BILL ANALYSIS
SB 110
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 15, 2010
Counsel: Kimberly A. Horiuchi
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
SB 110 (Liu) - As Amended: January 26, 2010
As Proposed to be Amended in Committee
SUMMARY : Authorizes every local law enforcement agency that
participates in the Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST)
program to provide training to its peace officers using a
telecourse related to crime victims with disabilities each time
that telecourse is updated, as specified. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Renames "interagency elder death teams" to "elder and
dependent adult death review teams" and expands the authority
of those teams to include dependent adult abuse and neglect,
as specified.
2)Requires the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) to
either immediately report a case of suspected abuse or neglect
of a developmentally disabled person held in custody to the
police or sheriff or to ascertain the facts and then report
confirmed cases of abuse to the police or sheriff's
department, as specified.
3)Provides that when DDS has reason to believe that any person
with a developmental disability who receives community service
through a regional center has been the victim of a crime, DDS
shall report the case immediately to the local police or
sheriff's department that has jurisdiction. These reporting
requirements are in addition to, and do not substitute for,
the reporting requirements of mandated reporters.
4)Includes in the definition of "evidence that the person is at
risk" for purposes of tracking in the Violent Crime
Information Center, that the person missing has a mental
impairment.
5)Provides that the training outlined in this bill, as
specified, only apply when POST or the Bureau of Medi-Cal
SB 110
Page 2
Fraud and Elder Abuse produces new training materials relevant
to dependent adult abuse or other crimes against persons with
disabilities, or when the POST or Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud and
Elder Abuse updates existing materials relevant to those
subjects.
6)Requires POST when producing or updating any such training
materials to consult with the Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud and
Elder Abuse and other subject matter experts.
7)Provides that local law enforcement agencies, and state law
enforcement agencies with jurisdiction, have concurrent
jurisdiction to investigate elder and dependent adult abuse
and all other crimes against elder victims and victims with
disabilities.
8)Requires POST to include in the course of training, as
specified, training on the special problems of investigating
and prosecuting sexual assault crimes, as specified, when
committed against individuals with disabilities.
9)Requires any new or updated training materials to include:
a) The jurisdiction and responsibility of law enforcement
agencies pursuant to amended provisions of the Penal Code;
b) The fact that the protected classes of "dependent
persons" as defined in provisions of the law related to
child molestation and "dependent adults" as defined in
provisions related to elder abuse include many persons with
disabilities, regardless of the fact most of these persons
actually live independently; and,
c) Other relevant information and laws.
10)States that when POST offers or provides new or updated
training materials, as specified, POST may also inform the law
enforcement agencies of other relevant training materials that
may be available.
11)Makes other technical changes to include the phrase
"dependent adult" or "persons with disabilities".
EXISTING LAW :
SB 110
Page 3
1)States any person who knows, or reasonably should know, that a
person is an elder or dependent adult and who, under
circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily
harm or death, willfully causes or permits any elder or
dependent adult to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable
physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or
custody of any elder or dependent adult, willfully causes or
permits the person or health of the elder or dependent adult
to be injured, or willfully causes or permits the elder or
dependent adult to be placed in a situation in which his or
her person or health is endangered, is punishable by
imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year; by a
fine not to exceed $6,000; by both that fine and imprisonment;
or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four
years. [Penal Code Section 368(b)(1).]
2)Provides, if in the commission of an offense described in
existing law, the victim suffers great bodily injury, the
defendant shall receive an additional term in the state prison
as follows:
a) Three years if the victim is under 70 years of age;
b) Five years if the victim is 70 years of age or older;
and,
c) If in the commission of an offense described, the
defendant proximately causes the death of the victim, the
defendant shall receive an additional term in the state
prison as follows: five years if the victim is under 70
years of age or seven years if the victim is 70 years of
age or older. [Penal Code Section 368(a)(1) to (3).]
3)States any person who knows, or reasonably should know, that a
person is an elder or dependent adult and who, under
circumstances or conditions other than those likely to produce
great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any
elder or dependent adult to suffer, or inflicts thereon
unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the
care or custody of any elder or dependent adult, willfully
causes or permits the person or health of the elder or
dependent adult to be injured or willfully causes or permits
the elder or dependent adult to be placed in a situation in
which his or her person or health may be endangered, is guilty
SB 110
Page 4
of a misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation of this
subdivision is punishable by a fine not to exceed $2,000; by
imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year; or by
both that fine and imprisonment.
