BILL ANALYSIS SB 5 Page 1 Date of Hearing: August 25, 2010 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Mike Feuer, Chair SB 5 (Hollingsworth) - As Amended: August 19, 2010 As Proposed to be Amended SENATE VOTE : Not relevant SUBJECT : DECEASED CHILD VICTIMS' PROTECTION AND PRIVACY ACT KEY ISSUE : Should the parent or guardian of a murdered child have the ability to keep autopsy reports of that child exempt from public inspection, except for specified law enforcement, investigatory, or litigation purposes? SYNOPSIS This bill seeks to protect the privacy and honor the wishes of parents and guardians of children who have been murdered by permitting them to prevent the public disclosure of details drawn from the child's autopsy report. Specifically, this bill would permit a parent or guardian of a minor who has been murdered to request that the minor's autopsy report be sealed and not subject to public inspection. The request could be made only after there has been a conviction in the case. The bill carves out a number of exemptions that would permit release of the report for specified law enforcement, investigatory, and litigation purposes. In addition, the bill would only apply to reports held by public agencies as defined in the Public Records Act, and as such would not affect access to court records. The bill, which is sponsored by the San Diego County District Attorney's Office, is partly in response to the high profile murder case of Chelsea King. In that case, the medical examiner received 22 public record requests for the autopsy report. Although the medical examiner denied these requests under an existing exemption, the sponsor and author contend that this decision should not be left to the discretion of a public agency; instead, subject to certain exemptions, this decision should be made by the parents or guardians who wish to keep the final images and descriptions of their child secluded from public exposure, unless it is necessary for law enforcement, litigation, or related purposes. The bill is opposed by the California Newspaper Publishers Association, who contend that SB 5 Page 2 these reports are important public documents for evaluating the conduct of various public actors. CNPA also contends that this bill marks the first time that a private citizen has been given the unilateral right to decide whether or not a public record will be open to public inspection. The author and sponsor have agreed to take a number of amendments in this Committee. The summary and analysis below reflect those proposed amendments. The amendments do not remove the opposition of the CNPA. SUMMARY : Enacts the Deceased Child Victims' Protection and Privacy Act, requiring, upon the request of a biological or adoptive parent, spouse, or legal guardian of a deceased minor, the sealing of the autopsy report of that minor if a person (other than the parent or guardian) has been convicted and sentenced for committing that crime. This bill contains specified exceptions that would permit release of the autopsy report for certain law enforcement, investigatory, and litigation purposes. The bill also provides that a coroner or medical examiner shall not be liable for damages in a civil action for any reasonable act or omission taken in good faith compliance with the bill. Specifically, this bill : 1)Provides that, when a child under 18 years of age is killed as a result of a criminal act and a person has been convicted and sentenced for committing that act, the autopsy report and evidence associated with the examination of the victim ("associated evidence") in the possession of a public agency shall, upon the request of a qualifying family member of the deceased child, be sealed and may not be disclosed except that an autopsy report and evidence that has been sealed under the bill could be disclosed to the following: a) To law enforcement, prosecutorial agencies and experts hired by those agencies, public social services agencies, child death review teams, or the hospital that treated the child immediately prior to death, to be used solely for investigative, criminal defense, or review purposes and not disseminated further. b) To the defendant and the defense team and experts hired by the defense team in the course of criminal proceedings or related habeas proceedings to be used solely for investigative and review purposes and not disseminated further. Defines "defense team" to include, among other things, legal assistance projects working on behalf of the SB 5 Page 3 person accused of murdering the deceased child. c) To civil litigants in a cause of action related to the victim's death with a court order upon a showing of good cause and proper notice to be used solely to pursue the cause of action and not disseminated further. 2)Specifies that nothing in these provisions prohibit the use of autopsy reports and evidence in relation to court proceedings. 3)Provides that a qualifying family member who has been charged with or convicted of any act in furtherance of the victim's death may not request that the autopsy report and associated evidence be sealed under the bill. Upon the filing of charges against a qualifying family member, this bill specifies that any seal maintained at the request of that family member under the bill's provisions shall be removed. 