  
                                                                                      children, or who will provide 24-hour care for a child  
               or children in a residential home or facility. . . . "  
                [Penal  Code Section 11170(b)(4).]  The information  
               is also provided to persons "making inquiries for  
               purposes of                 pre-employment background  
               investigations for peace officers, child care  
               licensing or employment, adoption or child placement."  
                [Id. at subd. (b)(8).]  The "Court                  
               Appointed Special Advocate program that is conducting  
               a background investigation of an applicant seeking  
               employment with the program or a volunteer position as  
               a Court Appointed Special Advocate" also has access to  
               CACI                 information.  [Id. at subd.  

               The scope of CANRA is not limited to California  
               institutions.  CANRA makes the CACI information  
               available "to an out-of-state agency, for purposes of  
          <6>  California Code of Regulations ("CCR"), tit. 11,  902  
          states:  "The purpose of (CACI) is to serve as the index of  
          investigated reports of suspected child abuse and severe  
          neglect maintained by DOJ pursuant to Penal Code Section 11170  
          (a).  The (CACI) consists only of those reports of child abuse  
          and severe neglect that meet the criteria specified in the  
          Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (Penal Code  11164, et  
          seq.) and that are complete as specified by these regulations.   
          The (CACI) is a reference file and is used to refer authorized  
          individuals or entities to the underlying child abuse  
          investigative report maintained at the reporting agency.  It is  
          the responsibility of authorized individuals or entities to  
          obtain and review the underlying investigative report and make  
          their own assessment of the merits of the child abuse report.   
          They shall not act solely upon (CACI) information." See also 11  
          CCR 904:  "all submissions received by DOJ staff are reviewed  
          to determine that they meet the definition of a report in these  
          regulations.  DOJ staff verifies only that the information  
          entered into (CACI) is consistent with the information as  
          reported by the CPA.  The DOJ presumes that the substance of  
          the information provided is accurate and does not conduct a  
          separate investigation to verify the accuracy of the CPA's  
          investigation."  (emphasis added)



                                                        AB 2380 (Lowenthal)

               approving a  prospective foster or adoptive parent or  
               relative caregiver for placement of a child" so long  
               as "the out-of-state statute or interstate compact  
               provision that requires that the information received  
               in response to the inquiry shall be disclosed and used  
               for no purpose other than conducting background checks  
               in foster or adoptive cases."  [Id. at subd. (e)(1).] 

               Some state agencies are required to consult the CACI  
               prior to issuing a variety of state-issued licenses or  
               other benefits.  . . .   

               California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 361.4  
               similarly requires that "[w]henever a child may be  
               placed in the home of a relative, or a prospective  
               guardian or  other person who is not a licensed or  
               certified foster parent, the county social worker  
               shall cause a check of the [CACI] . . . to be  
               requested from the [CA DOJ]. . .  

                . . .  (I)t is apparent that the CACI listing plays  
               an integral role in obtaining many                  
               rights under California law, including employment,  
               licenses, volunteer opportunities, and even child  

               . . .

               CANRA offers no procedure for challenging a current  
               listing on the CACI.  CANRA does provide, however,  
               that "[i]f a report has previously been filed which  
               subsequently proves to be unfounded, [DOJ] shall be  
               notified in writing of that fact and shall not retain  
               the report." . . .  The statute does not describe who  
               must notify DOJ of that fact or how the determination  
               that a report has                 "subsequently  
               prove[d] to be unfounded" is to be made.  CANRA also  
               provides that the CACI "shall be continually updated  
               by the department and shall not contain any reports  
               that are determined to be unfounded."  [Penal Code  



                                                        AB 2380 (Lowenthal)

               Section                 11170(a)(1).] 

               Only the submitting agency can decide if a report has  
               proved unfounded.  CANRA provides that "[t]he  
               submitting agencies are responsible for the accuracy,  
               completeness, and retention of the reports," thus  
               suggesting that the submitting agencies are also  
               responsible for removing reports that are determined  
               to be unfounded.  [Id. at subd.(a)(2).]  Furthermore,  
               as explained above, CANRA defines an "unfounded  
               report" as "a report that is determined by the  
               investigator who conducted the investigation to be  
               false, to be inherently improbable, to involve an  
               accidental injury, or not to constitute child abuse or  
               neglect."                  [Penal Code Section  
               11165.12(a) and (b) . . .]   Thus, the investigator  
               and agency that conducted the investigation are  
               responsible for making, and correcting,                
               the determination that a report is unfounded.