4)Provides that any person who is not a caretaker and who
violates any provision of law proscribing theft, embezzlement,
forgery, or fraud, or who violates existing law proscribing
identity theft, with respect to the property or personal
identifying information of an elder or a dependent adult, and
who knows, or reasonably should know, that the victim is an
elder or a dependent adult, is punishable by imprisonment in a
county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison for
two, three, or four years when the moneys, labor, goods,
services, or real or personal property taken or obtained is of
a value exceeding $400; and by a fine not exceeding $1,000; by
imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year; or by
both that fine and imprisonment when the moneys, labor, goods,
services, or real or personal property taken or obtained is of
a value not exceeding $400. [Penal Code Section 368(d).]
5)Defines "disability" as a developmental disability, as defined
in federal law, a mental illness, as defined in federal law, a
disability within the meaning of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, as specified, or a disability within
the meaning of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
[Welfare and Institutions Code Section 4900(d).]
6)Requires that by July 1, 2006, POST shall establish and keep
updated a continuing education classroom training course
relating to law enforcement interaction with mentally disabled
persons. The training course shall be developed by POST in
consultation with appropriate community, local, and state
organizations and agencies that have expertise in the area of
mental illness and developmental disability, and with
appropriate consumer and family advocate groups. In
developing the course, POST shall also examine existing
courses certified by POST that relate to mentally disabled
persons. POST shall make the course available to law
enforcement agencies in California. [Penal Code Section
13515.25(a).]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
SB 110
Page 5
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "SB 110
addresses the problem of crimes against people with
disabilities. Research tells us that crimes against people
with disabilities are widespread. Law enforcement and the
public can improve prevention, investigation, prosecution, and
even the reporting of these crimes. This bill contains
provisions to address these challenges of prevention,
reporting, investigation, and prosecution. Each of this
bill's provisions alone is modest, but together they should
help law enforcement make a significant dent in what has been
called 'the invisible epidemic' of crimes against people with
disabilities. This bill has bipartisan support, as well as
significant support from law enforcement and from
organizations serving persons with disabilities. Recent
amendments eliminate any costs."
2)Background : According to information provided by the author,
Professor Joan Petersilia of the Stanford Law School Criminal
Justice stated, "In the past twenty years, I have conducted
dozens of studies on the criminal justice system and made
recommendations, but none seem so important as revising
procedures so that law enforcement receives the proper
training and jurisdiction over the crimes committed against
this vulnerable population. I chaired the National Research
Council's congressionally mandated study on crime victims with
disabilities. That study was the only study ever conducted to
glean the victimization and enforcement of crimes against
persons with disabilities. You can find the complete report
entitled Crime Victims with Developmental Disabilities (2001)
at the National Academic Press;
www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10042 . That important study
documented the very high victimization rates (a conservative
estimate is that people with developmental disabilities are 4
to 10 times more likely to be victims of crimes that other
people are).
"These high victimization rates are coupled with very low
prosecutions and conviction rates. Part of the challenge is
identifying and successfully prosecuting these cases in the
difficulty initially identifying the victim as disabled. If
the victim were identified as a person with a disability,
collecting data at the crime scene and immediately after would
more likely support a successful investigation and
prosecution. Perpetrators quickly learn that there are no
SB 110
Page 6
consequences to victimizing a person with a disability because
the cases 'don't stick'.
"Law enforcement training is the key. As we documented in that
national study, most law enforcement are unable to distinguish
between mental illness and developmental disabilities-and
aren't sensitized or trained specifically on how to interview
and collect data from a person who is disabled. After the
National Academy Report, Crime Victims with Developmental
Disabilities, was published, I did training of law enforcement
officers on these issues and always got feedback about how
critically important the information was. Law enforcement
(including prosecutors and judges) were unaware of the unique
aspects related to persons with disabilities, and so their
interviewing techniques were not sensitive, and often the
victim shut down or become fearful during investigation and
court proceedings. With training, this can be avoided."
3)Protection & Advocacy Report : In 2003, Protection & Advocacy
issued a report, Abuse and Neglect of Adults with
Developmental Disabilities & the System's Failure to Provide
Equal Protection: A Public Health Priority for the State of
California. The report made several recommendations regarding
the most effective ways to confront the problem of abuse and
neglect of disabled people:
"Similar findings have been documented from studies of
Californians with disabilities. Hard (1986) found that, of 95
adult Californians with developmental disabilities surveyed,
83% of the women and 32% of the men had been sexually
assaulted. A later study of San Francisco Bay area residents
with mild mental retardation found that nearly 80% of the
women and 54% of the men had been sexually abused at least
once (Stromsness, 1993).