4)Provides that if a qualifying family member requests that an autopsy report and associated evidence be sealed and another qualifying family member opposes that sealing, the opposing party may request a hearing before the superior court for a determination of whether the sealing should be maintained. This bill provides for the following in relation to such a hearing: a) The opposing party must notify all other qualifying family members, the medical examiner's office, and the district attorney's office at least 10 court days in advance of the hearing. b) At the hearing, the court must consider: 1) the interests of all qualifying family members; 2) the protection of the memory of the deceased child; 3) any evidence that the qualifying family member requesting the seal was involved in the crime that resulted in the death of the child; 4) the public interest in scrutiny of the autopsy report or the performance of the medical examiner; 5) any impact that unsealing would have on pending investigations or pending litigation; and 6) any other relevant factors. c) Official information in the possession of a public agency necessary to the determination of the hearing shall be received in camera upon a proper showing. SB 5 Page 4 d) In its discretion, the court may, to the extent allowable by law and with good cause shown, restrict the dissemination of an autopsy report or evidence associated with the examination of the victim. e) The ability to oppose the sealing of the autopsy report or unseal the autopsy report under the bill shall not apply where a public agency has independently determined that the autopsy report may not be disclosed pursuant to Government Code Section 6254(f) because it is an investigative file. In that instance, nothing in the bill shall preclude the application of Government Code Sections 6258 and 6259. 5)Provides that a qualifying family member, or biological or adoptive aunt, uncle, sibling, first cousin, or grandparent of the deceased child may request that the seal be removed. That request must be adjudicated in the same manner as provided for above when a qualifying family member opposes the initial sealing. 6)Provides that its provisions do not limit public access to information contained in the death certificate, including: name; age; gender; race; date, time, and location of death; name of a physician reporting a death in a hospital; name of the certifying pathologist; date of certification; burial information; and cause of death. 7)Provides that when a medical examiner declines a request to provide a copy of an autopsy report that has been sealed pursuant to the bill's provisions, the examiner shall cite the bill's provisions as the reason for the denial. 8)Specifies that nothing in the bill shall prohibit the use of autopsy reports and evidence in relation to court proceedings. 9)Provides that its provisions do not abrogate the rights of victims, their authorized representatives, or insurance carriers to request the release of information pursuant to Government Code Section 6254(f) which permits insurers to obtain information for claims purposes. 10)Specifies that a coroner or medical examiner shall not be liable for damages in a civil action for any reasonable act or SB 5 Page 5 omission taken in good faith compliance with the bill. 11)Contains the following definitions: a) "child who is under 18 years of age" does not include any child who comes within either of the following descriptions: 1) he or she is a dependent child of the juvenile court at the at the time of death or whose death was caused by abuse or neglect, as specified; 2) he or she was residing in a state or county juvenile facility, or a private facility under contract with the state or county for the placement of juveniles, as a ward of the juvenile court, as specified, at the time of death. b) "Evidence associated with the examination of the victim" means any object, writing, diagram, recording, computer file, photograph, video, DVD, CD, film, digital device, or other item which was collected during or serves to document the autopsy of a deceased child. c) "Qualifying family member" means the biological or adoptive parent, spouse, or legal guardian. 12)Contains an urgency clause, stating that it is necessary that the bill take effect immediately in order to prevent, as soon as possible, autopsy information concerning deceased children from being made available to the public. 13)States that nothing in the bill shall limit the discovery provisions set forth in Penal Code Section 1054 et seq. 14)Provides that nothing in the bill shall be construed to limit the authority of the court to seal records or restrict the dissemination of an autopsy report or evidence associated with the examination of the victim under case law, statutory law, or Rules of Court. EXISTING LAW : 1)Provides, under the Public Records Act (PRA), that public records of state and local agencies are open to inspection, unless exempt. (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.) The PRA provides that it shall not be construed to require disclosure of personnel, medical, or similar files, "the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion SB 5 Page 6 or personal privacy." (Government Code Section 6254(c).) Records of investigations conducted by any state or local police agency or investigatory files of those agencies are also exempt from disclosure. (Government Code Section 6254(f).) 2)Provides that public records may be exempt from disclosure by express provisions of state or federal law. (Government Code Section 6254(k).) Existing law provides that an agency shall justify withholding any record by demonstrating that it is exempt from disclosure under express provisions of law, as specified, or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure. (Government Code Section 6255.) 