               Although CANRA itself provides no procedure for an  
               individual to challenge a CACI listing, nothing in the  
               statute prevents a submitting agency from enacting  
               some procedure to allow an individual to challenge  
               their listing or seek to have a determination made  
               that a report is "unfounded." . . .  CANRA also  
               contemplates                 that DOJ "may adopt rules  
               governing recordkeeping and reporting," which may  
               allow DOJ to enact some procedure beyond that provided  
               by CANRA. . . . 
               However, there are no regulations that provide  
               additional regulatory procedures for challenging a  
               listing on the CACI or the validity of the underlying  

               . . .  In   Humphries v. County of L.A  . (2009) 554 F.3d  
               1170, plaintiff parents were accused of abuse by their  
               child.  The parents were arrested, and had their other  
               children taken away from them.  When a doctor  
               confirmed that the abuse charges could not be true,  
               the State dismissed the criminal case against them.   
               The parents then petitioned the criminal court, which  
               found them "factually innocent" of the charges for  
               which they had been arrested and ordered the arrest  
               records sealed and              destroyed.  Similarly,  
               the juvenile court dismissed all counts of the  
               dependency petition as "not true."  Nevertheless, the  
               parents were identified as substantiated child abusers  
               and placed on CACI.  The parents thereafter attempted  
               to be             removed from CACI, but found that  
               California offers no procedure to remove their  

               Hence, the parents instituted a claim alleging that  
               the County of Los Angeles violated their Fourteenth  
               Amendment right to procedural due process by listing  
               and continuing to list them on the CACI without any  
               available process to challenge that listing.  The  
               Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of        



                                                        AB 2380 (Lowenthal)

                      the parents.  The court found that the  
               resultant stigma, plus the various statutory  
               consequences of being listed on CACI, affected their  
               liberty interests.  The lack of any meaningful,  
               guaranteed procedural safeguards before the initial  
               placement on CACI combined with the lack of any  
               effective process for removal from CACI violated the  
               parents' due process rights.  

               While the court found that the Act did not provide any  
               procedural safeguards for those listed in the CACI,  
               the court also concluded that nothing in the CANRA  
               prevented the sheriff's department, as the reporting  
               agency, from developing a procedure to allow the  
               Humphries to challenge their listing.  The court  
               stated, "Nothing we have said here infringes on the  
               ability of the police, or other agencies, to conduct a  
               full investigation into allegations of child abuse.   
               The need for such investigations--which, we  
               acknowledge, are intrusive and difficult to  
               conduct--is obvious.  Nor does anything we have said  
               undermine the ability of appropriate law enforcement   
               agencies to maintain records on such investigations,  
               even if the investigations do not result in formal  
               charges or convictions . . . What California has done  
               is not just maintain a central investigatory file, but  
               attach legal consequences to the mere listing in such  
               files.  Once California effectively required agencies  
               to consult the CACI before issuing licenses, the CACI  
               ceased to be a mere investigatory tool.  The fact of  
               listing on the CACI became, in substance, a judgment  
               against those listed."  (citation.)

               Beyond declaring that California's procedural  
               protections are "constitutionally inadequate," the  
               court refused to spell out precisely what kind of  
               procedure the State must create. . . .  "The state has  
               a great deal of flexibility in fashioning its  
               procedures, and it should have the full range of  
               options open to it.  We do not hold that California  


                                                        AB 2380 (Lowenthal)

               must necessarily create some hearing prior to listing  
               individuals on CACI.  At the very least, however,  
               California must promptly            notify a suspected  
               child abuser that his name is on the CACI and provide  
               'some kind of hearing' by which he can challenge his  
               inclusion."  (citation.)

               . . .   Under  Humphries , such agencies should provide  
               procedures to allow persons to challenge their CACI  
               listing to protect Due Process Rights.  To date, there  
               has been no statutory change in the CACI removal  

          5.  Third-Party Statements

           This bill would provide that for purposes of mandated child  
          abuse and neglect reports, "reasonable suspicion" may be based  
          on any information considered credible by the reporter,  
          including statements from other individuals.  

          The author and/or members of the Committee may wish to consider  
          whether this bill's language about statements from other  
          individuals  would require mandated reporters, for whom there is  
          absolute immunity, to make reports based purely on gossip from  
           third  parties.   Currently,  the standard is the reporter  '  s  
          knowledge or observation; this  bill  arguably would  expand  th  is   
          personal knowledge/observation requirement   to include anything a   
          third party  says to them -  statements which would be  hearsay  in  
          court, but under CANRA would trigger an investigation and,  
          potentially, inclusion of the subject of the allegations in the  
          CACI  .  The reasonableness standard  in current law thus  would  
          appear to be abrogated by a new standard  :  so long as the  
          reporter thinks the  third  party  '  s statement is  "  credible  ,"  they   
          would  have to report.   


          <7>   Analysis of AB 2339 prepared by the Assembly Committee on  
          Public Safety (April 13, 2010).


                                                        AB 2380 (Lowenthal)