"While many feel that living in the community carries inherent
risks, it is notable that some studies have found that crime
rates are higher for victims with disabilities in
institutions, group homes and other segregated facilities
(Sobsey & Mansell, 1990; Roeher Inst., 1994). Adding to these
alarming incidence rates, studies show that people with
disabilities are more likely to experience more severe abuse,
experience abuse for a longer duration, be victims of multiple
episodes, and be victims of a larger number of perpetrators
(Schaller & Fieberg, 1998; Sobsey & Doe, 1991; Young et al.,
SB 110
Page 7
1997).
"The authors are aware that some of the above data must be
interpreted cautiously. Accurate estimates regarding the
incidence of abuse or neglect of persons with developmental
disabilities specifically are difficult to obtain.
Consequently, some research referenced in this report comes
from studies of individuals with a broad range of
disabilities. Much of the research on victimization of people
with disabilities does not delineate specific sub-populations.
Public records of violence against individuals usually do not
indicate whether or not the victim has a disability, let alone
a developmental disability (Curry et al., 2001).
"Reliable studies focusing specifically on Californians with
developmental disabilities who have been victims of physical
or sexual abuse are small in number. Furthermore, there is no
coordinated system to collect data on and track outcomes of
victims with disabilities from the initial allegation, to the
initial report, to prosecution and finally to conviction.
However, most experts agree that research findings involving
other groups of people with disabilities should be viewed as
under-estimates for persons with developmental disabilities.
"Regardless of the type of disability or whether the abuse is
emotional, physical, or sexual, people who provide care and
support to individuals with disabilities are often the same
people who victimize them - people the victims know and trust
(Petersilia et al., 2001; Nosek et al, 1997; Marchetti &
McCartney, 1990). It is estimated that risk of abuse
increases by 78% due to the vulnerability of people with
developmental disabilities and their need for personal
assistance services (c.f., Sobsey and Doe, 1991; Young et al.,
1997; Curry & Powers, 1999). In a survey of individuals with
disabilities who had been abused, 96% of the cases involved
perpetrators who were known to their victim (Sobsey and Doe,
1991). The largest group of offenders (44%) were individuals
who had a relationship with the victim specifically because of
their disability (27.7% disability service providers, 5.4%
specialized transportation, 4.3% specialized foster parents
and 6.5% other disabled individuals). Mansell et al. (1992)
similarly found that 26% of perpetrators were paid care givers
providing services related to the victim's disability and 11%
were other service providers.
SB 110
Page 8
"Homes and other residences are the most common setting for
abuse (Sobsey, 1994; Furey, 1994; Turk & Brown, 1992). One
study found that 58% of the offenses took place in the homes
of either the victim (48%) or the perpetrator (10%) (Turk and
Brown, 1992). As individuals with developmental disabilities
have access to a wider array of living arrangements, states
must ensure that systems are in place to prevent abuse not
only in congregate facilities, but also in the community.
"Law enforcement must be required to periodically and regularly
complete the POST eight-hour advanced officer training course,
entitled, Police Response to People with Mental Illness or
Developmental Disabilities. Similarly, there must be periodic
training provided to local prosecutors and judicial personnel
specifically regarding crimes against persons with
disabilities, including requesting and providing necessary
accommodations. APS and licensing agencies (for facilities
and licensed care providers) should develop and implement a
similar training component regarding conducting investigations
involving victims with developmental disabilities.
4)Prior Legislation : AB 2038 (Lieber), of the 2007-2008
Legislative Session, would have replaced the phrase "dependant
adult" with the phrase "adult with disability" when referring
to a person described under existing law as a person between
the ages of 18 and 64 who has a physical or mental limitation
which restricts or substantially restricts his or her ability
to carry out normal activities or to protect his or her
rights, as specified. AB 2039 was held on the Senate
Committee on Appropriations' Suspense File.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Alliance of California Autism Organization
Arc of California
Arc of Riverside
Arc of South Bay
California Coalition Against Sexual Assault
California Commission on the Status of Women
California Communities United Institute
California Foundation for Independent Living Centers
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
California State Council on Developmental Disabilities
SB 110
Page 9
Child Abuse Prevention Center
Congress of California Seniors
Crime Victims Action Alliance
Crime Victims United
Disability Rights California
Easter Seals
Housing NOW
Joan Petersilia, Co-Director, Stanford Law School Center on
Criminal Justice
Orange County Arc
Sacramento Homeless Organizing Committee
Sacramento Housing Alliance
Sacramento Loaves & Fishes
Taxpayers from Improving Public Safety
One private individual
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744