3)Provides that the people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business and, therefore, the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny. The California Constitution also provides that a statute shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people's right of access and narrowly construed if it limits that right of access. (California Constitution, Article 1, Section 3.) 4)Provides that, among other rights, all people have an inalienable right to pursue and obtain privacy. (California Constitution, Article 1, Section 1.) 5)Provides that in order to preserve and protect a victim's rights to justice and due process, a victim shall be entitled to be treated with fairness and respect for his/her privacy and dignity, and to be free from intimidation, harassment, and abuse, throughout the criminal or juvenile justice process. (California Constitution, Article 1, Section 28(b)(1).) 6)Under existing case law, provides that coroner and autopsy reports are public records and may be exempt from disclosure under Government Code Section 6254(f) when they "constitute investigations of a suspected homicide death." ( Dixon v. Superior Court , 170 Cal.App.4th 1271; Rev. denied, 2009 Cal. LEXIS 4729 (May 13, 2009).) 7)Under existing case law, provides that the intent of the PRA is to hold government accountable while still protecting SB 5 Page 7 individual privacy. ( Rackauckas v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 169; California State University, Fresno Association v. Superior Court (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 810.) 8)Prohibits any copy or reproduction to be made of any photograph, negative, or print, including video recordings, of the body, or any portion of the body, of a deceased person, taken by or for the coroner at the scene of death or in the course of a post mortem examination or autopsy. This prohibition does not apply to use in a criminal action or proceeding that relates to the death of that person, or except as a court permits, by order after good cause has been shown and after written notification of the request for the court order has been served to the district attorney, as specified. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 129.) 9)Under existing case law, provides for a First Amendment right of access to court proceedings and court records. (See, e.g., NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV) v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 1178; In re Marriage of Burkle (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1045, Rev. denied 2006 Cal. LEXIS 5955 (May 17, 2006).) Existing Rules of Court, based on that case law, provide that court records are presumed to be open unless confidentiality is required by law and specifies procedures for the sealing of court records in trial and appellate courts. (California Rules of Court, Rules 2.500, 2.550, 2.551, 8.46.) FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations analysis, unlikely to be a reimbursable mandate for county coroners, likely very minor costs, if reimbursable, for medical examiners, and likely very minor workload increase for the Trial Courts Trust Fund for court actions. COMMENTS : The California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.) provides that all public records of state and local agencies are open to public inspection, unless an express statutory exemption applies. Although the PRA acknowledges that disclosure of public records can sometimes infringe upon personal privacy rights, the PRA generally creates a presumption in favor of disclosure because "access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state." This emphasis was further emphasized when voters approved Proposition 59 in 2004, which amended the California Constitution to provide that the people have the right of access SB 5 Page 8 to information concerning the conduct of the people's business and, therefore, the writings of public officials and agencies (including autopsy reports) shall be open to public scrutiny. Under Proposition 59, a statute shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people's right of access and narrowly construed if it limits that right. Coroner's reports have been deemed to be public records within the meaning of the PRA and may be exempted from disclosure in certain instances. ( Dixon v. Superior Court , 170 Cal.App.4th, 1271; Rev. denied, 2009 Cal. LEXIS 4729 (May 13, 2009).) This bill, sponsored by the San Diego County District Attorney, was prompted by the high profile murders of minors Chelsea King and Amber Dubois, among others. The sponsor indicates that 22 PRA requests were made for Chelsea King's autopsy report. These requests were ultimately denied by the medical examiner under an existing PRA exemption that allows an agency to deny access for any file involving a continuing investigation. (Government Code Section 6254(f).) However, the sponsor contends that leaving the decision to disclose to the discretion of the agency means that these reports could be open to inspection in the future. This bill would, therefore, provide that autopsy reports and associated evidence in the possession of a public agency would, upon the request of certain family members, be sealed and not open to public inspection unless it was used solely for specified law enforcement, investigatory, or litigation purposes. Existing law already arguably gives an investigating agency discretionary power to deny a public record request for a minor's autopsy report if it fits within one of the existing exemptions under PRA. In addition to the investigatory exemption relied upon by the medical examiner in the Chelsea King case, Government Code Section 6254 (c) permits an agency to deny a request for "personnel, medical, or similar files" if their disclosure "would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." However, existing law leaves the decision to deny access pursuant to a statutory exemption to the discretion of the public agency that holds the record. This bill, on the other hand, would permit a qualified family member - defined as the biological or adoptive parent, spouse, or legal guardian - to shield the autopsy report from public inspection, effectively supplanting the discretion of the public agency. Existing law also generally prohibits copying or reproducing a SB 5 Page 9 photograph or other image of a dead body, or any portion thereof, if the image was produced by a coroner or as part of an autopsy. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 129.) However, this provision would still permit the inspection of those images, and the prohibition on copying or reproducing does not apply to the written text of an autopsy report. This bill would prohibit not only the copying or reproducing of images, but would prohibit the inspection of the entire report if the qualifying family, subject to the conditions of this bill, has requested that the report be sealed and not available for public inspection. AUTHOR AMENDMENTS : In order to address concerns raised by Committee staff, the author has agreed to take the following amendments. These amendments will (1) ensure that the bill will only affect public agencies as defined by the PRA, and therefore will not include court records; (2) ensure that pro bono attorneys and exoneration projects, such as the Innocence Project, will have access to reports when working on behalf of the defendant who may have been wrongly convicted; and (3) clarify that reports will be open to inspection in cases involving abuse and neglect, as defined in the Welfare & Institutions Code, whether or not the child was a dependent "at the time of death." Specifically, these amendments do the following: - On page 4 line 11 after "agency" insert: as defined in Section 6252 of the Government Code - On page 4 lines 20-21 delete "and experts hired by the defense team" - On page 4 line 22 after "investigative," insert: criminal defense - On page 4 line 23 after "further" insert: The "defense team" includes but is not limited to the following: attorneys, investigators, experts, paralegals, support staff, interns, students, and state and privately funded legal assistance projects hired or consulted for the purposes of investigation, defense, appeal, or writ of habeas corpus on behalf of the person accused of killing the deceased child SB 5 Page 10 victim. - On page 6 line 19 after "death" insert: or, as determined by subdivision (b) of Section 10850.4(b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code, abuse or neglect led to his or her death. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, this bill "will protect the privacy of the families of murder victims by allowing them to request that autopsy reports not be subject to public records act requests. This Act is intended to limit the unnecessary dissemination of autopsy and private medical information ? [and] allow families to request that the autopsy report of the victim be sealed from public inspection." The author also notes that bill provides reasonable exceptions for release to law enforcement or when needed as evidence in a court proceeding. The author and sponsor stress that this bill is narrowly tailored to apply only to situations in which the child has been murdered and is not a dependent or ward of the state, and where a conviction has already been secured. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Newspaper Publishers Association (CNPA) opposes this bill, contending that it could have unintended consequences, such as permitting an abusive parent or guardian to escape scrutiny of his or her misconduct by having the autopsy sealed from further inspection. Amendments that would prohibit a parent or guardian who either commits the murder or who has engaged in wrongdoing that contributes the child's death would be prohibited from invoking the provisions of this bill, CNPA believes that the bill could still be subject to abuse if the role of the parent or guardian had not been brought to light. More generally, CNPA contends that this bill, even as amended, "does not respect the public's role in monitoring crime and justice, nor does it respect the diversity of situations in which a child's life can be taken at the hands of another, which circumstances could remain eternally secret." CNPA believes that "without substantial amendment, the bill will certainly result in bad outcomes that harm all Californians' interests in open government and an open and fair justice system." REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : SB 5 Page 11 Support San Diego County District Attorney (sponsor) California District Attorneys Association Opposition California Newspaper Publishers Association Analysis Prepared by : Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334